ELECTION INTERFERENCE: POHOA Board Denies Self-Nomination On Bogus Policy Claims

Tyranny of the Majority, described in Robert’s Rules of Order as the outcome of a democracy that doesn’t respect the principles found in almost every copy:

• It is the right of the majority to rule
• It is the right of the minority to be heard
• The rights of the absentee member must be protected

The POHOA Board is now engaged with unreasonable defense of an open Board of Directors seat, after their attempt to retroactively apply a botched Bylaw Amendment backfired because they wouldn’t take the advice of good faith HOA Attorneys warning against the attempt. Having found no means to overcome the objection, they have apparently moved on to fabricating a policy about nominations that is non-existent. More importantly, it directly contradicts Roberts Rules of Order, which is all that is left when the governing documents are silent on a matter.

So, even though I would be in a 1-4 minority on this board when there is a contested issue, they can’t live with having any dissent go into the record. They want their pretend narrative to be that everyone agrees with them – even while one Director was nearly removed last year with a vote that was a majority, but failed to receive the statutory requirement of 67%. Sharp divisions in this community, with or without me.

And Proxy Hoarding amplifies each group.

But, this case also now hinges on what happened when I had to leave the Annual Homeowner’s Meeting early. I had asked for remote electronic access, but the Board literally ignored the request. I announced upon arrival that I needed that access later, when I would have to leave. They denied me the opportunity to call in by cell phone, even.

I was prepared with a proxy for my own vote, if I had to leave before the election. I gave it properly to another homeowner, and notified the Board (who was running the meeting) that the homeowner held my proxy and my election ballot.

I wrote my own name on the election ballot, and had given my written self-nomination notice 6 weeks prior to the meeting – and published it here on this blog while emailing to those subscribing to this email list. This is no different than how other candidates have self-nominated in the past ahead of the meeting – except this time the Board would not publish my candidacy when sending out the meeting notice packet – because no one else would volunteer in spite of heavy recruiting.

These are the facts. And, yet, somehow, the Board has seen fit to attempt to justify it’s actions by declaring that a Floor Nomination is now necessary, in spite of no mention in our governing documents whatsoever. Even Robert’s Rules contradicts them, stating that in reality, even someone who is NOT nominated can receive votes and be elected. It’s the ballots that count, and unless the bylaws have rules about nominations, no such gate exists to block a candidate – because their vote counts no matter what!

But, to add insult to Robert’s Rules Principles, the issue here is that I was not physically present for this alleged Floor Nomination requirement. And, they believe that absence is a disqualifier, when Robert’s Rules literally spells out how the election of an absent party actually has a post-meeting due process requirement!

Yet, here we are, on the eve of a Regular Board Meeting, and after not engaging the topic for a month, they proffer this excuse that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

The big question is whether they allowed the HOA General Counsel to review their idea and proposed action before they responded. Because, once again, we see a Board that may be acting first, and finding that they can’t find an attorney to justify their actions. We just saw in November a Board that found itself facing written evidence that they ignored attorney advice in attempting to retroactively apply the Amended Bylaw 3-year ban to me. But, they have yet to say “point well taken”, because they are incapable of admitting any error – even when there is inescapable objective documented proof. They just can’t do it.

COMMUNICATION

After ignoring emails since December 6, 2023 for more than one month, this is the response they sent to my email about the fact that they can’t disqualify me based upon the application of the Amended Bylaw because it was effective too late. They simple ignored being caught, and came up with a brand new rationale.

The problem is, I have a text message from someone attending the meeting, who reported what should be on the record: That President Lora Ballweber “is not acknowledging your self-nomination”. A copy has been emailed to the Board on 1/9.

In addition, I’ve written to the Board with 6 reasons why the decision is not supported by facts or correct application of the governing documents. The issue in contention is whether the Board can claim that my absence for the latter part of the meeting means I did not receive a “floor nomination”, and therefore, without a nomination, President Ballweber, who is operating not as a Board Member at the Annual Meeting, but limited to being the Chairperson of the Meeting (because it is NOT a Board Meeting), has the authority to disqualify my self-nomination in my absence.

In addition, I cast a vote for myself on a secret ballot. Is my vote to be counted regardless of the nomination? Absolute yes. See Robert’s Rules below.

This section is written in first person voice to the POHOA Board of Directors:

1. NOMINATIONS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING ARE THE CONSISTENT PRACTICE OF POHOA: 

My nomination was made in advance of the meeting in the exact same manner as it was in 2021 – by submitting the self-nomination in writing in advance of the meeting. See the attached copy (Candidates.pdf) of what was INCLUDED in the information packet sent out to all homeowners in advance of that meeting. I expected that all persons who self-nominated in advance of the meeting would have also appeared in the meeting notice, as it is the common and consistent practice of this Association.

Note that Mr. Tuminello also self-nominates in his statement in the same document.“

2. POHOA HAS NO BYLAWS OR RULES ON NOMINATIONS

• POHOA has never published any rules, guidelines or bylaws regarding nominations of any kind
• POHOA does not have a Nominating Committee
• POHOA has no rules, guidelines, or bylaws requiring Nominations From the Floor
• POHOA Governing Documents prohibit creating qualifications for candidates
• Therefore, at best, Robert’s Rules of Order are the only guidance on Nominations, and since there is no superseding restriction to Nominations from the Floor, other forms of nomination and self-nomination are valid

2, ADVANCED WRITTEN SELF-NOMINATIONS (NOTICE OF CANDIDACY) HAVE NO REQUIRED FORM OR FORMAT. 

• Article VI Section 4 is the only section of the Governing Documents that addresses elections
• Article VI Section 4 and in fact the entire Governing Documents are silent on the subject of nominations
• There is no requirement for Nominations from the Floor in the Governing Documents
• Therefore, other types of Nominations mentioned in Robert’s Rules are valid
• Self-Nomination in writing (ie by mail) is a valid method, per Robert’s Rules of Order
• Robert’s Rules of Order allow for absent candidates, particularly in the case of a written secret ballot (Section 66, see copy below)

ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER SECTION 66

66.Nominations and Elections. Before proceeding to an election to fill an office it is customary to nominate one or more candidates. This nomination is not necessary when the election is by ballotor roll call, as each member may vote for any eligible person whether nominated or not. When the vote is viva voce or by rising, the nomination is like a motion to fill a blank, the different names being repeated by the chair as they are made, and then the vote is taken on each in the order in which they were nominated, until one is elected. The nomination need not be seconded. Sometimes a nominating ballot is taken in order to ascertain the preferences of the members. But in the election of the officers of a society it is more usual to have the nominations made by a committee. When the committee makes its report, which consists of a ticket, the chair asks if there are any other nominations, when they may be made from the floor. The committee’s nominations are treated just as if made by members from the floor, no vote being taken on accepting them. When the nominations are completed the assembly proceeds to the election, the voting being by any of the methods mentioned under Voting, [46], unless the by-laws prescribe a method. The usual method in permanent societies is by ballot, the balloting being continued until the offices are all filled. An election takes effect immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent and has consented to his candidacy. If he is absent and has not consented to his candidacy, it takes effect when he is notified of his election, provided he does not decline immediately. After the election has taken effect and the officer or member has learned the fact, it is too late to reconsider the vote on the election. An officer-elect takes possession of his office immediately, unless the rules specify the time. In most societies it is necessary that this time be clearly designated.

3. NOMINATIONS ARE NOT NECESSARY WHEN THE ELECTION IS BY BALLOT (RONR SECTION 66)

• “This nomination is not necessary when the election is by ballot or roll call, as each member may vote for any eligible person whether nominated or not. “
• POHOA runs elections by secret written ballot distributed prior to the beginning of the meeting
• I filled out my ballot and entered my name on the ballot, which was then submitted by John Tunna, who held my proxy as I had to leave the meeting early
• Even if I was not nominated, my ballot and vote in an uncontested election supersede all remaining concerns

4. THE POHOA BOARD ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF THE WRITTEN NOTICE OF CANDIDACY

• If the Board wished to enforce any rules regarding nominations, or put in place a requirement of a Floor Nomination, the Board was obligated to respond to the written notice with such requirements (valid or invalid)
• The Board waived any right to attempt to disqualify a written self-nomination in advance of the meeting (valid or invalid)
• The Board was made aware of the candidacy at the 11/14/23 Regular Board Meeting, and did not mention any need for a Floor Nomination

5. A HOMEOWNER DOCUMENTED THAT MY SELF-NOMINATION WAS “NOT ACKNOWLEDG[ED]” BY LORA BALLWEBER

“After leaving the Annual Homeowner’s Meeting on 12/5/23, a homeowner texted me at 7:47pm stating that my self-nomination was actually discussed, and that Lora was “not acknowledging” it. Again, the Board is not running this meeting, as it is a Member’s Meeting, and therefore while the Chairperson has some leeway to adjudicate parliamentary matters, there is no Board decision at play here. Your email is from “the Board” who is not actually in a position to adjudicate the matter in arrears/retroactively.

This calls into question your claim about having “no record of your nomination taking place before the members”. Given the Board’s false and misleading statements to the HOA Task Force just last week, this appears to be a recurring problem for which there is a pattern.

Again, the candidate may be absent, and the governing documents are silent on “nominations”. Therefore, while you may be in control of the meeting minutes and have the power to create “no record” by simply omitting the fact, it is relevant that there is evidence contradicting your claim. And, John Tunna may be a witness to what actually occurred.

This is yet another reason why audio/video recordings of meetings are necessary at HOA meetings – the Board has the power to create a fictional account of what actually occurred.”

ELECTION INTERFERENCE

These facts and evidence point to potentially bad faith actions using the alleged powers of the Association (and ones they are making up out of thin air) to preserve their political power. Let’s make no mistake, if I am on a 5-person Board, I am outvoted 3-1 on any vote where I am contesting the action. But, there are other reasons to serve, including the ability to make motions causing votes that document things that then get recorded in the meeting minutes – because all votes are always recorded as opposed to comments, which the Board receives like a brick wall, and they disappear into the wind, as this Board refuses to attach homeowner comments (written comments) to the meeting minutes.

This, in turn, allows a Board who is abusing their powers to further isolate homeowners, making the rest of the community afraid to agree with the person – even if they are objectively 100% factually correct. it becomes more important to the narrative that the person is deemed to be 0% correct 100% of the time.

And, while behaving in this overtly aggressive manner, gaslight the same individuals by promoting a false narrative, even on the permanent public record at the Colorado State Legislature,

Given the false and misleading information given at the HOA Task Force meeting just last week, it should be no surprise. In fact, that’s honestly been my grievance with this Board all along. Not just false and misleading, but things that are so easy to prove are false and misleading, it calls into the question of judgement these individuals who operate in such a brazen and deliberate manner that seems generally unconcerned with the truth.

And, when they are called out on it, they become victims of “denigration”, according to President Ballweber’s Testimony on 1/2/24. If the facts cause you discomfort because they are true, the problem isn’t the messenger, or any assigned motive like denigration. It’s just a good faith effort to address non-compliance that is no longer about petty matters. Blocking an open seat by manipulating an election is serious.

Messing with elections, IMHO, is perhaps at the “Cardinal Sin” level. The entire HOA model, which escapted it’s demise from being essentially a tool of discrimination, to be reborn on the premise lofted by Community Associations Institute, an industry-lobby group masquerading as representing the interests of homeowners. The told the Federal Government in 1973 that they were going to save local government money by replacing its function with private local government run by volunteers. That is why we say quasi-governmental.

And, while there are decades proving that in many cases the HOA is actually inefficient and RAISING the overall net cost to owners, the defense of the model has always been that if there are bad volunteers, all you have to do is get involved, run for the board, and participate(vote). That allegedly democratic mechanism solves all problems, even if it takes years to do so.

If even this partial democracy, however, is tainted with corruption, the model literally falls apart. And, when we see small groups dominate HOA governance for years or decades at a time, it’s not always because democracy is choosing the best persons – it’s because it is EASY to manipulate the process with a Board that is some mix of ignorant of the law/rules with a defiant catch-me-if-you-can attitude, knowing that enforcement of any rules on the board is next to impossible unless . . . you have 6-figure amounts that you are willing to put at risk of full loss by participating in litigation.

So, whether we consider this incident as an affront to the Principles of Robert’s Rules, or an example of the failure of CAI’s model justifying replacing private government with corporate volunteers because there are no checks and balances to make it a true democracy, we cannot escape the fact that there’s really no good reason to block my self-nomination from the standpoint of enforcing any law, rule, guideline or policy. That part is false.

By deductive reasoning, all that is left is a group of homeowners desperate to preserve absolute power – while trying to convince outside observers that they are the victims, when it is literally impossible to even be an effective minority that “shall be heard”. Its not enough to even try to silence these voices, they want to erase all record of their participation – and ultimately drive them from the neighborhood.

I sincerely hope that we have an HOA General Counsel that will give them good advice, and they will reconsider their words and actions.