Over the past several weeks, homeowners have asked reasonable, specific questions about how the upcoming Special Members Meeting would be structured, what exactly would be voted on, and how those decisions would affect the Association’s finances.
Despite those requests — and despite clear legal and governance concerns — the Board has now unilaterally scheduled a meeting to vote on a malformed proposal, without resolving fundamental issues about notice, agenda scope, voting procedures, or authority.
This post explains what has changed, why it matters, and what risks this creates for the Association going forward.
1. The Board Proceeded Without Resolving Fundamental Process Defects
Before scheduling this meeting, homeowners asked the Board to address:
- what, exactly, would be voted on;
- whether the proposal was a special assessment or an increase in dues;
- how ballots would be distributed and counted;
- whether remote participation would be allowed; and
- whether the Board had formally authorized the agenda and ballot through a meeting or Action Without a Meeting.
None of these questions were answered.
Instead, the Board proceeded to schedule the meeting anyway.
This is not a procedural disagreement — it is a decision to move forward without curing known defects.
2. The Board Has Now Incurred Legal Costs to Defend the Process
One of the core homeowner concerns has been unnecessary spending, particularly on professional services.
Despite that concern, the Board has now chosen to retain and spend Association funds on legal counsel in connection with this issue — before resolving whether the underlying process complies with governing documents or state law.
This matters because:
- legal costs are paid by homeowners;
- those costs were incurred to defend a process homeowners asked to be fixed; and
- the expense itself underscores the seriousness of the procedural risk.
Spending money to defend a flawed process does not make the process valid — it simply increases the cost of getting it wrong.
3. This Vote Creates Long-Term Risk for Collections
If the Board proceeds with a vote that is later shown to be procedurally invalid — whether due to improper notice, mischaracterization of assessments, or restricted voting — collections based on that vote may be challenged for years.
This is not hypothetical.
When assessments are imposed without strict compliance:
- homeowners may contest liens,
- collections may be delayed or reversed,
- legal costs increase,
- and the Association’s financial stability suffers.
Even homeowners who support increased funding should be concerned about whether the process will withstand scrutiny.
A defective vote helps no one.
4. Moving Money Into “Reserves” Does Not Fix the Underlying Problem
The current proposal would place additional funds into reserves. That may sound prudent — but history matters.
Since at least 2017, POHOA’s financial records show a pattern where:
- funds labeled as “reserves” coexist with
- continued operational spending for major repairs (including fencing),
- without a clear, consistent separation between reserve-funded and operational expenses.
In prior years, fence repairs and similar capital-type expenses were paid from operating accounts, even while reserve balances existed.
Without structural reform — including clear reserve policies, spending controls, and limits on discretionary operational withdrawals — simply adding money to reserves does not guarantee it will be used as homeowners expect.
5. This Vote Does Not Address the Real Financial Governance Question
The core issue is not just how much homeowners pay.
The real question is:
What percentage of annual assessments must be allocated to reserves, and what discretionary spending must be reduced to stay within that boundary?
That question has not been presented for homeowner consideration.
Instead, the proposal asks homeowners to approve a payment increase without resolving how reserve discipline will be enforced going forward.
That is backward.
6. Why This Matters Now
By proceeding in this manner, the Board has placed the Association in a precarious position:
- money is being spent to defend a process rather than fix it;
- a vote is being scheduled without resolving legal and governance defects;
- homeowners are being asked to approve financial changes without full clarity; and
- the risk of future disputes — and future costs — has increased.
This did not have to happen.
7. What Homeowners Should Do
Before attending or voting at the January 14 meeting, homeowners should:
- understand exactly what is being voted on;
- recognize that process defects affect everyone, regardless of position;
- review the Association’s historical financial practices; and
- consider whether a rushed vote serves the long-term health of the community.
This website will continue to document what was requested, what was provided, and what was not addressed, so that homeowners can make informed decisions.
Final Thought
Good governance is not about winning a vote.
It is about making decisions that will still stand years from now.
Right now, the Board has chosen speed over clarity — and that choice carries consequences.