After a surprise Special Meeting just a month ago, which was a prelude to the bizarre meeting we experienced this evening, it was hard to imagine being even more surprised. But, here we are.
The TL;dr (too long, didn’t read) snippet for those who do not have an interest or enjoy the immersive details, basically, the meeting accomplished nothing. There were no votes at all, even on the budget. While it was known in advance that the vote for the new Board Member seat would be mail-in, not in-person at the meeting, a vote on the budget was expected to be a prime feature of the meeting – as it always has been. Instead, we now await mail-in ballots, with an open question about what happens if we veto the budget, and yet another open legal question about how many votes that takes (44 votes, which is an actual majority of the association, or a majority of the votes cast). Therefore, the short story is: stay tuned.
Frankly, most of us walked away saying something along the lines of “Did that really just happen?”
The vote upon a budget filled with all sorts of major changes was of great interest – at least among the homeowners who speak with me. They cited issues with several of the line items in the proposed budget – and had questions as it was presented only 30 hours in advance, which is also auspicious timing as we will hear about late. It was therefore surprising to me that only 15 minutes of 90 were allotted for the budget in the agenda. With a likely presentation, it would only allow for minimal questions on a budget with great consequences and big asks.
NAMES! NAMES!
So, upon entering the Zoom meeting, which was already in pre-progress, I heard someone saying “I need your last name!” Apparently, priority #1 at this meeting was ensuring that everyone had their proper names, first and last, on their Zoom Screens. for a meeting where a tight schedule was emphasized, it seemed we burned considerable time (more than the allotted time for anyone to speak) on something relatively unimportant.
DOCUMENT REVISION
Mr. Bielli was introduced just after meeting minutes were approved at 6:09pm. His segment was scheduled to go to 6:35pm, so it was to be seen if whether his presentation and questions would need that much time.
The TL;dr is that he did a review of the documents, and we have a report. He expounded on his report a bit, but led with affirming a major point against a document revision at this time: Our documents “are sufficient” and “will work”.
But, as he started to go through his list of reasons, it was mostly generalized and vague references without specific examples – the same thing the Board has been doing for 2 years. He talked about how there are provisions that are now superseded by law. A good example of that was the recent change in law on Signs/Flags. Once the law changed due to HB-1310, our documents were out of compliance. Fair enough.
However, it’s also a poor example. Why? Because later in the meeting, Ms. Hutchinson, in defending all of the legal expenses in 2021, said that the amount spent on rewriting that policy was only $200. That’s pretty amazing, actually because it was a multi-page document, and the original submission was rejected and had to be revised. I don’t think the hourly rate for VF Law has been revealed yet, but it’s fair to say it may be $400 or more per hour, so we got a whole new policy to comply with changes in the law for half-an-hour’s work. It’s actually a sign that VF Law does have well-researched policies ready to customize – and that is an asset to be working with a firm in this position.
But, then he brought up “lien priority”, which in the formal review mentioned “superlien”. Both terms are unlikely for most homeowners to understand. But, suffice it to say that in the unlikely event you go bankrupt, there’s a sequence of priorities on who gets paid, and who gets left with the empty bag.
In the case of HOAs, it has been widely accepted that assessments deserve to be a priority that even supercedes the mortgage company. Their position as a non-profit and lack of other means of income makes it important to collect assessments. So, having just been briefed on this subject during a meeting regarding the upcoming legislative session and new CCIOA bills, I had been assured that no HOA actually needs superlien priority – because they are already in that #1 position. And, Mr. Bielli affirmed the legal opinion I had heard earlier in the day, and had known for several years.
So, the question is what is unstated about superlien authority, and why we have an actual need to put such language in our documents? How does this benefit the homeowners? And, most importantly, is this power or authority one that could be abused?
And, because the answer to the last question is, unfortunately, yes, states like Washington have passed laws to block abuses of these lien powers – and specifically regarding liens on debts created by fees and fines outside of assessments. It is therefore questionable to pursue such language and powers when it is quite possible that we would have to go back (and spend more money) to remove that language as soon as later this year. We shouldn’t rush into this one, and should probably table it until we see how the legislative session goes.
Mr. Bielli then moved onto our favorite reason to spend 10 grand, “declarants”. In his presentation, he presented the documents as having been written for the benefit of the builder, and projected onto her that she “didn’t care” about the experience of the people that would eventually buy the homes in the subdivision she envisioned. Unfortunately, I lived adjacent to this community for 7 years prior to purchasing a home in this community – and worked with that builder to connect 4 subdivisions. I was volunteering for an organization, Northwest Neighbors, which was a 501(c)(3) designed to help build community between Taft Hill to Vine to Overland, and all the way to the Poudre River.
I contest the concept that the builder “didn’t care”, and I think it is a poor way to sell your product by diminishing the work of others. Because, it is the unique aspects of this document that PROTECT us from the abuses that occur regularly in other HOAs. After two years of asking direct questions and never getting direct answers, it affirmed my belief that we have a transparency issue. This board has intentions that they are keeping hidden: My thesis, if you will.
Mr. Bielli went on to describe areas of the Bylaws/Declarations as “confusing” and “odd”. I think anyone who has served on the Board, which is now approaching 25% of the homeowners, may agree with that. In fact, it turns out this is a major theme of not just Mr. Bielli’s presentation, but later another made by Trademark.
This was also mentioned in the written review by VF Law. The cure: To add specificity where there was anything silent or vague leading to disputes. Brilliant. Some of us have been advocating this for 3+ years. To be very direct on this point, this is why I actually support Mr. Bielli and VF Law. I am finding that while their agenda is perhaps against the grain of some of the legislative efforts going on across the country, this is a professional who is making an honest assessment and giving generally not just good, but very good advice.
He then went on to discuss his process for document revision. He described several potential scenarios, referring to experience with past clients. He sometimes works with just the Board, but when there is sufficient interest, there are often committees. And, maybe a survey for homeowners. But, he cautioned that the committee cannot be the entire community as he predicts it leads to some form of paralysis – which is understandable. But, the issue remains: Will the Board continue with it’s prejudice against participation of certain homeowners – and I am now positive my name is at the top of this list.
Mr. Bielli, however, correctly anticipated the concern and said the right thing. He intends for this to be a “collaborative process” that he describes in words that imply the “whole community”. At this juncture, I have no reason to doubt his intentions, but I still feel my instincts, which are repeatedly affirmed in the long arc of efforts to get this HOA on the right track, that the current Board members will do everything in their power to limit my participation to “two minutes”. Time will tell.
To finish up the segment, Mr. Bielli suggested we, as a community, will likely need to meet, perhaps multiple times in Special Meetings to move from Draft into final form that would then have a vote. And, that vote can be by mail-in ballot. He expected the process to take 3-6 months overall.
Mr. Bielli took questions and affirmed that the process would be done in manner that builds community buy-in. He cited the fact that it takes a 67% vote to change the documents, and therefore, it is important that even those that have concerns or oppose the effort are able to participate because sometimes compromise can lead to additional buy-in to achieve the threshold.
I got a chance to ask a question, and asked specifically about CCR Article IX Section 7 that describes Appeals. It had been described by prior attorneys as unusual or surprising, so I wanted to know whether he was targeting it for removal. He affirmed that it was unique (I believe he said he had never seen this type of clause before), but that if the community wanted to keep it, they absolutely could. That was, again, the right words to be said, but it affirms my concern that the Board is aiming to remove a check and balance on powers that we’ve already seen abused previously by prior boards.
Another homeowner asked whether it was necessary to remove the word “declarant”. Mr. Bielli confirmed it could easily be done with an addendum, and that is a practice elsewhere. But, Mr. Bielli then went back to his comments that it would make the document more readable and reduce confusion. While that sounds reasonable, I have not observed one single dispute regarding any confusion caused by the word “declarant” since the inception of the HOA. So, it’s a theoretical potential that has never materialized – a fairly weak primary reason to spend 10 grand – particularly when there’s potential for the expenditure to result in rejection by the homeowners.
Mr. Beilli then went on to describe why he felt the flat fee expenditure was cheaper than hourly. He vaguely referred to the potential for the expenditure to be done hourly, it would increase the cost to $16,000 to $18,000. Of course, given other financial pressures we are facing on other contracts and infrastructure concerns, in spite of the higher overall cost, sometimes that approach is actually a better business decision – and worth a discussion about the fiduciary duty of the next board – no matter who is elected.
That said, some news to come in the next segment would adjust my hot take on this expenditure. Part of my opposition, which I expounded upon just recently, was the combination of all these budget increases – particularly after a year where I believe they originally said we operated at a significant deficit. I heard $20k, but information later in the meeting made this even more confusing.
So, Mr. Bielli finally went on to describe whether we had all of the policies we needed. He claimed that there are 10 “required” policies, and that we only had 8. As someone who has granular familiarity with the required policies that were put in place in 2006 and 2014 in responses to changes in CCIOA, I had hoped he would be specific, but the segment of the meeting was ended without this information. It would be nice if the Board would reveal those details so that those of us nerdy enough to take interest could look into it more deeply.
OFFICER REPORTS
PRESIDENT’S REPORT
As we transitioned into reports from our Association Officers, Ms. Jones, the President, said that 2021 had some good things and bad things. The sole good thing she choose to emphasize was obtaining a Settlement Agreement to end the litigation. Imagine after an entire year, that is the Board’s own self-assessment on their accomplishments.
But, then the bad news: Just 30 hours prior to this Annual Homeowners Meeting, Trademark had submitted their plans to terminate the contract.
This was going to get interesting. Just a few minutes prior, we are awaiting the Budget segment of the meeting, where some of us anticipated pushback on Trademark’s ask for a 40% increase to their contract. It immediately called into question how we could approve the budget without revisions, or even have a vote on the document – and whether the meeting should perhaps have been canceled to address this known issue going into the meeting.
But, this is where anyone not attending will now get various reads on what happened. We won’t see meeting minutes on this till the end of 2022. So, word of mouth will likely be how most hear about it – as we had the lowest participation at our Annual Meeting since 2015, before the age of self-governance that would see our attendance be 60 to 80 homeowners perennially. This is why a recording is invaluable. You kind of have to hear the next hour to believe it for yourself.
TRADEMARKS STATEMENT
In spite of this being a non-agenda item, and us being behind schedule already, the President’s Report pivoted to a report from Trademark. A farewell address. Well, more an airing of the grievances 22 days before Festivus.
Mr. Stamatokos complained that all the work they’ve done would cost $4000 per month if properly billed. He blamed our documents, shilling for the Board, saying that the vagaries led to disputes over interpretations, and that they were not attorneys, and therefore were incapable of deciding which was right or wrong, particularly when they were paying for advice from TWO attorneys who disagreed with one another.
While Mr. Stamatakos is actually stating a truth – that the lack of specificity that I’ve been saying has been a problem for years, that VF Law just stated was a major problem and objective of document revision, and now Trademark chimes in to make it unanimous.
But, here’s another truth: There’s a think in HOA Law called The Business Judgement Rule. This allows volunteers for an HOA, serving as directors, to get advice from vendors such as attorneys. But, that’s the problem, it’s advice, not direction. So, when you get advice from one attorney, and you find there is a different attorney giving opposing advice, it is the duty of a director to choose which advice they think is the best business decision for the good of the association. When a Board does this in good faith, it actually does not matter if they made a bad decision – the Business Judgement Rule, which is the law in Colorado since at least 1969 (Supreme Court of CO decision), they are off the hook!
Oops, you made an honest mistake. And, as long as you are honest about it, even if you didn’t follow the law because you took the wrong advice, or even if you don’t follow the advice at all, there’s yet another out as a Board member. You get a mulligan. You can claim you just didn’t know what was right or wrong, say you are sorry, and again, you are completely and absolutely off the hook!
It’s surprising that after 3 years, the current Board is SO afraid of liability for making the wrong decision that they want to push every single granular question to the attorney because they think THAT creates the liability. They want to spend 30 years of legal budget next year ($15k vs. $5000) because, in my opinion, they don’t realize or are being deliberately obtuse to the fact that it is nearly impossible to hold a board member personally responsible for their decisions, and just slightly less impossible to enforce CCIOA on Boards.
When you know this truth, the one that matters, it makes the words, actions, and attitudes we see expressed by POHOA Board members an irrational and unreasonable paranoia. And, because they repeatedly get caught in various forms of deception (including acts of omission), that they don’t realize that the only thing that can pierce that amazing protection of the Business Judgement Rule is to be dishonest, fraudulent, or act with “wanton” disregard of compliance with the law.
So, here we have Mr. Stamatakos justifying quitting AFTER first making us adjust their budget by adding another 40%, and then coming to the meeting to suddenly say that what he actually wanted was 10 times that amount.
If you’ve ever been a project manager or contractor, you see this frequently – and it demonstrates a problem with our chosen vendors. Often, the vendor that turns in the lowest bid has missed something. When I was building high-rises in Chicago back in the early 1990s, we had a rule-of-thumb: throw out the low and high bids. If you only got 3 bids, sometimes this wasn’t workable, but when you are getting 4 or more, it helps narrow to the contractors who are better at assessing the REAL COSTS, and won’t come back later looking to renegotiate. Or claim they are the victim of something.
The current Board has used ALL the low bids, I believe almost 100% of the time. And, now we reap what we’ve sown. They lowballed to get the contract, and across the board they all want way more money the next year or two later.
But, Mr. Stamatakos continues to make a spurious claim: Trademark received “hundreds of emails on snow”. Now, since there are only 87 homes, if they did such a poor job that everyone wrote in, that might be achievable if they argued with everyone that they did everything perfectly. They certainly did with me. And, it took several exchanges with our manager, who had neither read our governing documents, nor the contract, for her to let go over her original defense of the botched snow removal job. It was botched. And, in spite of their excuses about it being the “storm of the century”, any review of historical records, or of actually living here, you’d know it was a garden-variety spring storm that we should expect regularly. At least we should hope for these March-May storms, as they deliver most of the moisture we get in Colorado, and we depend on those big storms to fill our reservoirs and keep our forests from igniting.
In reality, if they actually honored the Standards of Professional Conduct that their CEO Mr. Rand subscribes to with his CMCA credential, they wouldn’t get “hundreds of emails” if they scheduled to have snow removal done on time, had remedial work done in a timely manner when they erroneously presumed that common areas sidewalks could be left under piles of 10+ feet of snow. They are required to know the documents, and therefore not go back and forth defending things that are not true. In other words, use the Business Judgement Rule, say “oops, we got it wrong”, fix it, and MOVE ON. But, this is a company that can’t ever admit they are ever wrong. Ever.
But, Mr. Stamatakos wasn’t finished. He claimed that they couldn’t tell what an RV was (so we spent hundreds of dollars with an attorney to find out, only to have the next attorney debate the definition), and in spite of their inability to recognize that this issue had been reviewed 2x prior to their involvement, decided to take two more swipes at it -including by doing something that gives rise to yet another one of the grievances.
So, in October, Trademark bypassed the Board and went directly to VF Law to try to enforce rules on parking RVs when the subject vehicle had not been parked for even the minimum period of time, and was not actually an RV. While they would prefer to focus on this “confusion” over interpretations of the law, the fact that they acted without Board approval or knowledge was actually a serious enough violation (in combination with several other compliance issues) of the CAMICB Standards of Professional Conduct, that it warranted a discussion.
But, neither the Board nor Trademark will entertain any notion that they’ve ever gone beyond an objective boundary. They would prefer to treat all such inquiries at “harassment”, and shift focus to make themselves the victims in their narrative. Again, they have this Business Judgement Rule protecting them where they get to go “oops, we made a mistake”, but they never ever take this path.
So, Mr. Stamatakos then went on to continue railing against the documents – documents that they had every opportunity to review prior to entering into the contract, the same as every homeowner and board member, frankly. If these documents were so obviously flawed, why take the contract? Why could such “experienced” managers not foresee the vagary leading to disputes? Isn’t this a common problem in Colorado HOAs? Isn’t that part of their negative reputation?
Well, at least in his parting words he recognized that the documents don’t represent the lifestyle some homeowners want – which was code for . . . chickens. While we’ve had many homeowners say why can’t we have chickens like other homeowners in every adjacent neighborhood, a small minority who has controlled the Board for all these years has run out of reasons and things to blame. This neighborhood would vote for chickens, I’m pretty sure, if given the chance. And, it appears if you tip your hand, you’ll get cross off the document revision committee invite list pretty quickly.
Ms. Jones then disclosed that Trademark only gave the Board 30 hours notice before the Annual Meeting. Expressed as something to evoke sympathy for the Board, I think I am not the only one that wonders about the timing. It sure seems to disregard their imperfect performance and legitimate concerns, while being selfish enough to not care about the impacts to the client community. I mean, with 30 days notice, the first pragmatic question is: Where will homeowners go to see the documents/invoices and pay their assessments which are currently automated?
Maybe there’s another CAM in Fort Collins that may want to scramble during the holiday season to take on a new client – that the last CAM just ripped for having documents that they know lead to time-consuming disputes, and is about to embark on a contentious process to completely overhaul their documents. I mean, if there was any way to project more uncertainty and instability to a vendor, it is hard to imagine.
TREASURER’S REPORT
Ms. Hutchinson decided to defer to the upcoming Budget section.
SECRETARY’S REPORT
Ms. Young had no report.
ACC REPORT
Ms. Young, who holds both the Officer position and is also ACC Chair had a simple report. They are now running the committee by email. There are no meetings, and the actions are as non-transparent as possible. Even when given an opportunity for some verbal description, all we get is that they do business by email. Oh, and they think they only rejected one submission.
If you think about everything that has been said before this, it kind of sticks out. The committee that is charged with authoring our rules and guidelines made no progress in 2021. Nada. And, in terms of rules enforcement, they rejected one submission. I guess that means they were doing their job, but it’s hard to tell with such a vague report.
BUDGET
The proverbial moment everyone has been waiting for.
Originally, the budget was to be presented, questions asked and answered, and somehow a vote taken in 20 minutes between 6:50pm and 7:10pm. Instead, Ms. Hutchinson took us on a meandering journey through the Budget line items, randomly citing vague off-the-cuff amounts for various things (that didn’t add up if you were taking notes), going off on tangents to join in on the Festivus airing of the grievances, and then making such declarations as “Contentious questions putting the community at risk!”
It’s worth saying that again slowly. QUESTIONS are PUTTING THE COMMUNITY AT RISK? Is that true? Hyperbole?
With Ms. Hutchinson, I’ve noted in prior articles, sometimes the detachment of claims from reality seems to be, perhaps, a sign of nervousness with public speaking. But, then we see coordinated messaging from several people, which makes it clear it is deliberate talking points. The point she is trying to drive home is related to Mr. Stamatakos’s spurious claim of “hundreds of emails about snow”, which is more of the same approach – victimhood. Somehow questions are oppression. Particularly if the questions are about their actions or performance, and they don’t have a great explanation for what they did or why.
But, every now and then, there were nuggets that undermined what we heard earlier. For instance, Mr. Bielli made a clear case for having to do a document revision overhaul for a flat fee because doing things policy by policy would be SO expensive. But, for some reason, Ms. Hutchinson started naming various legal expenses and stating the amounts. And, some of these revealed that changing policies like the Sign/Flag policy only cost $200. Or that the failed Anti-Harassment Policy only cost $300. Or that the document review by VF Law was a bargain at $1250.
For those of us paying attention to Ms. Jones’ question about the adequacy of our policies, Mr. Bielli responded that we just needed to add 2 policies. If these numbers cited by Ms. Hutchinson were accurate, then we are talking about something in the neighborhood of $400-600. I can think of a handful of other things that need attention myself – I’ve never said our documents need no work. But, coming up with what adds up to $16-18k is . . . puzzling. It sounds like the salesman in the attorney trying to guide us to the most profitable product.
However, taking Mr. Bielli at his word – that he wants to do this to see it through and to ensure its success, it may simply be that our current Board is once again shooting itself in the foot and undermining his salesmanship. It is worth a follow-up to find out. I wonder if we get that opportunity before being required to vote.
But, Ms. Hutchinson, again undermined Mr. Stamatakos and Mr. Bielli’s claims that the documents poor condition was responsible for disputes. She referred to the need for all the legal expense (10x the prior year budget, excluding the document revision 10 grand) as being necessary for “member issues”. That means it is NOT just a legitimate and honest good faith dispute over interpretations, but rather her having it out for members – regardless of whether they might agree on some things and disagree on others. She revealed what I’ve known since I first made the formal complaint regarding FHA law – that she is against ME. It doesn’t matter the topic, in her kangaroo court, I’m always wrong. Never do we get her well-reasoned support or opposition to an idea. It’s always a contest of personalities.
This is exactly the opposite of how CAI advises Board members to approach their volunteer service.
But, having finished trying to justify blowing thousands of dollars on attorneys in 2021 and accomplishing very little, she pivoted to a huge error in judgement at the Special Meeting on 11/3/21. She blurted out, in context of having a loss for 2021, that she was contemplating “stealing from the reserves” to make up for the losses.
Anyone with actual knowledge of CCIOA saw this as a red flag. Mr. Knight used the chat function (which was turned off for the Annual Meeting) to ask me a question: Was it compliant with CCIOA to use Special Assessment funds for purposes other than what was stated when they were proposed and approved. I responded, via that same chat, that my understanding was that it was not. Later, Mr. Hammond posted in that same chat that “in this instance, Andy is correct”. I guess a guy gets lucky every now and then, and his truth can’t be denied.
So, Ms. Hutchinson curiously seemed compel to explain her foot-in-mouth statement that might actually create a serious liability issue. And, this is the problem with their approach – it’s not that she made an error, but that she is a victim for being caught making the error. So, her mea culpa was that what I said was “accurate” and that Special Assessment funds could not be used for other purposes.
Finally. Oh, but wait, there’s more. Because then she went into long form explaining mode about how, in reality, we collected $180 for 3 years from 87 homes, and that added up to about $46k, but then . . . the long ramble with a bottom line – the money is gone, but we only paid for about 1/3 of the linear feet of fence to be replaced. In one breath, it was all about the cost of wood going up, then some reference to some of the money really going to landscaping, but that it didn’t matter anyways because it was all gone.
I’m paraphrasing, but it is for effect – it was not informative, it was completely confusing.
Here’s why. If we go back to when the idea was proposed back in 2017, we didn’t collect $180 per year for 3 years to pay for a $46k fence. That was never the deal. We were sold on the concept that the fence cost would be more like $120k. But, because self-governance was putting so much money back into our pockets (we were projecting $4000-8000 annual surpluses), we would combine those savings with this special assessment, and voila, we’d have enough money for the fence – which was estimated in 2017 to cost $100-120k according to Mr. Tuminello’s broadcast email in January of 2018. All of the information held on the old website has since disappeared, so the original presentation (which was preserved), has apparently been discarded by the current Board.
Meanwhile, it appears that there’s some interesting accounting going on here. Because, if memory serves me, we spent way more than $46k on the partial fence we got. And, there was never any mention of how these funds were intermingled with landscaping projects. This revisionist history appears to be a smokescreen. We may have an actual issue of fiduciary duty here without a better explanation and . . . receipts. Being asked to approve a budget based upon inaccurate recollections is no way to make these decisions. We need to see the accurate documents.
So, upon taking questions, Mr. Hammond asked whether “document revision” may mitigate the annualized legal expenses. Ms. Hutchinson went off on a tangent about how one unspecified issue was determined differently by two different attorneys.
Mr. Flanary asked if the $20k deficit was due to fence repairs. And, instead of clearing up the math problem described above, we got yet another excuse – Trademark, after a full year, was found to be doing their books in Cash while POHOA used Accrual. If you’ve never owned a business, this will sound confusing and strange, but this is literally the FIRST question anyone engaged in doing financial books needs to know. Somehow, these organizations didn’t figure out they were doing something so drastic that in spite of showing us a $20k deficit, now we were told it’s actually a $12k profit.
But, a month prior we were “stealing from the reserves” because of a crisis. Now we have . . . a PROFIT?
And, that then undermines that concept that we need to raise assessments, or that we don’t have enough money to complete fence repairs. In fact, it’s leaving homeowners who attended more confused and less informed than when they walked into the meeting.
Herb then announced that we can buy some cheaper wood because the price dropped (which undermines the perpetual “prices are going up” excuse offered by Ms. Hutchinson), and that this vendor would store the wood for us to capture the savings. This was maybe the most straightforward and understandable point on the subject made. Bravo.
But, then Mr. Flanary asked what are the “homeowner issues” Ms. Hutchinson was referring to. She listed 3:
1. FHA Law
2. Question and Disagreements about Documents
3. A request to “launch an investigation of Trademark”
I followed up, and found that the Board now considers all matters related to the Fair Housing Act (they didn’t even know what the acronym stood for) resolved. They are not. We are still not following CAI’s advice to have a written policy for Hostile Environment Harassment, or to rescind the policy that refuses to intervene under any circumstances in 3rd party disputes. At this point, they are arguing against the written opinion of CAI, which our current general counsel is on the Amicus Committee for that organization. It’s absurd.
In regards to “launching an investigation of Trademark”, it is true. I have followed the CAMICB flow chart, which then requires the Board to perform impartial fact finding (also required by CCIOA), prior to the complaint being escalated to the CAMICB Board. While not definitive, it appears, once again, POHOA believes that no such process should be followed, and that they can simply refuse to do their duty.
This is interesting. Because, the complaint is in regards to the use of the CMCA credential, and the Standards of Professional Conduct required to keep the credential. It does seem odd that their process requires the Board to investigate their vendor, and this reveals what is clearly a conflict of interest – the Board won’t do its job, particularly if their own conduct is intertwined and may be revealed or scrutinized. It’s easier to cast the complainant as the aggressor and use victimhood to gain sympathy.
But, if that is the system, how would these Standards of Conduct ever be enforced?
In spite of Trademark quitting, it doesn’t stop the process. If POHOA balks, then CAMICB receives an escalation without the benefit of impartial fact-finding. It will be interesting to see how it proceeds from there, but the point is that those advertising their CMCA credentials need to ensure their clients are not subjected to conduct outside the code.
But, now things get really bizarre.
Instead of having a vote on a budget, we now have a budget that includes a major expense for a vendor that just announced it is quitting the day before. There’s some loose talk of maybe just shifting those funds to the legal budget, which is interesting. Why wouldn’t the shortfall in fence budgeting be a priority? Isn’t THAT what we paid for for 3 years?
So, now, we enter into a discussion about whether we can have a vote at all. Once again, interpretations of CCIOA start being voiced. Trademark is under the impression that we can’t vote because there aren’t 44 persons attending the meeting. Mr. Tuminello gets frustrated when he insists, that it is a majority of the persons attending the meeting. Now, the Board seems to want to postpone the vote – and do this by mail-in ballot.
EDIT: It is true that in order to veto the budget, you would need 44 votes. However, this calls into question whether such meetings should then be scheduled at inconvenient times (530-600pm) for those who have work/school commitments or whether the vote should be planned as a mail-in vote during a pandemic. The fact that the Board continues to intimate that they think the pandemic is over (see October meeting when they thought it would be a great idea to schedule an in-person meeting) without having these contingencies in place to accommodate those who are truly still at great risk indicates a political bias dominating our current Board.
But, without a recording of the meeting, how will those who did not attend know or digest all this random and unverified information that was blurted out at this meeting. What document actually describes the reality of what they intend to do with the money – and how much money do we really have when two companies can’t even agree on Cash vs. Accrual Accounting?
A proverbial cluster.
So, in the end, it does appear that the wisest choice is to punt and vote later. How, when, and for what, actually, is TBD. Lord help us with what actually emerges – it is very difficult to predict or forecast at this point.
ELECTIONS
If the Budget segment was not bizarre enough, once again, you have to listen to the recordings to try to understand or follow what happened next. After stating that there are two candidates, the Board then started soliciting for extra candidates. Reminiscent of Ferris Bueller or a desperate auctioneer, the calls for “anyone?” “anyone?” seemed, once again, kind of desperate. We’ve never seen this done at an Annual meeting before. We knew in advance two candidates had offered to serve, and both gave statements that were included in the meeting packet.
But, technically, it’s true, anyone could self-nominate or be nominated at the last hour.
Surprisingly, Herb Weatherington, who had resigned in April of 2021 (leaving a board seat open for the remainder of the year) says he now wants to run. While his resignation letter was never posted on the website (which used to host ALL resignation letters), it was rumored that he was concerned about stress and health. Herb is truly a nice guy, but it truly was surprising to see him nominate himself, and it appeared from those who had video on, others were equally surprised.
But wait, there’s more.
So, then Mr. Hammond decided to nominate Ms. Ballweber who was not actually participating in the meeting at the time, and had to be called by her husband back into the room with the Zoom computer to accept. She seemed kind of surprised at the nomination, but accepted.
But wait, there’s more.
So, Mr. Tuminello, who had advocated in his statement his experience and desire to serve, suddenly had a change of heart. Apparently, something about the other two people running led to a spontaneous reversal. Which brings up the level of commitment to running.
According to sources, when I announced I was running for the Board, members of the Board apparently went around the community to beg someone else to run out of fear that I might actually be elected or chosen. It may explain why there was a delay sending out the packet, as I had heard they couldn’t find anyone.
While this is inference and speculative, the sudden lack of commitment and enthusiasm upon anyone else agreeing to run for the seat is compatible with the concept that Mr. Tuminello was talked into running – and then bailed at the first opportunity to avoid having to actually serve.
So, each of the candidates were allotted a whole 2 minutes to describe their plans.
Afterwards, there were questions. And, Mr. Flanary couldn’t resist the opportunity to try to cross-examine me, and use a Gish Gallop technique to give me more questions that could be responded to in 2 minutes. This is by design, and as an ex defense attorney, he knows that this is a microaggression and bullying.
But, I considered it for a few seconds, and did my best to use my time to contest his facts. And, offered anyone who has more questions to reach me outside the meeting. This, to me was full circle – because Mr. Flanary’s microagressions at meetings are, in fact, a red flag for Hostile Environment Harassment – and certainly a sign that he and others in the community do not consider the settlement agreement an actual settlement of grievances.
So, in spite of the Board’s claim to have now complied with FHA law, the meeting literally ends with a demonstration that, in fact, the Board feels no need to intervene when a member meets the criteria of the law that is aimed to cause emotional distress of a person with a known disability (protected class). They’ve learned nothing, which is disappointing.
OPEN QUESTIONS
Towards the end of the meeting, I asked the Board if they understood that by design, in Colorado, CCIOA is intended to be enforced by . . . homeowners. And, they have limited tools to handle disputes over interpretations of governing documents or statutes. If the Board refuses to have informal meetings, a hearing, or even mediation/arbitration, the actual enforcement requires homeowners to litigate against the association.
That’s right. According to Geoffrey Salant, who is the HOA Information Officer for DORA, homeowners have a DUTY to litigate if the HOA is not abiding by the law or rules themselves. If they fail to perform their duty, they are risking a waiver of the behavior, making it potentially unenforceable later (“why didn’t you act when you knew?”, if you can imagine the cross-examination).
So, while Mr. Flanary and the Board wish to cast anyone who performs this duty as “suing their neighbors”, it is a false assessment. Not entering into litigation when you know their is non-compliance is to failure of responsibility – not an act of aggression.
So, asking the Board whether any of them knew that homeowners were the only parties that had this duty, and that litigation was the design of the system, not a sign of rogue behavior (that Mr. Flanary, at least, has voiced needs to be punished), there was dead silence. Literally, after all of the opportunities over 2 years to finally know and understand the law, they still are completely unaware. It’s sad, actually.
What happens from here? Who knows?
My hope is that the homeowners who were there recognized that we need to make careful choices going forward, and consider why some Board members just can’t live with having any dissent on the Board – even when they would win every vote 4-1 if they didn’t like my actual agenda, most of which is in alignment with what is advocated by CAI, and even though the remaining ideas are in practice elsewhere in the US (other states). If the ideas are not convincing, vote them down. It’s that simple. You don’t have to try to vilify the person advocating them – if you have better ideas.
If anyone wishes to fact check my account of events, I am happy to review the recording of the meeting I kept, and I apologize in advance for any errors. And, any persons wishing to comment on this site, or submit rebuttals as an article, I’d be happy to publish them here.
Because I am not afraid of other people’s ideas, and enjoy the process of dispute resolution – because I focus on the resolution, not the dispute. I hope to see us turn a corner here, but am concerned this absolutely bizarre and stunning meeting is not foreshadowing of a further descent into confusion, chaos, and additional costly errors.
We can and must do better. And, there’s gotta be a better way than this.