BANNED: President Ballweber Tips Hand In Resignation Row

As I wrote in an article a month ago, if I did not get a response from the POHOA Board about my status as a candidate, I would raise the issue at the 11/14/23 Board Meeting during New Business. Instead, after finishing the regular agenda items, President Ballweber attempted to quickly segue to Executive Session without allowing either a new issue to be raised in New Business, or to allow homeowners to make any open comments unrelated to agenda items.

I first attempted to raise the issue of the Stormwater Drainage System for which we have no budget, nor do we have any reserves. While that financial time bomb is an appropriate topic given the Budget Approval being on the agenda, President Ballweber tersely shouted down any attempt (at any point in the meeting to get answers to questions on that topic).

Again, while being shouted at, I attempted to get a simple answer to the question about whether or not the attempt to ban me for 3 years by retroactively applying a Bylaw Amendment on 2/2/23 when I had resigned no later than 1/25/23 (and had actually resigned in writing the day before the meeting on 1/24/23). I simply asked for a yes or no.

President Ballweber then issued a series of confusing statements that are self-contradictory. She first claimed that it was the “owner’s decision” as a means of attempting not to respond. But, then she said “yes”, and then continued with her claim that I had failed to appeal something.

That’s the thing about Kangaroo Courts – facts, evidence, and details do not matter. The conclusion is pre-determined, and the words that come out of those that preside over such courts are often illogical, absurd, and without reason. While President Ballweber claimed it wasn’t her decision, she contradicted herself and said it was her decision that the ban was in effect because I failed to appeal.

The problem is, there’s no such thing. The Bylaws are abundantly clear that the resignation is effective the very moment the Association is given notice. There’s no requirement about how that notice is given (It doesn’t have to be sent USPS mail). We’ve seen Directors in 2016 make a verbal announcement in the hallway to one other director that was sufficient, we’ve had emotional speeches, emails, and letters. The moment The ASSOCIATION receives the notice, it’s effective.

And, while I’ve not raised this previously, as I didn’t think it would be necessary, I gave my resignation to Dr. John Tunna by phone and email on Tuesday January 24, 2023. I was concerned that my resignation letter, which I intended to read out loud, would be cut short as the original took 4 minutes to read. He helped me shorten it in an email exchange – a full day before the meeting. The actions at the meeting were merely a formality. Whether or not he informed the other Directors is unknown to me, but I am aware that he is a representative of the Association, and so whether he did or not, notice was given to the Association. Period.

But, the other points are relevant. While Robert’s Rules Section 46 make clear that a resignation is a privileged motion, President Ballweber did not come to the 1/25/23 meeting informed about what a privileged motion even was. She offended Dr. Tunna by refusing to allow him to speak, and when I stepped in on an earlier issue to explain what a privileged motion was, she got angry (as she does frequently at meetings) and threatened me if I spoke again.

How then is it fair or reasonable to play a game of you waited a minute too long or didn’t appeal something AT the meeting when the Chair is ruling as an authoritarian at a meeting, calling everyone “out of order”, when she herself isn’t acting within the boundaries herself?

Again, not relevant, in the final analysis, as regardless of whether my earlier notice, or at-meeting notice is functional, BOTH require, per the Bylaws, that the resignation be IMMEDIATE. The disgraceful attempt to refuse to accept my resignation was literally not a thing. So desperate to ban me, they are willing to throw the rule of law to the wind.

No matter what, both notices preceded by at least a week, the actual legal effective date of changing the Bylaws is 2/2/23. There is no such retroactive effect for any Bylaw. It is not legally binding until the date this document is produced. And, if there’s anyone with a legal citation or case law argument, I’ve waited 9 months for it to be produced.

Combined with the fact the Board revealed that they did not get an actual legal review of the TWO policies they passed last night, we are once again seeing a Board rely upon homeowner-attorneys for legal advice, which is how we wind up with disputes – over and over again.

We have an HOA Attorney, and I would be extremely surprised to find them supportive of an attempt to retroactively enforce a change to the Bylaws when there is clear evidence of a prior resignation. But, I’m open to reviewing any such legitimate legal review.

Those that I’ve shown this to that are engaged with the HOA Homeowner’s Rights Task Force (including legislators) cannot believe this is even a thing. However, the reason for the Task Force is partially due to Boards that abuse their power to preserve their power.

This Board has left open 2 seats, and recently claimed that they are shutting down the new Architectural Committee due to lack of interest. Except that I not only expressed interest, I asked when and where meetings were if I was going to be barred from participation on that committee.

The Board does not have the right to protect open seats from interested parties because they disagree with them politically. When I was “removed” in October of 2022, I and several homeowners demanded to know what, exactly, I had done wrong. President Ballweber stated that the Bylaws and CCIOA required NO REASON to be stated. You can just remove someone . . . politically. If you have the votes. And, since those votes are mostly proxy, this creates a problem for the concept that this is any form of democracy, as some homeowners wield extra powers for having persuaded others to give them their votes – it is not as though those homeowners ever get to even hear the arguments for or against.

This is why I have advocated in the legislature for Proxy Reform in HOAs. HOA Directors should have term limits, be limited in how many proxies they can hold (no more than 3-5% of the total), and dynasties should not be allowed to ice out others simply because they disagree. This is how minor disputes escalate into litigation and cost everyone.

The next opportunity, per my discussions with Dr. Tunna, is at the Annual Homeowner’s Meeting if this is not resolved in advance. I certainly do not wish to use up meeting time over this. I hope President Ballweber and the Board makes the sensible decision to publicly declare that the attempt to ban me . . . failed.

Meanwhile, I believe this episode is evidence that the powers to ban as described in CRS 7-128-109 should be exclusive to the Courts. HOAs usurping the powers of government without the checks and balances built into government is a recipe for escalating disputes. We may need a state law to set this straight, which would be par for the course.