Meeting Tuesday 1/10, Virtually No Notice, Agenda Lockdown, & Abuse of Executive Session
CCIOA requires “fair and reasonable” notice regarding Board Meetings. Director Ballweber continues to seek the most minimal notice to POHOA Homeowners that Statutes and our Governing Documents allow. This has been a problem throughout her tenure, as she enjoys absolute control of the agenda and notices as she continues to reign as both President and Secretary, as well as Administrator of Gmail and Administrator of the Frontsteps website.
The Meeting will be held at the Senior Center at 1200 Raintree Dr, Fort Collins, CO 80526, but her notice posted to the Frontsteps website said the address was 112 E. Willow, which happens to be the address of the Aztlan Center, where the last two all-homeowner in-person meetings were held. While the errant address was removed after 11:15am on Sunday 1/8, neither the notice on the Calendar nor the Agenda post the correct address. I suppose everyone is supposed to know where the Senior Center is, or google it themselves. You know, fair and reasonable.
Director Ballweber wrote to the other Directors on December 22 asking for a preference between Tuesday 1/10 and Wednesday 1/11 for the next Board Meeting.
Is it fair or reasonable to expect that people would be inquisitive enough to look under something about Reservations & Requests for the Calendar, when it literally has nothing to do with the subject of “reservations” or “requests”?
Is it fair or reasonable if POHOA has NEVER provided any education, by Bulletin or even at a meeting, to instruct homeowners that they need to go to this hidden menu to find meeting notices?
Is it fair or reasonable that Homeowners be burdened with checking the website EVERY 2 DAYS to find out if a meeting has been scheduled (or what the agenda may be), when Directorn and Secretary Ballweber feels that it is never necessary to inform homeowners more than 2 days because that is the minimum compliance with CCIOA and/or the Governing Documents?
In the past, Director Ballweber and/or Director Jones have either posted a Bulletin visible upon login to the Frontsteps website or put a Sandwich Board at the driving entrance to the neighborhood, again, with usually no more than 2 days advance notice, justifying it because it is the minimum requirement of CCIOA and the Governing documents. This time, however, neither occurred.
And, what we NEVER see during Director Ballweber’s reign is the most obvious and simple solution – to send an email.
It took from December 23 to January 2 for Director Ballweber to put a notice with the WRONG ADDRESS on Frontsteps. One homeowner noted the discrepancy and posted a comment soon after the posting, but Director Ballweber, who is the sole Administrator of the website, didn’t respond. When it was brought up to her by other Directors on Sunday 1/8, THEN she simply deleted the address – but didn’t put the correct address! Everyone is on their own to figure out that “Senior Center” means the one near Mid-Town, and not the one that comes up in Bellvue (and is nearer to the neighborhood). Those that use such things as Siri or Alexa might be misled to the wrong location, particularly when the search is verbal. Is this fair or reasonable not to post the correct address after making the mistake, or at least making the effort to email everyone to ensure?
Director Ballweber was asked repeatedly to send a notice to everyone by email, or if she preferred, do like for the 10/20/22 meeting, where she botched the date AND location of the meeting (again, involving and confusing the Senior Center and Aztlan Center – which are no where near one another), but had volunteers go door to door to put slips of paper with the correct notice under doormats at everyone’s house. No such effort this time around.
And, there may be a reason – she has unilaterally, without any actual powers or authorities, chosen the agenda without inclusion of important and pressing issues – and decided that we are going into Executive Session “at the will of the Board”, again, when no such powers exist. The Board is restricted by CCIOA and the Governing Documents and MUST have at least one of six criteria to consider a vote going into Executive Session.
Per CCIOA, CRS 38-33.3-308 Paragraph 4, the criteria are:
(a) Matters pertaining to employees of the association or the managing agent’s contract or involving the employment, promotion, discipline, or dismissal of an officer, agent, or employee of the association;
(b) Consultation with legal counsel concerning disputes that are the subject of pending or imminent court proceedings or matters that are privileged or confidential between attorney and client;
(c) Investigative proceedings concerning possible or actual criminal misconduct;
(d) Matters subject to specific constitutional, statutory, or judicially imposed requirements protecting particular proceedings or matters from public disclosure;
(e) Any matter the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of individual privacy;
(f) Review of or discussion relating to any written or oral communication from legal counsel.
Director Ballweber has included on the agenda two topics she intends to make opaque with Executive Session. This is the identical path as the 10/6/22 meeting, when the Board went into Executive Session for the “dog incident” and a “petition”. At the time, I supported it because of the rationale given by Director Ballweber regarding paragraphs (c) and (e). Those conditions do not exist this time around – primarily because Larimer County has already dismissed the criminal complaint against the dog owner, and the privacy was pierced by announcing their names at the 10/20 meeting.
When asked for which of the 6 reasons applies this time, Director Ballweber claimed, in correctly, that moving into Executive Session is “will of the Board”. No, we have to meet criteria, so without doing so, even if we have the will, we should not.
As for the Petition, sources inform me that the Petition which began circulating immediately after the election is once again to remove me as a Director. I waived my right to privacy, and Director Ballweber has not responded.
But, more importantly, Director Ballweber claims that these two topics are so important that they must dominate a meeting she has arbitrarily set for a 1-hour duration without consultation or a vote by other Directors. Once again, she is abusing non-existent powers and authorities, and refuses to cite where the Governing Documents or CCIOA gives her the ability to control any of this all on her own – even as an Officer (President or Secretary – take your pick).
In fact, Director Ballweber, writing from the new HOA email address (vs. her private email identifying herself) issues declarations that are unsupported by fact and are not rooted in any powers or authorities granted by CCIOA or the governing documents. In fact, she alone decided that Election of Officers has been POSTPONED (again without a vote) so she can prevent the obvious solution – replacement of her as Secretary. And, it appears she is putting my removal in front of that election to prevent me from having a vote on Officers when, on 6/15/22 (first Board Meeting after Election), her FIRST priority was Election of Officers.
Why can’t we get this right? Why is scheduling of meetings and setting the agenda SO difficult for Director Ballweber?
Immediately after elections on 12/14, both Director Tunna and I sent emails on 12/15 and 12/16 with suggested priorities for our upcoming agenda. Director Ballweber said that due to the holidays, she wasn’t available to discuss until after the New Year. Director Tunna has some great ideas, and I summarized my suggestions with some priorities and methods by which we might more fairly and reasonably collaborate on an agenda that is agreed upon by all Directors. I was ignored and never received a response.
I suggested that we consider for the agenda:
- Creating a Committee for Updating Policies as Required by HB22-1137, HB22-1139, HB21-1310, and HB21-1229 chaired by Director Tunna (Unfinished Business tabled at the 9/13/22 Meeting)
- Review Snow Removal Bids and Potential Contractors for 2023-24 before permitting Gift Cards
- Review of Bids for Accounting/Tax Preparation before contracting with Jen Hutchinson, and consideration of nomination of Ms. Hutchinson for Treasurer (Officers need not be Directors)
- Directors sign the Policy for Handling Conflicts of Interest as required by the Governing Documents
Of these, Director Ballweber only included “gift cards” and refused to turn over the bids because snow removal has already been “dealt with”.
Director Tunna submitted a proposal regarding our website and requested a vote for the Secretary position, and I support both. His proposal for updating the website is thoughtful and has good ideas, and I support making him the Administrator of Fronsteps to alleviate the perpetual issues caused by Director Ballweber’s inattention to detail and refusal to operate within the boundaries of “fair and reasonable”.
Director Ballweber has also been creating Meeting Minutes that are not truly reflective or accurate regarding the business of the Association. Attempts to amend the meeting minutes have been shut down, again with powers and authorities Director Ballweber does not actually possess. It was taking too much time during past meetings, so I had let to let it go since the video recordings capture objectively what is actually going on and they can be amended later, when she is no longer Secretary. I believe that we cannot wait till some future special meeting to remove me – we need a new Secretary, and Director Tunna is willing to serve. We should vote on this immediately.
Finally, Director Ballweber has once again refused to provide Zoom Access to the meeting on 1/10, claiming it is not “required”. We have seen half of participants at meetings like 9/13/22 participate remotely. And, given the high prevalence of respiratory viruses, it is unconscionable to prevent remote access – as Director Ballweber dramatically literally ripped out the power cord to the A/V cart at the 10/20 meeting. Her hostility towards remote access is inexplicable.
We are here to serve, not to rule, and she does not seem to understand this.
But, that’s where we find ourselves with the ‘dog incident’. This issue continues to dominate our agenda because some homeowners are demanding legal action to remove the dog that bit another dog back in September. The Larimer County District Attorney dismissed the case, which was only for Animal Control’s Citation for Dog At Large and Public Nuisance. The dog’s owner was not faced with any criminal charges of “Dangerous Dog”, yet, we have owners that feel that due to a bite and assumed breed of the dog, we have no other choice than to demand removal – and she advocates Executive Session to hide this discussion from attending homeowners.
The problem here is that no notice of violation has yet been sent, and per the requirements of HB22-1137, the owner would then have 30 days to comply before we could consider a fine. And, that would begin yet another 30-day cure period. Only if the owner chooses not to comply (or contest the enforcement action) would it be appropriate to consider the fine delinquent and begin a process of legal action. The only legal action that is applicable at that point (since foreclosure is precluded by HB22-1137) is injunctive relief, which is a court-order that the owner remove the dog (which would face Contempt of Court if not obeyed).
Unfortunately, HB22-1137 has specific requirements, including INCLUSION of the affected owners, even in Executive Session. And, if we actually followed our Policy for Enforcement, the owner would be within their rights to demand a hearing, mediation, or arbitration.
We cannot use the 1/10 meeting to plan fines or discuss beginning litigation as we must follow the law – and it appears to be a law Director Ballweber does not wish to comply with, as we have refused to update our policies since it was required on August 9, 2022. The issue was tabled on 9/13/22, and she has refused to allow it back on any meeting agenda as Unfinished Business as required by Robert’s Rules of Order, which we “shall” follow per our Governing Documents.
But, as a Director facing another Cancel Culture Petition for Removal (where the petitioners refuse to disclose their grievances or meet with me to resolve whatever issues actually exist), I cannot do anything to put this on the agenda, and very little to influence Directors who appear predisposed to send us into years of expensive litigation. Director Jones stated at the 12/14 meeting that the $5000 legal budget was specifically do address the anticipated legal action for dog removal.
Perhaps Director Tunna joining the board will change the dynamic. I have hopes, but the fact that we have poor to zero communication from the the other Directors – who withhold documents and access to key systems (Gmail, Quickbooks, Frontsteps), I am not leaning optimistic. Director Tunna’s influence is yet to be seen, and he’s only one vote – particularly if I am removed.
Rumor has it that Director Flanary has been advocating a Petition that also attempts to change our Bylaws that makes the NUMBER of Board Removals an automatic bar on running for or serving on the Board, which is outrageous. If he wishes to bar participation, CRS 7-128-109 is the avenue.
Why not just meet with me about the issues, and stop attacking my character and personality? Is there anything actually wrong with the agenda I am proposing? How come never a word about any of that?
I fear that the revelation that Director Jones is a Qanon adherent and follower tells us all we need to know – they don’t consider this a democracy where all members have rights. They wish to rule and dominate – which is the literal definition of “Tyranny of the Majority”, a warning given at the beginning of all copies of Robert’s Rules of Order. Qanon has the aim of destroying government, not running it right. And, when they don’t have the votes, the right to threaten or intimidate others with violence. POHOA needs to stand strong against such influences, and I hope some will stand up with me.