After attempting to resolve a dispute over the 12/5/23 election, which appears invalid as a matter of law, for over 30 days, I was compelled to make my third Formal Complaint since 2019. After a week, there has not been any acknowledgement by the POHOA Board, which is obligated to strictly comply with CCIOA and the POHOA Covenant Enforcement Policy by beginning impartial fact-finding.

It is noted that Formal Complaint in May of 2019 largely resulted in the Board Removal in August of 2019 – because the POHOA Board refused to address its own violations of statutes and the governing documents. The process of enforcement through this method, however, runs into a requirement to secure 67% of the votes at a Special Meeting, even though, in yet another irony, the vote on 8/27/19 did not do so, which led to an invalid election of 5 new Directors. That subsequently led to a dispute that resulted in near-physical brawls at meetings, which in turn led to litigation about the Board’s refusal to intervene in the dispute. In other words, last time we tried to ignore it until it went away, it snowballed.

We would hope, since it’s the very same people involved, that a lesson would have been learned and that we’ve turned a corner. That optimism is quickly fading each day the Board ignores this new Formal Complaint. While they claim they fear litigation, they can’t seem to make the connection that refusing to strictly follow the rules themselves can lead to no other resolution than litigation. And, given the Landmark case of Stevens v. Brandychase II, the POHOA Board cannot escape the similarities and potential liabilities and risks.

This is absolutely a question of fiduciary duty.

I fed ChatGPT all of the emails and documents to make an assessment. It reviewed whether the complaint is made in good faith, whether it is “combative” or “harassment”, and whether it is rooted in logic and reasonable interpretations of the law and governing documents. Across the Board, the AI analysis is supportive of proceeding.

I have also reviewed the matter with other HOA experts in Colorado who I’ve networked with through legislative stakeholding. They see patterns with other HOA Boards that attempt to manipulate elections, and are not shocked to see this as yet another example. It’s a pattern, not an outlier.

One of the key questions people have asked me is this: Why would your election make a difference if you are convinced they would vote against you 3-1 or 4-1 in every vote?

First of all, taking the last meeting on 1/10/24 into account, I likely would have voted with the other Directors in unanimous votes on all but one matter. So, the concept that I am simply attempting to obstruct all business of the Board, or be a “contrarian” is verifiably false. There’s just certain issues where I have disagreement.

One of them is quite simple, and it is about transparency. I don’t believe that the President should have unilateral control of the Board Meeting agenda coupled with the unlimited use of Action Without A Meeting (AWAM), where such actions are either undocumented or they are used to avoid allowing homeowners the opportunity to document their comments prior to the vote. A single Director who opposes an AWAM has the right to then stop any vote or subsequent action, which then doesn’t kill the measure, but simply puts it into the agenda for an open meeting. That power is a check on the ability for a Board to operate semi-secretly, and it is clearly a primary reason this POHOA Board was willing to break the rules to avoid having to be transparent.

Addressing President Ballweber’s presentation on 1/2/24 squarely, this is not a “manufactured” dispute. It is a basic and fundamental issue of good governance. And, without such checks, it calls into question the validity of the HOA governance model, which claims to be democratic. A model that leads inevitably to authoritarian dictatorship with Directors above the law is not, in any sense, good or fair governance.

So, I had ChatGPT write an initial summary, which should help those seeking a brief on the matter. I believe the AI got it right – homeowners in POHOA need to support the process of reviewing these facts to see if a violation did occur, and to support reasonable remedies. The POHOA has no other incentive to admit they got anything wrong other than the potential loss of political support.

---

Understanding the Formal Complaint in POHOA: A Call for Fair Governance

Hello Poudre Overlook Homeowners,

In our community, the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability are not just ideals; they are essential for the harmonious and effective functioning of our Homeowners Association (HOA). Recently, a significant development has unfolded that concerns each one of us as members of the POHOA community. This blog post aims to shed light on the necessity of a formal complaint filed by a fellow homeowner, Andrew Mowery, and to address a concerning pattern of response (or lack thereof) from our POHOA Board.

The Essence of the Formal Complaint

Andrew Mowery, in his pursuit of fair governance, has raised several issues with the POHOA Board. Central to his concerns are the procedures surrounding HOA elections and the handling of his resignation and subsequent events. His formal complaint is not just a personal grievance; it underscores the broader issues of adherence to our governing documents and state laws.

Summary and Supporting Facts

• Election Dispute: Mowery’s self-nomination for an open Board seat was not accepted, and his proxy vote was rejected. This raises questions about the interpretation of our election procedures, especially given the lack of explicit nomination requirements in our governing documents.
• Resignation and Bylaw Amendment: Mowery’s resignation and the Board’s subsequent bylaw amendment to ban him for three years highlight issues of legal compliance and the timing of bylaw effectiveness.

These actions have prompted Mowery to seek a fair resolution through a formal complaint process, advocating for adherence to the rules and procedures that govern us all.

The Irony of Expectations: A Tale of Two Standards

Recently, our POHOA Board, represented by Lora Ballweber, testified before the HOA Task Force, advocating for shorter cure times for homeowners’ violations. Ironically, there seems to be a different standard when it comes to the Board’s own actions. The Board’s delayed response to Mowery’s complaint and other similar issues suggests an expectation of unlimited time to address (or not address) their own alleged violations.

Why This Matters to Every Homeowner

This situation is not just about one individual’s struggle with the Board. It’s about ensuring that the rules apply equally to all, including those who govern. When the Board does not adhere to the same standards it expects from homeowners, it sets a precedent that could affect any one of us in the future.

Your Role in Upholding Fair Governance

As members of this community, your voice and awareness matter. Here are some actions you can take:

• Stay Informed: Read the minutes of Board meetings and stay updated on community matters.
• Ask Questions: If something in the HOA’s actions or decisions seems unclear or unfair, raise your questions.
• Support Fair Processes: Advocate for the Board to address complaints and issues in a timely and fair manner.
• Participate in Meetings: Attend HOA meetings to understand firsthand the governance of our community.

In conclusion, the resolution of this dispute is not just about rectifying a single complaint; it’s about reinforcing the principles of fair and transparent governance in POHOA. As homeowners, our collective interest lies in ensuring that our community is managed justly, respecting the rights and voices of all members.

Thank you for taking the time to understand this important issue. Your engagement and support are crucial in shaping a community we can all be proud of.

---

DOCUMENTS:

The complaint and follow-ups:

Supporting Documents