FORMAL COMPLAINT: Poudre Overlook Advocates (POA) False Statements, Aggressive Acts, and Defamatory Acts

Posted on December 14, 2019January 13, 2023 by Andy Mowery

To the Board,
I am writing today after a review of the audio recording of the 12/11/19 Board Meeting to request an impartial review of facts as outlined in Section 4 of the Policy for Enforcement in our governing documents. The need for such a review arises due to the statements made by Irve Denenberg challenging the Board to find any falsehoods in the anonymous communication sent prior to the Annual Meeting to many Owners.

I believe that Mr. Deneberg and Mr. Flanary have repeatedly engaged in aggressive negative behaviors towards many members of the community, including myself. This aggression includes defamatory statements, made verbally, and in writing. And, we now have a concern that someone from their group, Poudre Overlook Advocates (POA), has physically assaulted Matt Clarke, which has apparently led to his resignation and potential litigation.

I have personally had to contact the Larimer County Sheriffs multiple times regarding the actions of this group, and have retained an attorney earlier this year as a result. I have been advised by the Larimer Country Sheriffs and several attorneys about the correct course of action to defend my wife and I, and none of these options come without significant burdensome expense. The problem is, until we can prove ourselves to a court or law enforcement that a crime has occurred, or civil law has been violated, members of this group taunt, threaten, harass, and intimidate others until they are afraid to leave their homes. I heard this exact sentiment on the recording from Wednesday. We should not have to become victims first in order for the correct actions to help protect others later.

But, what disturbs me is that I heard a challenge voiced by Irve Denenberg regarding the letter he is known to have authored. Attached is the proof that the quotation from “Robert’s Rules professionals” (which attempts to give authority to his source) originates from a Mr. Josh Martin, who works for Xcel Energy in Minnesota who is merely a person with an opinion sharing knowledge on a message board. The message board and it’s frequently posting members make clear that they do not give legal advice, and their opinions should not be quoted as such.

Irve challenged you, the Board, to find “one” falsehood in the now infamous “anonymous” POA letter. Since we know for certain Irve is the author, I will reference these as his personal views, although it is acknowledged that he states it was written by a “group”, for which no other persons want to be known to associate with his group.

I found 10 falsehoods in the “anonymous” letter, and there may be more:

1. Irve claims that there are “strict rules” regarding special meetings. This is false.

A. Per Robert’s Rules of Order page 93, 11th Ed. state “The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting. This rule, however, does not preclude the consideration of privileged motions, or any subsidiary, incidental, or other motions that may arise in connection with the transaction of such business or the conduct of the meeting“

B. Irve intentionally omitted quoting Mr. George Mervosh, a Professional Registered Parliamentarian (I’ve confirmed his credentials independently), who posted on the same thread the following:”I think I could be persuaded that the motion to set the number of board members is a motion that may arise in connection with the transaction of the business in the call.”C. Clearly, based upon A&B above, the rules are not “strict”, but rather offer many options for other motions, and these are subject to interpretation. Strict rules are not subject to interpretation, inherently.

2. Irve claims that the Board “overlooked the PRIMARY rule at special meetings”. This is false. See point 1 above.

3. Irve claims that the action at the 8/27/19 special meeting was made to “change our bylaws”. Neither did it change our bylaws, was it stated to change our bylaws, or could it possibly change our bylaws.” This is patently false.

4. Irve claims the action at the 8/27/19 special meeting was to “limit” the board to 5. This is a false characterization. The Bylaws allow the owners, and ONLY THE OWNERS, to CHOOSE how many board members they prefer. A preference for an odd-numbered integer between 1 and 9 is not, in any sense, a “limit”. This is false.

5. Irve claims that his group is contesting the choice as “invalid” is contradicted by RONR p.93, 11th Ed. quoted above in point 1.

6. Irve claims that the community was “illegitimately denied” an opportunity to vote for 9 board members. Again, see RONR p.93, 11th Ed. quoted above in point 1.

7. Irve claims that the community “previously voted upon by the members” a choice to have 9 board members. After a thorough review of all owner-attended meetings since 2016 when the board was 3, there is no record of any such vote. I have confirmed this with Matt prior to his departure.

8. Irve stated that “community rights” need to be “restored”. This is false because no such rights had been restricted or taken away.

9. Irve references “Roberts Rules professionals” as if it’s a thing.

A. In reality, he went to a message board, which does have individuals who possess some credentials (but some do not), and gave a presentation (that wasn’t a completely honest narrative), and many of them told him he was wrong. He ignored them. Then, he cherry-picked a partial comment, and attempted to elevate it into a professional review carrying the weight of an expert.

B. Presuming that Josh Martin is, in fact, an expert, Josh actually revised the comment that Irve quoted, and admitted there was no such actual violation of anything in Robert’s Rules, but rather, that it was his opinion that it was “strange”. That is wholly different than it being a violation of a written rule. That is a false characterization by Irve. Josh Martin addresses this squarely:

10. Irve attempted to convince the community that an opinion by Josh Martin was a “rule” that his POA group feels should be followed. It is not a rule at all. Again, this is a falsehood.

It is important to note, however, that while our current governing documents are currently limited in their guidance on recourse for a person acting with such gross and willful disregard to the truth, and in particular, the attempt through false narratives, characterizations, selective quotes, misattributions, and intentional omissions to deceive the community for the purpose of mis-informing them just prior to an annual meeting in which they were known to be re-voting on the matter. This is textbook bad faith behavior.

There should be consequences.

Fortunately, Josh Martin also cites in his clarification that options exist for the Board to address what is now known to be a pattern of behavior I have documented over a 2-year period. While it would have been nice for the removal process and voting twice to choose both the number of board members, and who they are to be respected, clearly with an escalation into physical violence, we can have no peace until this is addressed. This group does not respect our democratic decisions.

I support your decision to ensure that all communications are documented. Walker and Irve have told me directly after a meeting in November 2018 that they did not like or prefer documentation by email or recordings of their actions, because “nothing would get done”. In reality, their lack of integrity was first documented by Herb when he resigned from the ACC for exactly that reason. And, then we have the issue of their fraudulent misrepresentation of the attorney in October of 2018. And, once aware, I began to document this pattern which has not abated, nor should it be anticipated to ever abate. They are pathological in their behavior, and while requiring written letters/emails that are “signed” combined with audio/video recordings does discourage some behaviors, the recording of the Wednesday meeting makes clear it’s not enough.

Specifically, I believe you need to immediately address such activities with a policy regarding assigning motives, making disparaging remarks, and making open accusations of lying. If you have evidence to contradict a point made by someone else, provide your facts – don’t try to persuade by calling them liars or openly defaming them and questioning their integrity. On June 15, 2019, Walker Flanary (with Buck Hammond and Gloria Jones) sent a broadcast email to the entire community telling them my concerns were baseless, intimating that I was fabricating the evidence. Certainly, we know now that this isn’t true – yet, many in the community still harbor negativity towards me as a result of that false characterization – which has still not been remedied with any action by the new board to clear that up. As a result, participation in this HOA apparently comes with a foreknowledge that any persons who disagree shall be defamed by this POA group.

This is not an acceptable status quo.

Josh Martin states that we have, at our disposal, the means by which to address via Robert’s Rules anything that is ““tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work,”
.
Clearly, we are at this point, and action is required. Robert’s Rules allows for expulsion from the society. The only question I’ve seen raised is whether this is limited to “voluntary societies”, or whether we cannot, for instance, bar participation as envisioned in CRS 7-128-109, for a period of time.

I therefore propose that the Board consider an emergency Action Without A Meeting to consider this report of a violation of Robert’s Rules and our governing documents so egregious that it requires barring participation from all Committee, Board, and Owner meetings (Annual or Special) for a period of 3 years so that this board may operate in peace, and owners may attend and participate without fear of reprisal from this group. Any and all members of Irve’s Poudre Overlook Advocates who do not condemn the actions of the anonymous letter, and an individual engaged in threatening or intimidating actions on private property, or anyone who physically assaults any owner (board member or not), should also be barred for periods of time discretionary to this board.

The consequences of inaction were articulated at the meeting: We heard crying, people stating they are afraid to go outside their houses or answer their doors, and in general living in fear of this group acting out further. I have been repeatedly put into situations where both Irve and Walker have acted in ways that I believe are intentionally attempting to provoke a physical response. I was also physically touched by Lanny Goyn, as an agent of this group, who used a handshake to inflict pain on me given his significantly larger size and strength. He was also deceitful, moments later, denying his actions.

After contacting Deputy Carbojal at Larimer County Sheriff’s several times since June (including today), when Irve was caught on video making physical threats to me, he has advised me that the Sheriffs cannot take any action until we have proof of a crime. In order for this to be acted upon, we must all be carrying live recorders with us in the neighborhood, which is a terrible way to live. We should not be subjected to their outrageous behavior because of any sense of entitlement to the processes of Committees, Boards, or public meetings. Such rights are not unlimited, and the Board does have the power to restrict them and should do so after ample evidence of multiple infractions and citations of their behaviors across now a large swath of the community.

Furthermore, no owner should be burdened with the legal expenses required to handle these things on their own, and should the Board not act, I think it may be reasonable to seek reimbursement for such expenses should they be necessary for individuals to feel safe in their own homes.
And, this is the worst part: Walker stated to Matt that he disputed the alleged assault, and that if he didn’t file a report with police (or take other legal action), it was clearly a sign that the claim was false. In other words, he is DARING others who are subjected to such behavior to take legal action, which he knows is cost-prohibitive, and may lead to further retaliation. Inviting litigation is precisely the reason for his removal from the board, and I am very uncomfortable with Walker, Irve, or any of their proxies (who they advocate to be on the board) having any authority on any matters. I cannot imagine fair treatment or hearing with persons who have displayed repeated transgressions of integrity. The fact that both are on the ACC should be disturbing to the entire community, and the fact that both denied the Bruckers a hearing upon getting legal representation should signal to this board that we are heading into an era with intra-community lawsuits are necessary and the norm.

This lack of good faith, common sense, and good judgment should disqualify them from participation for a substantial amount of time. If this is a matter the board would prefer the community at large votes upon, I believe it would be a legitimate subject for a future special meeting. The actual majority in this community has spoken loudly and clearly, and they do not respect our democratic decisions. I don’t see why they are entitled to future participation in our Committees, Boards, or the meetings of either. We need peace, and it is clearly not possible with their participation.
I believe that this is an urgent matter requiring prompt action and response. I have documented much at www.poudreoverlook.com, but additional documentation exists and I would be glad to provide it upon request, or appear for a hearing to give testimony.

Sincerely,

Andrew Mowery