MUTINY: POHOA Homeowner Criticizes Director Ballweber’s Meeting Notice & Scheduling

One Homeowner used the arbitrarily-short comment period (of just 10 minutes) to offer critical comments about how Director Lora Ballweber is going about the scheduling and notice of meetings. Director Ballweber attempted to deflect to “The Board”, which is now just 2 Directors, but Director Clay Jones remained stoic in the exchange without offering supporting comments.

This homeowner mentioned the fact that it was her husband, Dennis, who had brought up the issue of barring Proxy Solicitation and Proxy Hoarding at the 9/13/22 POHOA Special Board Meeting. It was at that meeting that the new policy to become compliant with SB22-059 was discussed, and Dennis spoke up about both the practice of soliciting Proxies, as well as perhaps a limit on how many Proxies any one member could hold.

As I mentioned at the 9/13/22 meeting, the original language and intent of SB22-059 was to limit HOA Homeowners to 5% of the total number of votes, which would work out to 4 votes in POHOA. There was a discussion and while the official meeting minutes only mention the motion to limit to 4 votes, the topic of Proxy Solicitation and Hoarding never really got a vote.

The problem in the exchange on 11/8 is that Director Ballweber falsely claims that there was a vote on limiting proxies, and that the vote was lost. According to the meeting minutes, created by Director Ballweber herself, which are the legal record of the Association, was that the MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN – it was NOT voted upon. Therefore, while there was lengthy discussion about the topic and a motion (actually an amendment) offered, in the end, there was NO VOTE AT ALL.

Director Ballweber, in her typical rewriting of the history of POHOA makes a false claim, and then pretends that because this vote occurred, that the issue cannot be revisited by homeowners at the homeowners meeting!

Watch the exchanges on 9/13 here:

So, when I attempted to influence the agenda for the Annual Homeowner’s Meeting by handing Director Ballweber a printed copy of the email I had previously sent to her (that she ignored), I wasn’t doing this to pull a stunt. In fact, the POHOA Homeowners VOTED about the issue of influencing the Agenda of ANY meeting in November of 2019. In a large nearly 2-1 majority, the homeowners voted to have powers OVER the Board, which are already encapsulated in the CCRs in Article IX Section 7. This section literally states that a decision by the Board can be overrode by a vote of the Homeowners.

Director Ballweber is clearly ignoring the paragraph 4 of this Motion, which was voted upon in November of 2019, but only signed by the Secretary (Sara Young) in October of 2020. “Owners have specific democratic powers beyond voting. They are allowed to participate and influence the agenda, discussion, and voting of board members.”

Now, Director Ballweber attempted to squash this my attempt by using her “I hear you” followed by “I’m sorry, but” dismissive language at the 11/8 meeting. She made vague references to the Bylaws and CCIOA, but fails to cite any actual statute or governing document article/paragraph. But then she tried getting back up from Mr. Flanary, who I’ve noted appears to be directing Director Ballweber at every turn. Mr. Flanary attempted to claim, as he did in the 2018 meeting, that homeowners have no powers to make policy. It backfired (see video below).

In a surprising turn, Director Clay Jones spouse, Ms. Gloria Jones (former Director and President), stood up and contradicted Mr. Flanary. She’s often considered the “expert” on all things in the governing documents, and so, in some sense, POHOA has been using her statements as the official ruling without consulting outside experts on many matters. And, in most cases, she is correct – she is a wealth of information because she has taken time to read and study Colorado Statutes and our governing documents.

Mr. Matt Clark, summarized Ms. Jones statement making it clear that, in fact, homeowners CAN make changes to the POHOA policy. And, while Director Ballweber has done her best to make sure that “homeowners” cannot do this at Board Meetings, she also prevented me, AS A DIRECTOR, from influencing the agenda at 7 consecutive meetings.

This, in turn, resulted in a comment from the original homeowner who began the exchange on 11/8, and she kind of went off on Director Ballweber for making unilateral decisions on the agenda, as well as how meetings are notified and scheduled. She made the point that the meeting on 11/8 was being held at NOON on Election Day, which is terribly inconvenient to many people – because not everyone is retired.

“I’m perturbed with you about that.”

Director Ballweber’s response was weak. She claimed that no matter when meetings are scheduled, “someone” would complain. Therefore, it is implied that those who find it wrong to hold meetings mid-day WITHOUT ANY ZOOM/REMOTE ACCESS are simply going to have to accept that scheduling. Tough luck.

Her final comment before Director Ballweber spoke was ominous: “I know you are driving the ship. But, if you don’t …. you’re going to have a mutiny here.”

Director Ballweber then denied “driving the ship”. And, as I’ve mentioned on this blog several times, my experience as a Director serving with her is that – she absolutely is. The agenda is decided by her unilaterally, and any attempt to put anything (landscaping, snow plowing, lack of financial reports) onto the agenda is responded to with . . . anger. But, then also deflection, as she attempt to constantly deflect to “the board”, which at this point, is two people.

The mutiny being referred to here is, of course, Removal of a Director per CRS 7-128-108. We just did this in a Kangaroo Court with botched notice on 10/20/22 that is now well documented. Not only was the Petition solicited under false pretenses and the notice given to the wrong place and date (which drove down participation), but the Petitioner’s representative, Mr. Flanary, did not even present a single factual allegation warranting removal. In fact, it all points to consolidation of power to avoid . . . . anyone influencing the agenda at meetings.

So, perhaps a mutiny is in order. I’d personally say this is premature, as there are 3 open seats on the Board, and politically, if members of the POHOA community were to get organized, they could both unseat Director Ballweber from control of TWO Officer positions (President and Secretary), which are warranted for cause at this point. The incompetence is obvious and documented.

But, there’s another outstanding issue raised at the beginning of the 11/8 meeting which begs for action – Director Ballweber and Director Jones have refused to determine whether they are serving which of the 1, 2, and 3-year terms. It is quite possible that, in a normal HOA, Director Ballweber would have drawn the short straw (offered at the 10/20 meeting, literally) and be facing re-election.

Homeowners who agree that the agenda should be determined by homeowners for the Annual HOMEOWNER’s Meeting should use the powers that they affirmed at the 2019 Annual Meeting, and vote to ensure that before any new Directors are elected, that we know the terms of the existing directors. It may be the easiest way for a mutiny to remove a Director who is viewed as making all of our decisions unilaterally. It’s not just my opinion, but one that is growing throughout the community.

Director Ballweber was contacted on 11/8 for comment, and has not responded to emails prior to publishing. I will edit or publish another article if she does. She is also welcome to use the comments section below on this blog.