NOTHING TO HIDE? POHOA Board Votes Down Adding “Private Sales Policy” To Agenda

At the July 11, 2023 Regular Board Meeting, Dr. John Tunna, a sitting Director, made a motion to add to the agenda a new Private Sales Policy. The official Meeting Minutes, which were only made known on September 8th, are scant on details. The record only shows that it was voted down by Directors Flanary and Jones, but does not record what the argument was against allowing it on the agenda.

The author of these Meeting Minutes is our Secretary, Director Flanary. He was also the Secretary in 2018, when we had the same problem with transparency. It’s not laziness or an oversight – he’s debated with me ad infinitum that Meeting Minutes should not include information that would tell homeowners WHAT was being debated – only that a debate occurred. He argues for DELIBERATELY hiding the information from those could not attend the meeting – forever. Combined with a refusal to allow open electronic access via Zoom and banning recording of meetings, this information remains hidden – even when the POHOA Board is asked directly what happened.

In this instance, the absence of a clear and specific definitions and policy leads to a dispute over interpretations. Even when it is pointed out to the POHOA Board that according to VF-Law, less than 5 HOAs out of 12,000+ in Colorado have ever attempted stretching “home occupation” clauses to cover Private Sales, the Board will not relent and put into place a policy – using the proper process to put such a policy in place. Instead, President Ballweber is dictating policy – without even evidence of an AWAM vote.

In a recent email copied to Colorado Legislators, the DORA HOA Information Officer, and Denver Post, President Ballweber ended the email with the phrase “we have nothing to hide”.

While stating “we do not know how to be any more clear”, President Ballweber continues to take a path of cryptic messaging, opaque processes, and digs her self a deeper illogical hole with each communication. In one short email, she claims that, somehow, without any facts or evidence, our sale “disguised” a “commercial business” as a yard/garage sale. What, exactly, was the disguise? And, what, exactly, proves it was actually a “commercial business”?

I’ve asked, and President Ballweber keeps that information hidden.

She then offers her definition of a garage/yard sale under color of policy. How, exactly, did that definition become OUR POHOA Official Definition?

I’ve asked, and President Ballweber keeps that information hidden.

She then claims to have some vague power to “deem” something a “commercial business”? Is that with a vote? Was it at an open meeting? Executive Session? Action Without A Meeting?

Well, there is no such power to “deem” an activity a “commercial business”. You’d have to name the business entity, and then provide not just factual proof, but evidence that you considered factual proof before a vote.

I’ve asked for the meeting minutes or AWAM documentation. President Ballweber keeps that information hidden.

But, then President Ballweber than goes on to make the absurd claim that “commerical businesses are in violation of our CCRs”, which is not true. Our governing documents make clear that “home occupations” which are, in fact, “commercial businesses”, are also in fact explicitly allowed. And, in my original article on the subject, I pointed out that a hair salon was allowed to operate for over a decade – including after it was brought to the attention of the Board in a formal manner.

We have also learned, from Mr. Clark’s written testimony before the 9/6 “hearing”, that a homeowner on Headwater operated, again for more than a decade, a business selling nuts – including soliciting sales door-to-door. But, once again, if you are on the Board or close friends with Board members, the rules are not applied consistently.

In this case, however, there is no evidence of an actual “commercial business” operating at our sale. It’s just my wife and I selling seedlings from our driveway and front porch – as we have, without threats of fines, again for over a decade. We’ve asked for the proof, and if it exists, it’s being hidden by President Ballweber. That’s problematic if the POHOA Board chooses to levy a fine, we contest it, and we wind up in court – because “deeming” isn’t going to meet the court’s burden of proof. You can’t just say it LOOKS like a business – particularly when the photograph and written testimony contradict the claim.

So, if the POHOA Board wishes to maintain the claim of “we have nothing to hide”, there’s quite a bit that needs to be revealed. Or an explanation what legitimate powers or authorities they are using to keep them hidden.

The POHOA Board has been contacted for request on this and the prior articles on this subject, and thus far has not responded at all. I will update this page if any response is received.