POINT WELL TAKEN: Overcoming “Never Admit You Are Wrong” Attitudes

In Robert’s Rules of order, page 340 of the 12th Edition, the subject of a Point of Order is discussed. When the Chair is challenged by a member for having not followed a rule, one option for the Chair is to say that the point is “well taken” or “point well taken”. There’s a colloquial phrase “never admit you are wrong” that circulates in some business and professional circles, which is contrary to this principle in Robert’s Rules. I think this is central to the disputes that have arisen at Poudre Overlook HOA in the past 5 years.

While some have approached volunteering for the Board as a matter of service to the members that requires the humility and integrity of admitting and correcting errors. Others have acted as though being a Director or Officer is a position of power and authority – and admitting you are wrong would be a sign of weakness. Weakness dilutes power and authority, so it undermines the purpose of those serving in that frame of mind. 

There’s several ways to overcome “never admit you’re wrong” attitudes. Leading by example is a way to show admitting errors is not weakness, but actual strength. Another is to use facts and evidence, which should make it harder to deny what is wrong. Encouraging open and honest communication when there are differences of opinion or disputes of interpretation should also help facilitate civil resolution to such disputes. Continuous learning and improvement are also necessary, particularly when the underlying context is complex or confusing, and there is no formal training for those involved. But, most of all, empathy and respect for opposing points of view is a necessary component for such disputes to be resolved in an orderly manner.

Robert’s Rules of Order, then, which are required by the governing documents that everyone in Poudre Overlook HOA agreed to follow, has a simple formula for resolution. If someone in a position of power, the Chair, is challenged with a Point of Order and presented with facts and evidence contrary to their interpretation, communication should follow – not shutting them down. And, if the Chair still refuses to accept that they are objectively incorrect, a vote by the members should occur – because the Chair, or President, or even a Director, does not have any absolute powers or authorities. There is a check and balance. The right thing to say is “Point Well Taken”, and then to learn and improve from the experience.

My experience serving has been the polar opposite. While I have encountered several volunteers who exemplify the ideals, the vast majority of my experience, and the experience I’ve observed of some others, are individuals who simply refuse to admit they are ever wrong – even when all facts oppose their opinions. The retaliation that follows, sadly, mimics the politics of personal destruction we see in our political leaders from local to state to national. Instead of finding the best ideas for our community, we have individuals who insist their way or interpretation is the only way or the right way. 

Recently, I learned that my understanding of the percentage of votes necessary to remove a Director is not determined by the Association Bylaws, which is what the Non-Profit Act refers to when it says that removal is done with the same voting percentage used to elect a Director. Since our Bylaws elect Directors by majority-vote, I thought the statute and Bylaw were the only references necessary to investigate. I questioned Director Ballweber’s interpretation at the 10/20/22 meeting, where she said it was actually 67%. 

Director Tunna presented me with facts that supported Director Ballweber’s interpretation. CCIOA Section 303(8) actually requires that HOA Directors be removed by a vote of 67% “notwithstanding” any statements in the Bylaws. So, while the Non-Profit Act points to the Bylaws and says follow them, the relevant fact is that not all Non-Profit Corporations are HOAs. Therefore, while some Non-Profit Corporations can look to their Bylaws, HOAs cannot – and there’s no reference in either the Non-Profit Act or the Bylaws that tells you that what controls the interpretation is actually over in CCIOA. 

Therefore, I owe Director Ballweber an apology for having disputed her interpretation. While I felt I had fully researched the topic, what I needed to have done is a more thorough search of CCIOA which would have revealed the relevant passage. The point is well taken.

I have learned from this experience that it is often necessary to use keyword search functions for both the Non-Profit Act and CCIOA, even when it first appears that the answer lies in the first document searched. And, the ongoing lack of a searchable set of POHOA Governing documents significantly inhibits efficient searching for references locally. We cannot expect homeowners to self-educate in such a confusing environment, and we must have a continuous program of learning and education that is deliberate and inclusive. 

I have also learned that new tools that utilize Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies can often give the right answer in plain english using such platforms as ChatGPT. While such technologies offer exceptional advances in speed, however, inaccuracies can arise that require double-checking with the original documents and sources. But, there is no question that it can at least point research in the right direction, and narrow topics quickly for further analysis. I believe a successful HOA should have Directors who are willing to adapt to and embrace such technologies.

It is my hope that POHOA, as it considers yet another shakeup to the lineup of Directors, that we move towards a team that is capable of saying “Point Well Taken” when challenged with facts and evidence contrary to their opinions. The politics of cancel culture is toxic and divisive, and is imbalanced towards emotions over reason and logic. We do not need a Board that is uniform in opinion or agenda, but rather a Board that follows a deliberate policy that intends to resolve disputes, including by means of mutual agreement and resolution. The authoritarian approach, combined with a lack of transparency, is only taking us further and further away from this ideal.

I hope that these points are not just well taken by some POHOA homeowners, but that they are then reflected in future votes on issues and our leaders. Amending bylaws to automatically bar someone willing to serve others without cause, for the simple fact that they have a different opinion, take, agenda, or vision for our community is the antithesis to the approach I am advocating. And, I am quite concerned the majority of those participating in our collective decisions are emotionally committed to an approach that has significant pitfalls and downsides.