The POHOA Board Shoots Itself in the Foot at the 4/13/21 Board Meeting

The Board meeting was a marathon 2.5 hour meeting that addressed a very long long list of agenda items that probably made some wonder why monthly meetings were abandoned. If you were unable to attend and would like to listen, you still can – because they failed to continue the ill-conceived ban on recording meetings announced at the 1/27/21 meeting. In fact, all they did was bar themselves (The Board) from making the recordings, giving up full control over a master copy.

Listen here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZuIdDWXdjvsHYtG_E_mEWkQ0_1r97kaF/view?usp=sharing

Just 2 weeks prior to the new quarterly Board Meeting on 4/13/21, the Board chose to send out a new Anti-Harassment Policy. Mr. Walker Flanary was first to publish his comments in advance of the meeting with a letter mailed to all homeowners in which he argued that POHOA has no purpose or powers to intervene in matters that harm the physical or mental health of other members.

While I had asked a few general questions in advance, the main thing I wanted to know is whether or not they would consider amending it prior to voting on it. Trademark never responded with anything more than saying I could submit comments at the meeting. In other words, pound sand.

Because Mr. Flanary had taken the lead on pointing out flaws, I wondered whether any of us would see a detailed response from the Board. Instead, they chickened out, and the day before the meeting canceled the vote.

And, of course, when you prefer not to discuss something on the already published agenda, the best way to do this is to put it at the end of the marathon meeting, after some have already left. Nearly half of those attending the meeting had dropped off the Zoom call by the time the subject matter finally came up.

What we learned at this meeting is that the Document Revision project, which began in January of 2017 (with the formation of the CCR Committee, having 3 members: Buck Hammond, Walker Flanary, and yours truly, Andrew Mowery) is now indefinitely tabled. Ms. Gloria Jones, who somehow got appointed into the leadership role for this committee back in 2019, had said it could be done for $2000-4000 based upon a quote.

Now, however, we learned that Ms. Jones had gotten the quote informally “from a friend”, and that upon getting actual quotes from actual attorneys who would do the work, that the new estimate is $7,000 to $10,000!

And, if this work is estimated in a similar manner to the fence repairs/replacement, it is quite likely that this will be a boondoggle that will exceed $20,000.

When asked to state the reason for this document revision, once again, we get vague references to “conflicts” in the documents, but they never actually say what is conflicting with what – and why we can’t live with it. But, the refrain is always the same – Our documents still have the word “declarant” in there. And, we are supposed to bless an open-ended tens-of-thousands boondoggle for these purposes?

As one of the persons who actually took the time to read the entirety of our governing documents AND seek expert advice and education, I do agree that certain elements should be amended. But, not the entirety of the documents. I think there is much in there that is worth preserving – and their manner of choosing who gets a say in this process leads me to believe that there is an agenda that isn’t being disclosed to the rest of us.

For instance, the PURPOSE of the HOA is clearly stated. It’s not for pecuniary gain or profit, literally, as many assume. So, I wrote about this in a separate article. But, the purpose DOES include the heath and welfare of the membership – and that means there’s a duty and obligation to get involved in neighbor to neighbor disputes Ms. Hutchinson prefers to describe in dismissive and diminutive terms like “kerfuffles”.

Ms. Heather Philips did give an excellent summary of the FHA law that was both the basis for my litigation as well as complaint before the Colorado Civil Rights Division (which are both ongoing). It would appear that the Board, which openly admitted at the meeting to have not even bothered to read the changes in FHA law (which were announced 4.5 years ago, in October of 2016) that make intervention in such disputes a matter of law. She correctly identified the law, and the fact that timely intervention is necessary. But, you’ll notice on the recording that no Board members either contradict her (as they have done in the lawsuit and CCRD responses), accused her of being wrong or “crazy”, nor did they concur. They were silent – probably because they realize they’ve now painted themselves into a corner on the issue.

But, we have several attorneys in our neighborhood who act, ethically or not, as our legal experts. And, both stood up and said that the HOA has no obligation or duty to get involved in disputes between people, even if they create an environment of harassment as defined by the FHA. They used the logical fallacy of slippery slope to advise the rest of us to not only reject the Anti-Harassment Policy the Board proposed, but any and all efforts to manage or modulate human behavior – in or out of meetings, in our common areas, or even in our backyards with others just over the fence.

It’s a good thing we can record these meetings, but the Board, once again, attempted to reverse course on their previous policy (approved 10/8/19) of allowing homeowners to record meetings. Their weak excuse was that Trademark has a policy against recording of meetings – and several homeowners spoke up about the concept of us having to follow Trademark’s policies or rules, not to mention the failure to disclose this policy prior to hiring them.

Mr. Matt Clark spoke up and said that homeowners weren’t breaking Colorado Law in recording meetings, nor could they prevent anyone on a Zoom meeting from doing the same. Mr. Walker Flanary raised the concern that homeowners with such recordings could edit them for nefarious purposes, but didn’t provide an example of when this has actually occurred.

So, the Board, recognizing that they were going down in flames again, decided to pass a new motion anyways – to restrict THEMSELVES from recording meetings. Literally, Mr. Flanary’s concern was ignored, because the best way to control editing is to have the primary and complete copy of the recording. They shot themselves in the foot, again.

That said, the recording I’m providing is unedited and complete.

Meanwhile, requests to Trademark to produce their written policy barring recordings, or what other HOAs this is applied to, have not received a response after nearly a week. It’s quite possible this was all a ruse to have the Board avoid having to say they reversed themselves.

But, here’s something I learned as a result of the information volunteered by Ms. Hutchinson in the Exhibits submitted to the CCRD: The actual direction to stop recording meetings came from Ms. Sutton, the attorney for American Family insurance who realized that such recordings were making it difficult to defend litigation, when Board members and former Board members kept contradicting themselves in court or investigation proceedings. Easy fix: Ban recordings.

But, this is a topic that is deeper than it seems. In fact, the issue stems from the fact that Ms. Hutchinson has submitted Sworn Affidavits to CCRD that contain false exculpatory statements that are contradicted by recordings of the 6/13/19 Board meeting – recordings available to the Board prior to creating such Affidavits. This is something which will require a separate article, to describe just how poorly executed this attempt at deceiving a state investigator was done.

More importantly, however, is the fact that all of this has been under the review of Rep. Brianna Titone, who is the sponsor of legislation to reform CCIOA. And, one of these reforms is to guarantee the right to record such meetings. When this was raised, Ms. Hutchinson retorted that the Board would only follow such laws when they are actually passed. This is a strong signal to Rep. Titone that unless legislators step in, Board members like Ms. Hutchinson, who are merely following the orders of the insurance company’s attorney, are likely to step all over the rights of homeowners who merely want an accurate record of what goes on at our meetings.

Now, there’s many other details about this meeting, from how we botched our snow removal when Solar Ridge, right next door to us, had no problems at all, to how we’ve collected far too little money to fully replace our fences with the money we put into reserves with 3 years of extra payments by homeowners. But, like the meeting, this article is already too long, and will require follow-ups to dive into the granular details.

Everyone thanked the Board for their service, which is proper, but there’s definitely a reason to be concerned with the plans going forward. We need more transparency and participation, and instead we are being told that we can’t participate in things like the document revision for reasons that don’t stand up to scrutiny. Or, at least I raised the point that Ms. Hutchinson turned in to the state emails from Mr. Dauster, our HOA attorney, that revealed I am being singled out for restriction on participation.

Ms. Hutchinson initially denied that Mr. Dauster had ever done such a thing, and I forwarded a copy of the email to the Board while the meeting was ongoing. But, none of them saw fit to admit it was an error.

Ms. Hutchinson also attempted to inform the community that my litigation, which faced a Motion to Dismiss was also being dismissed by the Court of Appeals. I waited for over 2 hours for her to correct herself, but eventually had to raise the issue of giving false information by reminding her that her Motion to Dismiss the Appeal was denied – weeks prior. There must be some reason she wanted it portrayed differently at the meeting, but I’m not holding my breath for it to be disclosed.

What is clear is that the Board didn’t accomplish what it set out to do before the meeting, and that it actually set itself back, both in terms of credibility and muddying up the agenda for the future with uninformed opinions masquerading as facts. Board meetings are not the time or place to have discussions about our purpose, vision, or values, and the Board is not providing the time or venue for such discussions to occur.

Until we are able to openly discuss these things in advance of meetings, it is unlikely that we will have efficient or productive meetings in the future. This Board needs to recommit itself to allowing the agenda for this community to be driven by the community, not by Trademark or outside Attorneys. I hope they’ve learned a lesson, and begin to open communications again.