At the 8/12/20 Poudre Overlook HOA Board Meeting, I spoke about the topic of hiring a Property Management Company. Jen Hutchinson, in her typical foot-in-mouth dismissive manner, blurted out “we know you are against a property management company” to discredit my comments. She’s neither accurate or a mind-reader.
I think the fact that I was one of the persons who advocated self-governance in 2016, when Kellison abruptly quit after being caught for not following the rules by Perry Malisani is a factor. Many of us, in fact an actual majority of us felt this way at that time. We had hope that our community could actually come together. And, for a time, it did. They didn’t fire us: they could not admit an error, quit, and avoided further scrutiny and documentation of their actions. It is a false narrative. I wish I could say more.
If you lived in Poudre Overlook in 2017, we had significant participation, and in the face of a potential jump in costs due to errors made over the previous 10 years while Kellison was “guiding” the Association, the fence maintenance and repairs were neglected (which will now cost us up to $200k), and no one noticed that we were paying a huge amount for water because the original water allotment wasn’t done properly. Keith Knight gets huge credit for giving this community notice, and guiding us to good decisions to deal with both of these.
Our troubles began in 2018 when the current loose assembly of Poudre Overlook Advocates and their sympathizers and silent boosters decided to stack the Board with people they presumed would be their patsies, and decided to justify their large numbers on the Board by trying to create enforcement actions that were not executed properly. We don’t have to re-litigate this in the court of public opinion, because the Recall Committee documented it for consideration at the 8/27/19 Special Meeting:
Loading…
Reload document 
Open in new tab Once they were removed from the Board, but not the Architectural Control Committee, they formed a group that ambushed the new Board on 9/26/19 at Irve Denenberg’s home. Matt Clark, the President, was threatened and told he needed to move out of the neighborhood.
Then Irve sent out an anonymous email in the name of this POA group the day before a vote was set up to accommodate their aggressive pressure-campaign to be added back to the Board. And, it was soundly rejected by an actual majority of this community (46 votes). And, at the same meeting, the community firmly established that the Board serves the Owners, and doesn’t rule over them to the chagrin of Walker Flanary and Buck Hammond, who stormed out of the meeting and didn’t even participate in the re-election of Board members that followed.
Herb Weatherington, who truly cares deeply about the people of this community and demonstrates it with his service and actions, gave a heartfelt speech about this history last night, and said that his support of hiring Trademark was based upon putting an end to this nightmare and nonsense.
I do understand the sentiment, and as someone who has been on the retaliatory receiving end of POA’s outrageous conduct, and knows that Matt Clark suffered for being empathetic to not only my plight, but that of the Bruckers, Campbells, and others who suffered months of emotional distress because of their actions. I am in alignment with the goal: To put an end to this environment of hostility.
What we disagree upon is how that is accomplished. I advocated since May of 2019, based upon my experience with Irve and Walker, in particular, that it would take the use of C.R.S. 7-128-109 to bar their participation.
‘A director may be removed by the district court for the county in this state in which the address of the nonprofit corporation’s principal office is located or, if the nonprofit corporation has no principal office in this state, by the district court for the county in which the street address of its registered agent is located, or, if the nonprofit corporation has no registered agent, by the district court for the city and county of Denver, in a proceeding commenced either by the nonprofit corporation or by voting members holding at least ten percent of the votes entitled to be cast in the election of such director’s successor, if the court finds that the director engaged in fraudulent or dishonest conduct or gross abuse of authority or discretion with respect to the nonprofit corporation, or a final judgment has been entered finding that the director has violated a duty set forth in part 4 of this article, and that removal is in the best interests of the nonprofit corporation.’
CO Rev Stat § 7-128-109 (2016)
I met with Matt Clark, who acted as a liaison with the Recall Committee, and he spend hundreds of hours pouring through my documentation, which is admittedly long, to help them verify and validate the truthfulness of my concerns, and boil them down into 12 concise grievances.
Note that Grievances numbered 2, 3, 4, 8, and 10 are all reasonable claims that meet the standard to substantiate use of CRS 7-128-109 to barring participation. And, we certainly don’t have to use a court to do this, as Robert’s Rules of Order clearly provide the same powers to bar participation at in-person meetings. There is a reasonable argument that such actions are necessary – but, instead, we are first going to try to hire a neutral party for nearly $6000 a year because we choose not to use these powers or mechanisms.
What I advocated for was that we use the 109 process instead of the 108 Special Meeting removal process because I knew that POA could not and would not be shamed by their removal. I knew they would be angered, go door to door with narrative of victimhood, and then retaliate against those who took such actions and not bend to their bullying. But, I was told to let the process work, and it would all be fine.
So, while I retained an attorney and my right to litigate, I let that process play out. And, while I anticipated some things, it’s the extreme actions, including physical assault and the near-brawls at open in-person meetings that actually exceeded my expectations. In fact, by December, I became worried that the ongoing threats, intimidation, and harassment I was experiencing while in my own backyard and inside my home was going to escalate.
I asked the Board to take decisive action after Matt Clark resigned, and they declined. I have not posted on this blog since then. And, now we are in litigation – and I am forbidden from explaining further while it is in process.
So, it may seem odd to Jen Hutchinson that I would support anything that this Board is doing. In this era of polarized politics, I suppose a person that has a full-size cut-out of Paul Ryan might suppose that a person like me just takes a stand against any and all positions of the other PERSON, and doesn’t actually thoughtfully consider the matters on their merits. That is projection and a tell, not the truth.
Keith Knight, who I nominated to be President of the HOA in December of 2018, told me that while in law enforcement, he had professional training in profiling. I asked him to profile me, and he said I was a “moderate”. As someone who grows has grown his hair for donations to those in need for 25 years (because it grows 1″ a month) and has donated over 10 feet of hair, I am frequently astounded at how people treat me based upon the length of my hair -assuming they know everything about me due to my appearance – even when I have shaved my head. It was beyond comforting to know that Keith, with his professional training, could see at least part of the real me.
This is the type of impartial, gifted, and wise person we need on our Board. And I am very grateful for his ongoing participation and guidance as we go through yet another change. I wish he would serve again, honestly.
So, in my narrative, I see the prospect of hiring a Property Management Company (PMC) to have the potential to invite a known problem back into our community. After spending more than a year working with Colorado State Legislators on the process of holding such firms accountable because there is a widespread pattern of abuse, corruption, and even worse outcomes than we have experienced requiring a change in statutes and the creation of a regulatory agency to enforce rules on that industry, the fact of the matter is that COVID has caused delays in that process that are indeterminate in time. If you know when the pandemic will end, you know when that effort can truly begin again. Property Management Companies are NOT all good, and even Pete Dauster, our HOA Attorney gave this Board advice on who to avoid – clearly, the assessment of it being a field of landmines is not a poor metaphor.
So, after hearing on 8/12/20 at the Board meeting that Trademark had been selected, I reached out to David Rand, the owner, and spoke to him about his approach to managing HOAs. I asked him questions about the law and his understanding of them, how he would handle certain situations, and his overall philosophies. He made a very good impression, and I got a ton of confidence that he was actually an expert, that he understand the gray areas and nuance, but most of all, he would be impartial and neutral when he would need to be. And, more importantly, his team would carry these values forward if they were chosen to work with us.
This was very comforting. And, while I was prepared to give credit to the Board for selecting this company from the 3 finalists and did so. But, Jen just couldn’t resist undermining her own argument, and basically communicated that the choice was made for them. It’s too bad – if Trademark is the company we choose, it will be a good one overall.
But, here is the problem I see ahead: This isn’t going to actually address the problem with ongoing POA negativity. It only puts a firewall between the Board and this group. And, some would argue me, I’m sure. I’m self-aware of the sentiments of some owners who are influenced by alternate narratives.
The problem is that until we have documents that give clear-cut guidance to both the Board and Owners vs. endless arguments over the topics that they are silent on or are so poorly written, two people can arrive at entirely different conclusions over the same exact words, Trademark only has the ability to play a role that is neutral.
I asked last night if they would be arbiters, mediators, referees or consultants. Clearly, no one on the Board has thought this through, and I was disappointed that they were not prepared for the question. They think Trademark will just give them the right answers, and POA will magically stop doing what they are doing. Maybe they are right, but I think it is as foolish as it was to presume that removing Walker from the Board wouldn’t result in him claiming illegal elections, and then threatening the new board on a daily basis.
Painted lines will not keep the boundaries on this road. You need concrete barriers.
So, for the sake of documenting what I feel is necessary going forward, I can narrow it to a few bullet points:
- Establishment of an enforceable Code of Conduct
- Written Homeowner Rights with due process for homeowners
- A clear and written process and protection of whistleblowers who notice misconduct
- Penalties for retaliation of any kind
- A policy for non-discriminatory (ie consistent) actions by the Board
- Adherence to the Fair Housing Act requirements to prevent Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment Harassment (Oct. 2016)
- Adherence to the standard of judging grievances from the perspective of the aggrieved as required by the Fair Housing Act
Trademark understands and agrees with these principles, and that gives me confidence, and that is a major factor in my support of hiring THIS firm (not just any Property Management Company). The concept that any PMC would be the solution is mistaken and misguided. There are many bad companies out there, and we already experienced one of them in my opinion.
Unfortunately, my support is not to be misconstrued as agreement that it will solve our current dilemma. My support is based upon empathy for the current Board members who are suffering what all 18 of us that they are calling out experienced – it takes way too much volunteer time when we have elements like POA in our mix. And, I think we have to expect that if POA finally stops, someone else can always move in and say they were President of their former HOA for 10 years, and tell us we’ve all got it wrong, again.
The solution, as I have written about ad infinitum is to institutionalize the solution so that no matter who we elect, we can more easily hold them accountable or remove them – and not be subjected to the horrendous retaliation that has led so many to suffer the past 2 years. Enough, is enough.
Therefore, because I think the current Board needs a break, and that Trademark is not just competent, but excels at what they do, we are best served by bringing them in. My hope is that David and his team can help us quickly get that institutional changes by revising documents in place, and we can at least have some boundaries that are not going to result in more people getting pulled into this mud.
If you think, however, your vote for hiring them is the end of the work for any of us, I’d urge you to reconsider. This is still going to take a significant amount of volunteer work to do it, and I do trust we have plenty of people who are willing to contribute once POA is no longer a threat to the peaceful enjoyment of our homes.