I was writing to Buck Hammond for comment on one of my last articles, The Niners Case for 9 Board Members, and he wrote back a directive: Let Democracy Work.
The context was difficult to discern, so I’ve to rely upon inferring what he meant by it. I mean, certainly the examination of the reasons to revisit the number of board members couldn’t be a challenge to democracy, could it?
So, here’s the full context:
“I feel the HOA membership can make their own decision on number of board members. I have made it clear to Matt I think adding two more people (Gloria and Monty both polled well at the Special mtg and I would support them) to the board would be realistic. That can be decided at the General Meeting by the membership, let democracy work.”
Buck Hammond, 10/25/19 email
I thought it was odd, so I wrote back asking Buck to clarify, and as of this writing, I still have not heard back from him. But, over the past 3 days, I’ve had more time to consider what appears to be psychological projection.
For a brief review of recent events, the 8/27/19 Special Meeting had at least 7 democratic votes (beyond the votes on various motions) during the meeting. The community voted to remove the existing board, it voted to have 5 new board members, and then there were 5 separate elections for each of the board members.
Now, the Niners have expressed at several meetings that the votes were not legitimate, yet, none are willing to document for the entire community the basis on which this judgment is being made. The arguments made at the 8/27/19 meeting I posted in the last article on the subject, and I’m copying them here:
- Irve made a motion to keep the bylaws “as stated”
- Patty said the board “started with 9” [for the record, it was raised from 3 to 5 in February 2017, then 5 to 9 in November of 2017]
- The more people working, the more work gets done (Patty)
- More diversity leads to closer votes (Patty)
- It’s a good group ratio for board to community (Patty)
- Representation will be limited (Walker)
- The current wishes of the community is to have 9 board members (Walker)
- The community was not advised about having their representation limited (Walker)
Beyond this, I’ve only heard and witnessed variations on a theme: The community needs to “heal”, and the only avenue to healing is by the board changing the number of board members to 9 from 5, and appointing persons from their “side” or “group”.
Since contacting Buck, this has become bifurcated. Buck says he’s an island to himself, and that his position is completely different than the “group” who is aggressive, and that he wants no association with the Niners. Buck agrees that the board member number should be changed . . . to 7, not 9. And, he specifically wants Gloria and Monty added because they “polled well” at the last meeting.
“I am not a member of, nor do I know about, any group advocating any particular position. I am off the island and cool with it. My group is singular. Please do not associate me with any position but my own.”
Buck Hammond, 10/25/19 email
Of course, it’s also valid to say that Gloria and Monty lost in 5 consecutive elections. It’s only an opinion, but clearly, if the community wished to have them on the board, and their prior “polling” was a consideration, you would have thought they would have been chosen in board member positions 2, 3, 4 or 5. But, they weren’t. It was a democratic decision to choose persons other than them.
The question is whether or not people who lose an election should be given an extra seat because they came close enough. While Buck is not putting it that way, it’s effectively what he’s advocating. And, while he wants no association with those who would threaten the current democratically elected board with litigation and intimidation, his position is identical – neither the Niners or Buck want to let democracy work.
Never mind, for instance, that the current Board appears to be working diligently, efficiently, and effectively. Never mind that they have avoided all controversy, and appear to be following all statutes and governing documents. For some reason, the democratic decision by the community, which was an actual majority of 44-20 votes, needs to be revisited at the next meeting in November.
And, if you ask the Niners or Buck exactly why, you are told you aren’t letting democracy work?
My personal perspective is different, in that I worked with and was part of the Board that I believe acted in undemocratic ways. The Board of 2018 didn’t announce when or where it’s meetings were happening until it was pointed out that this was non-compliance with CCIOA. Then, when we finally got agreement on the fact that we had to publish the time, date, and location, those same board members looked for the absolute minimum requirements by statute and argued against sending email notices, or doing anything beyond posting a document on a page the Board also knew more than half the community never visited on the website.
In fact, Irve Denenberg actually resigned over his self-described meltdown over protesting sending an email to the community about the 12/18/18 Board Meeting. The same aggression was are observing now was directed at myself and Keith Knight, and a formal complaint about the matter was never addressed by the board.
Loading…
Reload document 
Open in new tab So, when Buck got up and declared that the Board he oversaw as President, and then the next for which he was Treasurer, “could not be more democratic”, I challenge the notion.
In fact, part of the problem is the concept of a “republic”, which Walker Flanary gave a speech about in response to a question about whether or not the owners could overrule the board at any time. Walker stated that the only participation owners have in our democracy is the once-annual vote for board members. After that, the board could and would act freely without interference from the owners – and their only remedy would be to either vote them out in a Special Meeting or after their term expired 3 years later.
This is clearly not the case, and upon challenging the notion the day after last year’s annual meeting, I wrote up a rebuttal of the concept. Only Keith Knight responded positively. And, Buck rejected the idea that it was ever possible until our HOA attorney, Pete Dauster, wrote his infamous “as surprising as it may be” email, confirming that the owners, could, in fact, overrule the board per our governing documents.
But, there are more examples. When we attempted to use Robert’s Rules of Order, there was pushback from the same persons who are suddenly trying to portray themselves as perfectly democratic. Robert’s Rules are the foundation of democracy, in that they direct us specifically on how to run our meetings. And, they carry with them the principle of “the minority shall be heard”.
But, by first ignoring a “shall” requirement of the use of Robert’s Rules, the Board under Buck, Maryann, and Walker all controlled board and owner meetings in such a way that all dissent would be either avoided or dismissed. And, worse, when all efforts to dissent against their non-compliance with CCIOA was stopped within the board, they also went out of their way to try to use their “authority” to stop the dissent from being known by the owners themselves. None of this is democratic in the least.
There’s a pattern here that I’ve noticed over the past 3 years. There’s always a keyword you will hear independently from several people. At once time, the word was “consistency”. Go back and look at meeting minutes, emails, and even announcements to the community. They advocated that the correct way to govern an HOA was “consistency”.
The problem is that none of them read Article IX Section 6, which literally states that the board has no such requirement to be “consistent” in it’s decisions. It literally states that just because Dick gets approval on his paint color doesn’t mean Jane does. There is context, and the board (and it’s committees) are free to judge each situation within context, and that one owner might get a different decision than another. It’s black and white.
This isn’t the only example, but the purpose here is to raise the point, and not exhaustively list all the examples. Over and over, Walker, Irve, and even Buck have a keyword in their presentations. Whether this is coordinated, or whether they just influence each other’s language subconsciously, you can tell what is the underlying theme of their efforts by listening to which words stick out.
As we head into this meeting, there appears to be two words that are coming up frequently: “healing” and “democracy”. As the Niners+Buck full court press the current board members about revisiting a legitimate democratic decision, they have been appealing to emotions stating that they represent “concerned owners” who believe adding representatives from their group (with Buck’s uncoordinated support), namely Gloria and Monty, will facilitate “healing”. In other words, they will feel better about decisions made by the new board if they have additional votes.
Patty Flanary actually gave a candid insight into this purpose. She stated on 8/27/19 that she saw “diversity” on the board leading to a “closer vote”. So, we can extrapolate from this that the Niners, who are advocating 4 additional board members, and Buck, who is advocating 2 additional board members, are anticipating opposing generically some or most of the agenda of the current board, and they’d prefer that instead of a 5-0 vote on a matter, that they register their dissent to make the vote 5-4 or 5-2.
Why would this matter if the outcome of the vote is the same?
Next keyword: “Healing”.
Again, we only have inference to work with, as neither the Niners nor Buck care to articulate the positive message or platform that they are advocating. Instead, they appeal to our emotions, and are suggesting “healing”, as though all persons in the community will experience this “healing”.
But, I, for one, would challenge that notion. As I’ve alluded to in the article about the Planting Party, when I was told I was not welcome at the planning meeting by the Landscape Committee (under threat of all other members quitting if I showed up), I wrote to Gloria to see if we could do some healing of our own. And, I got no response at all – crickets.
So, forgive me for my cynicism, but I raise these points because I don’t find the concept of “healing” to be some universal goal. If I can be more coarse in my vernacular, I’d say the Niners are butt-hurt, per urban definitions, and Google.
butt·hurt
Google Search for “butthurt”
/ˈbətˌhərt/
INFORMAL•US
adjective
overly or unjustifiably offended or resentful.
“they’re all butthurt that she released the album online first”
noun
an excessive or unjustifiable feeling of personal offense or resentment.
“it’s time to get over the butthurt from last year’s playoffs”
The Niners+Buck are asking the general community of Poudre Overlook HOA, which went through an emotional experience of their own which should have been resolved by their legitimate use of CRS 7-128-108 to remove the entire board and elect a new board, democratically choosing the size and members, to now revisit the number of board members because, well, they want those who lost the election to be on the board anyways?
And, at the same time, are implying to those of us asking for a more objective reason to have 7 or 9 board members, that asking them questions about what their appeal will be to “let democracy work”?
Well, to be clear, anyone can make a motion at our annual meetings at the appropriate time per Robert’s Rules of Order. And, we can then discuss and debate the topic again. But, it does raise the question about why, when there are still other issues that struggle to make the agenda, why this deserves our time and attention again, particularly after a clear majority voted for 5 board members just 60 days ago. And, I’m not getting a response from the Niners or Buck, nor is anyone else.
I welcome any rebuttals or comments, and if there is any information within this article that is not correct, I welcome your corrections. Please indicate whether you wish to be cited or quoted, and email to poudreoverlook@gmail.com.