Latest attempt to control the narrative 

An Attempt to Restrict My Ability to Communicate with Homeowners

At the August 26 Open Board Meeting, Vice President Marina Williams made a motion that would have required an individual director to obtain Board approval before receiving homeowner membership information.

The discussion began after management reported receiving a verbal complaint(s) about an email I had sent to homeowners. I repeatedly asked how many homeowners had complained—even approximately—but management would not provide a number.

What Was the Purpose of Marina's Motion?

Marina proposed removing directors' export privileges in Vantaca (Avalon's Board Portal), placing that authority with management, and requiring purpose and Board approval before an individual director could obtain membership information.

Marina emphasized that the restriction would apply to every director.

But that misses the real issue:

The real issue is: Who gets to decide.

The same Board majority that has used Association resources to publicize accusations about me would have been given the power to decide whether I—or another dissenting director—could obtain membership information to communicate independently with homeowners.

After the Board's May 5th letter, in my response communication, I warned against using the Association as both a sword and a shield: a sword to make accusations through official Association communications and a shield to restrict the ability of the person being accused to respond.

Now, a motion was proposed that would have given the Board majority even greater control over a dissenting director's access to the membership.

Why I Have Emailed Homeowners

The Board majority has twice used official Association resources to send Community-wide communications containing false accusations about me. I responded to those communications and provided homeowners with supporting documentation so they could evaluate both sides for themselves.

I have also communicated directly with homeowners on occasions when I believed I was being prevented from adequately responding during Board meetings.

I make no apology for defending myself.

Homeowners Already Have Protections

California law allows an Association member to request the membership list for a purpose reasonably related to their interests as a member. Homeowners can also opt out of having their contact information included.

I stated during the meeting that when a homeowner has personally asked me not to email them, I have honored that request.

And one important fact was lost in the discussion:

I have never downloaded or exported the homeowner list from Vantaca.

When I requested the membership list, I did it the same way any homeowner can—I asked management for it, and management provided it.

So removing my ability to export information from Vantaca would not have prevented what Marina was objecting to. I wasn't using Vantaca to obtain the list.

Why This Should Concern Every Homeowner

In my opinion, that is not good governance. It is controlling dissent. 

A Board majority already controls the Association's official communications. Giving that same majority the power to decide whether a dissenting director can independently obtain membership information and communicate another perspective begins to look disturbingly dictatorial.

I use that word deliberately.

This is bigger than whether someone agrees with me, Marina, or any current Board member. No Board majority should have the power to control both the message homeowners receive and whether a dissenting voice can effectively respond to it.

Today that dissenting voice may be mine. Tomorrow it could be another director who questions a Board decision, challenges how Association money is being spent, or simply disagrees with the majority.

Good governance does not require everyone to agree. It requires allowing different viewpoints to be heard. When the response to disagreement is to restrict the dissenter's access to information or ability to communicate, that should concern every homeowner.

Fortunately, Marina's motion failed 2–2.

Lee and I voted NO. Marina and Jessica voted YES.

California law specifically protects HOA members' ability to communicate with one another about Association matters. It also allows members to request the Association's membership list for a purpose reasonably related to their interests as members, while allowing individual homeowners to opt out of having their information shared. See Civil Code §§ 4515, 5200 and 5225. 

What Marina proposed is Dictatorial because Dictatorships Control Communications.  Today it's me - tomorrow it could be you or ANYONE that disagrees with just 3 fellow homeowners that happen to be board members.