Timeline of Election Events

The following is the timeline of events as related to the election of new board members at the August 2, 2008 elections.

August 2, 2008 the election was conducted. Within two days the BOD discovered two types of irregularities with the ballots. The first was the fact that there were 22 ballots with the same handwriting. It has been claimed that the BOD destroyed the ballots and that they no longer exist. This is not true. The association’s secretary is required by our bylaws (Article VI, D.) to keep those ballots on file for a period of not less than one year. They were not destroyed and are currently a part of the association’s records. The second was the fact one individual, holding five proxies, was not a member in good standing due to unpaid association dues yet voted at the meeting. Our major concern was the 22 ballots.

August 15, 2008 the entire BOD met with the association’s legal counsel. The BOD reviewed the suggested course of action over a two to three day period with the majority decision being to follow the attorney’s recommendations.

August 19, 2008. I submitted a letter of explanation to the BOD for their review and approval. This letter was approved by the majority within two days. Copies were provided to Mr. Aschauer and Mrs. Mueller via hand delivery on the 22nd or 23rd and mailed to the membership over the weekend. In that letter it was clearly communicated that the BOD hoped someone would step forward with an explanation to help shed some light on the ballot discrepancy.

On August 27, 2008 I received a phone call from a member stating he was aware of the situation and offering to mediate a meeting with the goal of resolving the dispute. I stated the BOD was in favor of such a meeting and told him if we could get an affidavit from the individuals involved explaining the ballot discrepancy I felt the BOD would be willing to accept the election results.

By August 29, 2008 it was fast becoming obvious that the possibility of a mediated meeting was fading fast. On that day, via email, I asked the BOD their opinion on establishing direct contact with one of the individuals reported to have knowledge of the situation. Contacting this individual was a bit risky because the BOD, as a group, and I, personally, had already received threats of legal action from this person.

On August 30, 2008 I sent a certified letter to Mrs. Mueller advising her BOD would welcome any input she might provide concerning the election ballot discrepancy.

On September 4, 2008 I received a letter from Mrs. Mueller with a parenthetical reference to the fact that there should have been 22 ballots in her handwriting. This was the first time Mrs. Mueller offered any information regarding her part in the election discrepancy. While far from the explanation the BOD had hoped for we decided to move forward and put the entire situation behind us.

On that same day, September 4, 2008, Mrs. Mueller was advised via email the BOD was accepting the results of the election as valid and would move forward.

Five days later, on September 9, 2008, both candidates were notified via US mail that they would be appointed at the next BOD meeting.

Two days later, September 11, 2008, the BOD received notification of the legal action.

This is the reality of the situation – The BOD had committed to appointing both candidiates to the BOD at the next meeting. That commitment would have resolved the tied election problem in the quickest manner possible AND fulfilled the commitment the BOD made to appoint the individual receiving the second most votes at the next BOD meeting.

It is also clear that both candidates had full knowledge the BOD had accepted the results of the election as valid and was discussing the different possibilities of getting both on the BOD in a timely manner four days before filing the lawsuits.