========= UPDATE ========= UPDATE ========= UPDATE =======
At the bottom, I’ve reprinted an e-mail I received Feb. 2 from George McFadden’s wife, Agnieszka McFadden.
First, the original post:
The homeowners in the Woodmoor Improvement Association east of Monument have spoken.
Or at least about 1,000 of the 3,000 who live there have spoken. And the king is dead. Long live the king.
The dead king, in the words of Woodmoor’s residents, is George McFadden, who was president of the WIA. The new king is Chuck Maher.
The emotional election featured dueling Web sites, like this one below.
Here’s a look at the Woodmoor Fact Check site, scrubbed of most of its campaign literature, post-election:
McFadden was kicked off the throne in a coup orchestrated by residents who spent several thousands of dollars and countless hours campaigning against him and his slate of candidates in the homeowners association’s recent annual election.
McFadden wasn’t up for re-election. But he needed his three candidates to win to retain power.
Instead, the “Save Woodmoor” crowd prevailed in a landslide. He’re’s a look at the vote totals:
Save Woodmoor slate:
Nick Oakley – 657
Paul Lambert – 656
Jim Hale – 648
McFadden slate:
Bill Brendemuhl – 466
Gary Marner – 437
George Labesky – 364
I’ve written a couple columns and blogs about Woodmoor.
There’s a good lesson in what transpired at Woodmoor. If a group can unite and energize a community as large as Woodmoor, throw out the incumbents and take control, then it can happen in any homeowners association.
======= Here’s the UPDATE:
From: Agnieszka McFadden
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 6:36 PM
Subject: SIDE STREETS: HOA election produces ‘Woodmoor Miracle’
What’s laughable is that you equate this election to the big win in MA. If you want to compare apples to apples, the big win of Brown can be equated to last year’s win for Woodmoor BOD, This year the Oakeleys, Lamberts and Hales simply regained the “old Kennedys’ seat” back, that’s it. Gestapo is in the house AGAIN.
Do you realize that 64% of residents did not even vote in this election? Nick Oakley, Paul Lambert and Jim Hale received 21% of residents’ vote while the incumbents (the good guys) received 15%. It’s pretty sad that Oakley, Lambert and Hale won by ONLY 6% considering they spent thousands of dollars in mailing over 3000 fliers, inserted fliers into newspapers, went door to door telling people what they wanted to hear, held special events (at the Country Club) to endorse their candidates, and attacked Mr McFadden multiple times with PURE LIES in the news papers. They fought dirty through this whole election campaign and I have no doubt will fight dirty with more attacks and lies about Mr McFadden while serving on this board . I have no respect for such people and I’m ashamed that this new majority of WIA board of directors will make major decisions regarding the future of Woodmoor.
I wish you’d stop publishing lies and attacks on Mr McFadden. Next time if you need a comment, you can can contact me and I’ll set the record straight for you, before you publish more slanderous attacks on Mr McFadden. Deal? What happened to reporters finding the truth and not being bias? No wonder news papers are going out of business.
Agnieszka McFadden.
=====================================================
Wow, that email from Mrs. McFadden is stunning. She calls her opposition “people that simply don’t like community events, trails, low fees, low assessments, or anything that is for the common good of Woodmoor?” and the “Gestapo”. It doesn’t sound like she has any understanding of the motivation of the majority of residents who voted in this election, including the very large number who showed up a the annual meeting.
Yes, only 36% of homeowners voted in the election, but that is very high by historical standards. Clearly the issues in this election struck a chord with a large minority of the community.
In truth, neither side here is the “Gestapo”. The McFadden group did a lot of work addressing accounting and legal issues, and presumably those were areas that had been neglected over the years. There was a clear effort by McFadden’s team to build more community involvement with the parties and with his newsletters, which were more detailed and frequent than in many years past. As residents, they clearly felt their approach was for the better of the community.
Unfortunately, it simply is not debatable that McFadden and his allies on the board made several important decisions without consulting with the stakeholders involved. One was the decision regarding the Firewise program. Whether you believe his summary of the issue (that the Board simply modified the legal structure of the relationship between WIA and Firewise) or that of his opponents (that the Board’s move cancelled the program, which cannot receive state funding without the HOA sponsorship), what cannot be disputed is that the Boards action was taken unilaterally, without consulting with those impacted.
Similarly, the issue of the $20k trail-and-parking area commons area construction did not follow the normal procedure for such improvements, which includes advanced notification of those in the neighborhood. Some of McFadden’s allies claimed that neighbors were in fact notified (in effect, saying that those neighbors had been lying), but after this became a campaign issue McFadden had the WIA site post the following: “NOTE: Based on the response from Woodmoor residents, the proposed eight-car parking area will not be constructed.” One has to ask, if in fact the neighbors had been notified in advance, why was this feedback not received until months after the project was approved by the WIA?
Even with those kind of errors McFadden could have avoided losing the election to the SaveWoodmoor campaign if he had publically acknowledged that he’d made an error and stated that he needed to do a better job of getting input from the community before decisions were made, and taken steps to do use that.
Unfortunately, McFaddens response was to circle the wagons. He and his allies frequently resorted to name-calling and questioning the motives of those who disagreed with him, as shown above in Mrs McFadden’s email, on his “Woodmoorfacts” web site, and in various letters to the editor, and in the fliers he distributed across Woodmoor. His flier even had a cartoon picture of the Grinch that was labeled “Savewoodmoor”. Such tactics only served to increase the motivation of his opponents, and help them gain support from the community.
Possibly the final straw was when an email was leaked from McFadden to his for allies on the board talking about a budget resolution that was passed. Not only was the email possibly illegal based on laws requiring these discussions to be open to the public, but is also was clear from the context that McFadden and his allies made decisions on their own without consulting the other members.
We must hope that this new WIA board is successful. A lot of long-neglected issues were raised in this election and the new board will be expected to address those.
Mr Craig G,
I find it interesting that you and everybody else think that Mr McFadden is SO POWERFUL, all by himself, WOW! Is it because in the past WIA presidents allowed themselves special powers and distinguished themselves at every annual meeting? Mr McFadden has changed that. He is and always has been just 1 out of 9 board members (whether he served as a president or as other director). He does not want any powers nor does he make decisions on his own. The majority of the board make the decisions, yet somehow, you and others refer to Mr McFadden as “it’s the McFadden and the McFadden crowd, the McFadden allies, the McFadden team, the McFadden group. While serving as a president for a year, Mr McFadden DID NOT EVEN VOTE unless he had to break a tie. He simply chaired a meeting and signed checks. That’s it. So what’s with the personal attacks on Mr. McFadden? There are 8 other board members you know.
It’s clear that 64% of residents who did not vote in this election don’t care what is going on with the community, and so be it. However, I fully understand the motivation of the majority of those who voted in this election. The reason your side won the election is because certain people caused unnecessary panic within the community and were able to convince people who voted that there was some kind of crisis. There was no crisis.
I find it sad that the people you are defending were telling half truths to win the election and were screaming “the sky is falling” just as you are doing now. I’ll address the issues you’re exaggerating about in a moment. The people you are defending not only lied by presenting half truths, but their supporters stole Gary Marner’s, Bill Brendemuhl’s and George Lubesky’s campaign literature off of people’s mailboxes. This is how desperate they were to win this election. They are dishonest and manipulative. The newspapers would not even print any rebuttal articles before the election to explain the half truths being told. As a result, you have people screaming the “sky is falling” and paying thousands of dollars to win this election. If you feel proud of this election win then that’s your right. To me it says, you can buy an election and if you don’t have thousands of dollars to run next year, then good luck in winning.
Mr Craig G. You are either mistaken or are deliberately trying to confuse people on the firewise program. Firewise members were UNAPPOINTED and UNELECTED by the board and therefore in violation of the Colorado non-profit act. The board has a duty and responsibility to follow the Colorado non-profit act. The program was NOT CANCELLED and anyone that says otherwise, lies. Furthermore, Forestry/Firewise grants (grants in general) were, are, and have always been administered by the director of Forestry, an ELECTED member of the board – not the firewise committee. So, there has been no change on grants. What do you mean the Board’s action was taken unilaterally, without consulting with those impacted? The board did nothing wrong.
As far as the trail/parking lot issue, you seem to be misguided as well. The board did follow a standard procedure which included notification of the residents that a trail will be build. The director of common areas sent out letters to those affected. The letter may not have included the parking lot and there will be NO parking lot. What is the big deal?
Also , you seem to be confusing the ACC notification process (notifications sent to the affected homeowners prior to an individual homeowner’s project taking place) with the maintenance or improvement to the common area process. There is NO notification procedure, nor has there ever been, to get input from the residents on the improvement or maintenance of common areas prior to such project taking place. This trail project is an improvement to the common area. So please, don’t spread lies that the board did not follow the NORMAL procedure for such improvements, which includes advanced notification of those in the neighborhood. There is NO SUCH PROCEDURE for common areas.
The 2009 board discussed the trails/parking lot in open meetings for 6 months and wrote about it the newsletter. The board received NO comments on the project from the residents. I’m sorry if people don’t read the newsletters, that is not the board’s fault. The board voted unanimously for the trails so why do you put the blame on Mr McFadden and his allies? Mr McFadden didn’t even vote on the matter. Two residents were not happy about the parking lot (which will not be built) and 1 person said, he does not wish to have a trail on HIS common area. Why do you blow this out of proportion?
The purpose of the assessments is to provide improvement to common areas and provide for recreation. The board voted unanimously to build the trails.
Ed Miller who is on the ACC committee attended all the meetings during which the trail/parking lot project was discussed, yet he never opposed it or raised any concerns. When election time came, all of the sudden Mr Miller became very vocal against the process of the project. That’s the sudden change of hearts right before election? To cause panic?
Please don’t distort the facts and make a big deal out of nothing. The sky is not falling. Majority of residents want trails.
Mr McFadden is not resorting to name calling as you suggest. I simply will not tolerate when half truths are told and I will call on anyone who is dishonest. If you want to accuse ME of name calling then so be it. I am not the one distorting the truth.
Speaking of dishonesty, let me expose yet another lie of yours Mr Craig G. The email you are referring to was sent by Mr McFadden to certain people on the board that he considers friends, telling them the reason he will not be able to attend the budget meeting. It was NOT some secret email that was leaked as you suggest. The email is not in any way, shape, or form illegal as you propose. Mr McFadden told his friends on the board what his budget ideas were and ASKED some board members to BRING THOSE IDEAS AT THE BUDGET MEETING TO SHARE WITH THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS. As a result, Mr. McFadden’s budget ideas were discussed in public with the remaining board members at the budget meeting. What is wrong with that? There were NO decisions made without consulting other board members as you’re suggesting. Any decisions have to be voted on. NO ONE has the ability to make decisions single handedly.
Why do you, Mr Craig G, cause all the panic and commotion? The sky is not falling as you are portraying. Please stop.
Why do you, Mr Craig G, cause all the panic and commotion? The sky is not falling as you are portraying. Please stop.
Ummm. Where do you get the idea that I’m causing “panic and commotion”? Or that I am portraying the the sky as falling?
In my post I suggested that the previous board had made some improvements, and also that the McFadden’s preferred candidates could still have won if they’d tried a different approach to public relations. I don’t see any signs of panic or commotion in my post.
I think it is a good thing that more people in Woodmoor are now aware of and involved with the WIA, and hopefully that continue going forward. A number of issues have been neglected over the past many years, such as the question of the disposition of the South Woodmoor commons area near the townhomes, which will hopefully now get attention as a result of this election (and that would have been true no matter who won).
There is a lesson from this election regarding how people can approach the question of building consensus and support for their vision of the community. If you re-read my post with an impartial eye you’ll see that.
There is a great management article from years past — The “Art of Persuasion” by Jay Conger. I recommend it to everyone. It was expanded to a book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743230345/bettegeogass-20
No I don’t get royalties or a referral fee. I just have found the advice contained therein to be extremely useful when you have to persuade a group of people.
Mr. Craig G,
You seem like a nice guy, but you still distorted the truth. You did talk about good things that the 2009 board accomplished, yet you still focused on matters that were presented in an inaccurate fashion resulting in commotion/panic that I’m referring to.
No one is more customer oriented than Mr. McFadden (customer being the home owner in this case). His public relations skills are much stronger than the current (2010) board majority. But you will experience that for yourself.
A new WIA newsletter came out and I hope you read it. A different approach is being taken already. In the article titled “February 2010 WIA assessments”, the residents received a Gestapoish (I mean friendly) reminder about paying their association dues to avoid late fees. Take advantage of different payment options and make your assessments payments promptly, it summarized. It also stated that the assessments are “life blood” for the operation of WIA. It talks about how the WIA office service, staff support, common area management, safety and recreational activities depend on our assessments.
From reading this section of the newsletter, three things stuck out in my mind. First, I felt intimidated by the approach taken. Second, let’s not forget that we have $300,000 excess funds. It’s not like if someone pays their assessments late, the ‘life blood’ will be cut off as they make it seem. Third, I noticed the order in which Nick Oakley (Treasurer) has listed things that we pay for…….staff being at the top and recreational activities at the bottom. Isn’t it backwards? Shouldn’t the residents and their recreation come first, then the staff?
The tone is set for this year’s board agenda. Staff comes first and residents last. I promise that the assessments will go up next year so that the already OVER PAID staff can receive generous raises and bonuses and in the mean time, the residents will get nothing for it. One of the staff members is overplayed as much as 50% over the national average, but the current (2010) board majority doesn’t care. I would not be surprised if the new majority would vote for more raises to the staff this year.
Mr. Craig G, you know who I am. I don’t know who you are. I don’t know if the information you have been receiving is second hand or if you attend board meetings on a regular basis, therefore I don’t know if you are aware of the historical politics that are going around in Woodmoor.
People who used to serve on the board a few years ago and who were supporting their candidates for the 2010 election do not like Mr. McFadden for many reasons. One of those reasons is Mr. McFadden’s pointing out double counting depreciation and exposing huge liabilities. The McFadden’s opposition flat out refused to correct the double counting depreciation until they no longer had the majority. The double depreciation allowed Mr. McFadden’s opposition to increase assessments each year in the past because on paper it seemed as if the association did not have enough funds to cover the costs. In reality the association accumulated $300,000 excess funds resulting from over charging the residents assessments over the years. It also allowed them to give generous (more than average) raises and bonuses to the WIA staff in the past. This is yet another area where Mr. McFadden differs from the opposition. Don’t get me wrong. Mr. McFadden is all for providing excellent service for the community through professional staff, however, he is also for being fiscally responsible to the residents, and that means not overpaying the staff or overcharging residents with yearly dues.
You see, the trails, forestry, community events were just distortion of facts just so that the people who do not agree with Mr. McFadden’s policies would regain control of the board again. And they did. They went to great lengths to destroy Mr. McFadden’s reputation with inaccuracies. Mr. McFadden put himself out there to serve this community and was unjustly attacked by his opponent.. It kind of reminds me of real politics when one side attacks the other for petty things like “look at the glasses she’s wearing”, or “I can’t believe she wrote notes on her hand”.
Mr. Craig G, you said that you think “it is a good thing that more people in Woodmoor are now aware of and involved with the WIA, and hopefully that continue going forward”. I believe that majority of people are not aware of the political motivations/agenda here. I strongly urge that any one would attend board meetings on a regular basis. I also hope that people will finally realize who they really voted for.