Re: electronic notice of meeting
Andy Mowery
Dear Board Members,
I do appreciate your adoption of the practice of sending electronic notice to meetings to resolve prior concerns. I do believe that the mailing you have or will send can be attached to the electronic notice, and I am requesting a copy to be sent without needing to wait for USPS delivery for the details. Giving notice of the date and time only via electronic means is still insufficient notice under the principles discussed previously at length. It is not a burden to attach the digital document you have already created to print and mail.
Because the notice for the January 14, 2026 Special Members Meeting may already be in preparation or may have been mailed, I am restating concisely—and for the record—the required elements that must appear in the notice to comply with the POHOA governing documents, CCIOA, the Colorado Nonprofit Act, and HB25-1043’s strict compliance requirements.
These clarifications are necessary to avoid procedural defects that could invalidate any actions taken at the meeting.
1. The meeting must include a vote on the Board’s authority over Trash Services.
As stated in my earlier written requests dated December 4-9, 2025, the Special Members Meeting must include a vote on:
- Whether the Board has authority under the Declaration to select or modify Trash Services without approval of the Members.
- A vote on the service provider for general trash services.
- A Vote on whether homeowners may choose a separate yard waste provider, if the general trash service provider does not offer that service.
This vote was explicitly requested and should be one of the core purposes of the meeting. The Nonprofit Act (C.R.S. §7-127-102 and §7-127-104) requires that a Special Members Meeting be noticed for the purposes requested, and those purposes must appear in the notice.
2. The notice must accurately characterize the $35/month charge and disclose quorum requirements.
The Board has repeatedly referred to the $35 charge as a “dues increase,” not a Special Assessment. This materially alters:
- The applicable voting standard
- The required quorum
- Homeowners’ rights
Homeowners were not informed that the prior vote failed due to the 60% Special Assessment quorum requirement, nor that this meeting uses a lower quorum threshold.
Under HB25-1043 strict compliance, mislabeling an assessment or withholding required voting information may render any subsequent vote voidable and unenforceable.
The notice must disclose:
- Whether this is a Special Assessment
- What statutory/guiding document standard is being applied
- What quorum is required
- Why the quorum differs from the prior meeting
Transparency is required under CCIOA §§304, 308, and 317.
3. The notice must state that homeowners will elect the presiding officer.
Because the meeting concerns the Board’s own conduct and authority, the Board must not chair the meeting.
Under Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th Edition), Section 47, pp. 453–454:
“If it is necessary for the chair to vacate the chair, the secretary calls the meeting to order and the assembly elects a chairman pro tem to preside for that session.”
Accordingly, the notice must clearly state:
“The first item of business will be the Members’ election of a presiding officer (chairman pro tem) for this Special Members Meeting.”
Failure to include this creates a conflict of interest and violates parliamentary authority and HB25-1043.
4. Remote access must be provided, and recording by owners must be permitted.
Since 2020, the Board has held meetings via remote video. CCIOA does not prohibit remote access, and it is a reasonable accommodation when:
- Homeowners may be away
- Winter weather may impede attendance
- Work obligations or disabilities may prevent physical presence
- Homeowners have already indicated they could not attend meetings due to childcare responsibilities and want to participate
Homeowners must also be permitted to record the meeting under Colorado law. Denying this violates CCIOA §317 and §304.
5. Ballots must be included with the notice and multiple return methods permitted.
For Members to exercise their voting rights meaningfully:
Ballots must be mailed with the notice and must allow homeowners to vote without attending in person.
The Association must accept ballots:
- By USPS mail
- By email (scan or photo)
- Through a secure neighborhood dropbox
Because this is winter, and because remote access is required, the notice must state that:
“Written ballots may be submitted up to 7 days after the meeting.”
This is standard practice when the HOA does not have a professional management company, and failure to allow multi-modal ballot submission may violate CCIOA §§308 and 317 and HB25-1043 strict compliance.
6. AWAM documentation must exist and be posted.
Since no Board meeting has occurred since November, and the December meeting was a Homeowners Annual Meeting (not a Board meeting), all Board decisions concerning:
- The meeting date
- The notice
- The ballot
- The voting procedures
- The agenda
must have been adopted via Action Without a Meeting (AWAM) under C.R.S. §7-128-202 and CCIOA §317.
The Association’s established practice is to post AWAMs publicly once approved. I will look for this document to appear on the Association website as required.
7. Consequences if the notice is sent without these required elements
If the notice is issued without:
- The authority vote
- Correct description of the $35 charge
- Disclosure of the quorum and legal standard
- Election of a neutral presiding officer
- Remote access
- Written ballots included with the notice
- Multi-modal ballot return (mail, email, dropbox)
- A 7-day ballot acceptance period
- AWAM documentation
…then the meeting may be procedurally invalid under:
• CCIOA §308 – Improper notice
• CCIOA §304 – Failure to act in good faith
• CCIOA §317 – Transparency and records issues
• Nonprofit Act §§7-127-102, 7-127-104 – Improper special meeting procedure
• HB25-1043 strict compliance – any procedural defect voids the action
In such circumstances, I would be fully justified in notifying all homeowners that:
“The Board structured the meeting to control the outcome by chairing a meeting where their own actions are under review — contrary to parliamentary authority, statutory requirements, and strict compliance.”
8. Notice to Homeowners if Agreement Is Not Reached
If the Board does not incorporate these legally required elements in the meeting notice,
I will inform other homeowners of:
- Their right to elect the chair
- Their right to vote remotely and by written ballot
- The correct quorum and assessment standards
- The procedural requirements under CCIOA, the Nonprofit Act, and HB25-1043
Homeowners must receive accurate information to make informed decisions.
Thank you for addressing these corrections promptly so that the January 14 Special Members Meeting is valid, transparent, and procedurally sound.
Sincerely,
Andy
Mr Mowery - this is to notify you that a speccial members meeting has been scheduled for Jan 14, 2026. Everyone should be receiving the mailing soon.Poudre Overlook HOA of Fort CollinsBoard of Directors
Andy Mowery
Dear Board Members,
I am writing to document, for the record, the Board’s non-response to issues previously raised regarding the notice for the January 14, 2026 Special Members Meeting.
On December 12, I sent written communications identifying specific deficiencies in the notice process, including but not limited to:
The absence of the meeting from the Association’s official FrontSteps calendar
The lack of a posted agenda or supporting materials
The absence of disclosed meeting time and location
The lack of information regarding remote access
The absence of ballot materials and instructions for submission
The use of an informal electronic email, containing errors, as the only apparent notice to date
As of today, no substantive response has been provided, and none of these deficiencies appear to have been corrected.
I recognize that the Board has previously stated in July that it does not respond to what it characterizes as “unsolicited” emails. Accordingly, I am not seeking a reply to this message. Rather, this email is intended solely to document that the Board has been on notice of these issues prior to the scheduled meeting date.
Given the importance of this Special Members Meeting — which involves potential assessments, contractual obligations, reserve policy, and Board authority — clarity and completeness of notice are essential. The continued absence of corrections or clarification may materially affect homeowners’ ability to understand, prepare for, and participate in the meeting.
If the notice process is updated to address these issues, I will take note of those changes. If not, this correspondence will serve as part of the record reflecting that the Board was informed of the deficiencies in advance of the meeting.
Sincerely,
Andy
Andy Mowery
Hi Lora,
I’m writing to follow up regarding the January 14, 2026 Special Members Meeting.
As of today, there is still no information posted in FrontSteps/Community regarding this meeting, including:
a calendar entry,
an agenda,
meeting time or location, or
any explanation of voting or ballot procedures.
Because homeowners need to understand what is being proposed and how decisions will be made, I have published two informational articles on www.poudreoverlook.com addressing meeting governance basics and the issues homeowners have raised about agenda and ballot scope.
I also want to note the current status of Board action records, as this bears directly on how decisions about the upcoming meeting are being made.
The most recent Action Without a Meeting reflected in the AWAM folder is dated December 27, 2023 (relating to HOA Task Force testimony) and was posted on January 9, 2024, after the testimony occurred on January 2, 2024. Since that date, the AWAM folder reflects no additional Actions Without a Meeting FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS.
Given that:
no Board meeting has been announced to approve the agenda or ballot for the January 14 Special Members Meeting, and
no AWAM has been posted authorizing those decisions,
It is unclear what Board action, if any, has been taken to determine the agenda, scope, or procedures for the upcoming meeting.
Under the governing documents and standard nonprofit practice, decisions of this nature require either a Board meeting or a documented Action Without a Meeting. In the absence of either, homeowners are left without a way to understand how these decisions have been made.
I’m sending this via the official HOA email channel and noting it for the record.
Thank you,
Andy
David Graf
Andy: I'm providing a response at the request of the board.
|
David Graf Shareholder |
|
||
|
|
phone: (720) 279-2568 toll free: (877) 279-4499 |
|
Ensure your policies are current – automatically.
Click the link to learn more: |
|
|
9557 S Kingston Ct Englewood, CO 80112 MoellerGraf.com |
||
|
This firm collects debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Moeller Graf P.C., which may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email or by telephone at (720) 279-2568 and delete the original message. IRS Circular 230 disclosure: Please note that any U.S. or other tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable tax laws and regulations.
Should you elect not to receive any further electronic correspondence to the above recipient’s email address, please reply to this email with your request to cease communications. |
|||
Andy Mowery
Dear David,
Thank you for letting me know you’re responding at the Board’s request.
I want to be clear that I’m not seeking a legal debate here — just confirmation of basic facts so homeowners can understand how the January 14, 2026 Special Members Meeting is being structured.
As of today, I’m still not seeing:
a calendar posting in FrontSteps/Community,
a posted agenda,
meeting time or location, or
any posted Board action (meeting minutes or AWAM) approving the agenda, ballot items, or voting procedures.
If the Board has already taken formal action on these items, I’d appreciate knowing where and when that action occurred and where the documentation can be found. If not, that’s also helpful to know.
Thanks for taking a look at this.
Best,
Andy
Andy Mowery
Now that the mailed notice for the January 14, 2026 Special Members Meeting has been issued, the scope, purpose, quorum, and procedures for that meeting are defined by the notice itself.
Given that fact, and in light of the Association’s prior experience with significant legal expenditures related to member communications (including the ~$11k legal costs incurred in 2021 without resulting policy changes or benefit to homeowners), further legal correspondence on this matter does not appear necessary or prudent.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that no additional Association funds be expended on attorney responses regarding this meeting.
For clarity, my communications concern general governance, notice, and member-meeting procedure and are not enforcement matters. I do not consent to being charged individually for any legal expenses arising from this correspondence.
At this point, the mailed notice speaks for itself, and no response is required.
Thank you,
Andy
David Graf
Thanks, Andy. I have already prepared my response and sent it to the board for review. Given your numerous emails alleging various improprieties, I think it would be helpful to clarify some of your previous allegations of wrongdoing and your demands for investigation.
|
David Graf Shareholder |
|
||
|
|
phone: (720) 279-2568 toll free: (877) 279-4499 |
|
Ensure your policies are current – automatically.
Click the link to learn more: |
|
|
9557 S Kingston Ct Englewood, CO 80112 MoellerGraf.com |
||
|
This firm collects debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Moeller Graf P.C., which may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email or by telephone at (720) 279-2568 and delete the original message. IRS Circular 230 disclosure: Please note that any U.S. or other tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable tax laws and regulations.
Should you elect not to receive any further electronic correspondence to the above recipient’s email address, please reply to this email with your request to cease communications. |
|||
From: Andy Mowery <poho...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 11:10 PM
To: David Graf <dg...@moellergraf.com>
Cc: Poudre Overlook HOA at FtC <atftcpoud...@gmail.com>; naqu...@ricks4co.com; Morgan Anker <aide...@gmail.com>; rep.brian...@gmail.com; Altmann - DORA, Nick <nick.a...@state.co.us>; Saja Hindi <shi...@denverpost.com>; John Kefalas
<kefa...@co.larimer.co.us>
Subject: Re: electronic notice of meeting
To the Board:
A neighbor has advised that the below notice is being received among homeowners. We await our copy to deliver.
Andy Mowery
Hi David,
Thanks for following up.
I want to clarify one point at the outset. I am not alleging “wrongdoing,” nor am I demanding any investigation. My communications have focused on process, documentation, and notice, and on identifying factual gaps that homeowners have asked the Board to address before the January 14 Special Members Meeting.
For clarity, I’m happy to address any specific statement you believe constitutes an allegation of wrongdoing. Please identify the statement and where it appears, and I can respond directly.
Specifically, I have asked whether the Board has taken formal action — by meeting or Action Without a Meeting — to approve:
the meeting agenda,
the ballot items,
the characterization of the proposed charges (assessment vs. dues), and
the voting procedures.
As of now, those questions remain unanswered.
I also want to note that as of yesterday afternoon (approximately 4:32 pm), information regarding the meeting was added to the website. I appreciate that update. Some of the questions homeowners have raised, however, remain unresolved, including how the agenda and ballot were authorized and how voting procedures will be handled.
If the Board has taken such action, I’m simply asking where and when it occurred and where the documentation can be found. If it has not yet occurred, that’s also helpful to know.
I’m not seeking an investigation or making accusations — I’m seeking clarity on process so homeowners can understand how this meeting is being structured.
I also understand from your note that Association counsel has been engaged in connection with these questions. I want to be clear that my intent has not been to generate legal expense, but to seek clarification and documentation so homeowners can understand how the upcoming meeting has been structured.
Clear documentation and timely responses would reduce the need for continued involvement by counsel.
I appreciate you taking a look and look forward to reviewing the Board’s response when it’s finalized.
Best,
Andy
David Graf
Andy: thank you. I appreciate the clarification.
So that we are on the same page, I was referring to the passage below in your email from Friday, December 5, 2025, at 1:32 PM. But again, thank you for clarifying.
REQUESTS FOR ACTION
A. Rep. Ricks
Please review how HB22-1139 and HB25-1043 apply to this case and consider whether additional statutory clarification is needed to prevent HOAs from asserting authority over public rights-of-way.
B. DORA
Please investigate whether Poudre Overlook HOA is:
- Misstating its authority to homeowners
- Enforcing an invalid policy
- Violating HB22-1139 by restricting activities in public ROW
- Taking Board actions without proper authority or process
C. HOA Legal Counsel
Please provide a written legal basis (if any exists) for:
- Restricting yard-waste services
- Requiring a single trash vendor
- Enforcing a vendor monopoly
- Regulating receptacle placement or contractor access on public ROW
If no basis exists, please instruct the Board to withdraw the directive and correct the record.
D. Larimer County Commissioners
Please confirm that the HOA has no authority to restrict licensed waste haulers from using the public street, curb, or PID-owned sidewalk—areas exclusively within County and PID jurisdiction.
|
David Graf Shareholder |
|
||
|
|
phone: (720) 279-2568 toll free: (877) 279-4499 |
|
Ensure your policies are current – automatically.
Click the link to learn more: |
|
|
9557 S Kingston Ct Englewood, CO 80112 MoellerGraf.com |
||
|
This firm collects debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Moeller Graf P.C., which may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email or by telephone at (720) 279-2568 and delete the original message. IRS Circular 230 disclosure: Please note that any U.S. or other tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable tax laws and regulations.
Should you elect not to receive any further electronic correspondence to the above recipient’s email address, please reply to this email with your request to cease communications. |
|||
From: Andy Mowery <poho...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 1:46 PM
To: David Graf <dg...@moellergraf.com>
Cc: Poudre Overlook HOA at FtC <atftcpoud...@gmail.com>; naqu...@ricks4co.com; Morgan Anker <aide...@gmail.com>; rep.brian...@gmail.com; Altmann - DORA, Nick <nick.a...@state.co.us>; Saja Hindi <shi...@denverpost.com>; John Kefalas
<kefa...@co.larimer.co.us>
Subject: Re: electronic notice of meeting
Hi David,
Thanks for following up.
I want to clarify one point at the outset. I am not alleging “wrongdoing,” nor am I demanding any investigation. My communications have focused on process, documentation, and notice, and on identifying factual gaps that homeowners have asked the Board to address before the January 14 Special Members Meeting.
For clarity, I’m happy to address any specific statement you believe constitutes an allegation of wrongdoing. Please identify the statement and where it appears, and I can respond directly.
Specifically, I have asked whether the Board has taken formal action — by meeting or Action Without a Meeting — to approve:
- the meeting agenda,
- the ballot items,
- the characterization of the proposed charges (assessment vs. dues), and
- the voting procedures.
As of now, those questions remain unanswered.
I also want to note that as of yesterday afternoon (approximately 4:32 pm), information regarding the meeting was added to the website. I appreciate that update. Some of the questions homeowners have raised, however, remain unresolved, including how the agenda and ballot were authorized and how voting procedures will be handled.
Andy Mowery
Dear David, Lora, Representative Ricks, and Ava,
Thank you for the clarification.
I want to step back briefly to explain why this exchange matters, particularly since Representative Ricks and her staff are already copied.
What this thread illustrates—without allegation or accusation—is the structural problem homeowners face under current law:
DORA has no enforcement authority and cannot resolve compliance questions.
Boards respond to basic governance inquiries by engaging counsel.
Legal spend escalates not because of misconduct findings, but because there is no neutral, corrective mechanism to answer threshold questions of process, notice, or authority.
Homeowners are left with only two options: disengage or litigate privately.
That dynamic is exactly what is happening here.
My questions have been limited to process and documentation:
How the meeting agenda, ballot items, voting procedures, and characterization of charges were authorized. These are questions that should be resolvable through transparent board records, not legal escalation.
The fact that association counsel has now been engaged—before any determination of compliance, and in response to requests for clarification—demonstrates why the current framework is inefficient and costly for homeowners.
This is not a request for investigation, nor an assertion of wrongdoing. It is an example of how, absent an independent compliance pathway, legal spend becomes the default substitute for clarity, even when no adversarial posture is intended.
For Representative Ricks, this thread functions as a real-time case study of the precise gap legislative discussions and stakeholding have sought to address (for years): the need for a neutral, non-litigious mechanism to resolve governance compliance questions before they harden into attorney-driven disputes.
From a homeowner perspective, the continued expenditure of association funds on counsel to address basic procedural questions—rather than correcting or documenting board action—raises legitimate concerns about efficiency, transparency, and fiduciary stewardship. This concern is heightened by the fact that POHOA is simultaneously proposing to “raise the dues” by $35 per month—a 58% increase—citing reserve shortfalls that appear, at least in part, to be the result of sustained legal and other discretionary spending decisions over the past several years rather than unavoidable operating costs.
Clear documentation and plain answers would resolve this matter without further cost or escalation.
Respectfully,
Andy Mowery
David Graf
Andy: thank you. I'd like to share a few thoughts, as follows:
- These are not "basic governance inquiries" as you allege. These are multiple emails with numerous allegations, some containing numerous exhibits, that go beyond "basic governance inquiries." Here is an example of one of those basic governance inquiries from your email of December 12:
1. The meeting must include a vote on the Board’s authority over Trash Services.
As stated in my earlier written requests dated December 4-9, 2025, the Special Members Meeting must include a vote on:
1. Whether the Board has authority under the Declaration to select or modify Trash Services without approval of the Members.
2. A vote on the service provider for general trash services.
3. A Vote on whether homeowners may choose a separate yard waste provider, if the general trash service provider does not offer that service.
- Your questions have not been limited to "process and documentation." Take for example the trash contract issue. You provided a "filing" on December 9, 2025, that contained a lengthy argument and was accompanied by five exhibits. What makes this trash contract issue fascinating is that if you had uploaded the declaration to ChatGPT and asked "does the board have unilateral authority to enter into a trash contract on behalf of its residents," it would say: Under the Poudre Overlook Declaration of Covenants (2003), the Board does have authority (without a separate owner vote stated in the Declaration) to select and contract for a trash hauler for the community…” I'm bewildered how this turned into such a lengthy email argument.
- The board has the right to invoke legal counsel when faced with numerous substantive challenges. Remember that your email of December 5, 2025, specifically requested that legal counsel provide a "written legal basis (if any exist) for restricting yard waste services requiring a single trash vendor; enforcing a vendor monopoly; and regulating receptacle placement or contractor access on public ROW.” Despite this, your email below appears to criticize the board for engaging counsel to answer your questions-- even though you requested it.
- Your previous email specifically requested that Representative Ricks determine how Colorado law applies to this case; requested DORA to investigate; and requested that the Larimer County Commissioners confirm that the Association has no authority to restrict license waste haulers from using the public street-- which it was never planning to do. Yet in your email below, you argue that you had no "adversarial posture." To me, it appears adversarial.
- Notwithstanding all of this, the board would prefer not to engage legal any more than is necessary. However, in the exercise of reasonable diligence in light of your multiple complicated emails and your invocation of multiple governmental agencies to get involved, the board felt it advisable to provide answers to your questions. It now seems you do not want those answers and are agreeable to proceeding with the meeting as scheduled. Assuming that's the case, the board will end our involvement in this matter and allow the meeting to proceed as scheduled.
Andy Mowery
David,
Thank you for your follow-up.
I want to clarify one narrow point to ensure the record is accurate. Upon re-review of the Declaration, the authority to select the trash collection provider is assigned to the Association, acting through its Board. No member vote is required on vendor selection. The governing documents also do not forbid the Board from seeking member input or conducting a nonbinding vote or survey, as has been done in the past prior to other decisions affecting the entire community.
That clarification resolves only that specific point. It does not alter the substance of my remaining communications, which have been limited to questions of process, documentation, and notice — specifically whether the Board has taken formal action to approve the agenda, ballot items, characterization of charges, and voting procedures for the January 14 Special Members Meeting.
I am not alleging wrongdoing, nor requesting an investigation. I am seeking clarity on what actions the Board has taken, when they occurred, and where the documentation can be found, so that homeowners can understand how the meeting has been structured.
If the Board has taken such action, identifying it will resolve these questions. If it has not yet occurred, that information is equally helpful.
Best regards,
Andy
David Graf
Andy: my pleasure.
No, there is no prohibition on seeking member input or conducting a survey.
With respect to the substance of the remaining communications, are you asking for answers? It was my understanding that when you received the meeting notice in the mail, this conversation was over. Perhaps that was my misinterpretation of your email.