How terribly strange to be 75 - Part One

 After my birthday last September, things have not always been the most enjoyable.  I got an upper respiratory infection in late November that lasted into the new year.  Then I got a sore throat very quickly after that.  Almost two months of not feeling well.

I applied to run again for our HOA board in January.  I am not particularly popular with our current board because I use social media (FB) to call out their mistakes and unethical behaviors such as ignoring the will of the HOA voters last year and picking the Canadian woman who came in last in a field of 7 candidates to fill a vacant seat on the board, a seat I had applied for the year before and been rejected by that same board of two Canadians and two Americans.  

I have never had any objections to two Canadians being on a 5-person board even though they have to leave the U.S. for six months each year.  I always wonder why they want that power and control when they are not even living in their homes in the community.  So when they skipped over three full-time residents in the election, to fill the vacant seat on the board, I was doubly upset with their decisions.  (After rejecting my application in 2023, they allowed that seat to sit vacant for several months before the following election, an election in which the old board did not even allow the members of the HOA to vote to fill that vacant seat.)

The whole thing smelled of corruption and favoritism.  Our board is particularly silent on most things.  They do not tell us how they vote on issues, and they do not tell us what projects cost even when it involves our money.  Only in the upcoming meeting did they finally acknowledge that they will now start sending out surveys to find out more about what the owners want.  I had been advocating that for a long, long time and been ignored.  Now they were coopting my idea for which I am more grateful than upset that they listened to me but gave me no credit.

So, having run for the board last year, I am running against the two Canadian incumbents this year (the sitting Canadian board president was reelected last year, so the whole scheme of leaving that seat open so she could pick a fellow Canadian at least six months later, to ensure the majority of five board members was also Canadian, seemed particularly manipulative).   

This past Tuesday evening, we had a meeting as a meet and greet for the three candidates running for the board, me and the two Canadian incumbents.  But a week ago, the board threw a curve that seemed aimed at me.  One of the Canadian candidates was going to be away we were told (she is always out of town and not living in the community for even more than the normal six months).  We were informed that our meet and greet would not be in person but be a Zoom call.  That is not the most ideal way to meet and compare candidates.  And I think that was deliberate.

So, unlike last year when all seven candidates got up in front of the members in attendance, this would be a Zoom phone call.  When the call began, we were informed that this meeting would, also be unlike last year and not be a regular HOA meeting at all.  It would only be a meeting in which we introduced ourselves and then got asked questions by those on the call.  The whole hour and more would be us talking briefly about ourselves and then the questions.

Last year, each candidate got up and introduced himself or herself.  Nobody asked any questions of any of the candidates.  We talked about ourselves, sat down, and the next candidate got up and spoke for the allotted five minutes and sat down, all done in alphabetical order.  Then the meeting was over.

This year, I wondered why I was suddenly being asked to go first, not in alphabetical order as last year.  I should have introduced myself last after the other two.  That should have alerted me to the fact that this "meeting" was a set up from start to finish.  After the other two read lengthy bios of themselves after I introduced myself more briefly, the questioning began.

A woman I did not know began asking me, exclusively, question after question after question.  It seemed she would not stop.  She soon got to the ringer:  "Your husband works at the LifeStyle Center.  Would that not be a conflict of interest for you to be on the board?"

There it was.  She got out that I am gay, married to a man, and he works at the Center, which the board is involved with a lot.  It was apparent that she never intended to vote for me, regardless of any of my answers.  She just wanted to muddy the waters of my candidacy for anyone on the call by bringing up my sexuality and my marital status.  I told her, as I have told others whenever the concern comes up, that I know when to recuse myself if any issue involving Mark's employment at the HOA's LifeStyle Center.  That, of course, did not satisfy her because she was never going to be satisfied with anything I said.  Soon thereafter, a Latino man with a thick accent came on, not to ask any questions but to declare for those listening that he did not intend to vote for me because of Mark's employment.  His response seemed to me more to express an anti-gay bias; and he, too, did not care if I said I would recuse myself when appropriate.

From then on, of the eight or so listeners who asked questions of the candidates, it was me they focused most of their questions upon.  Most of those questions, and their remarks, seemed to be repeated attempts to make me look bad, counter any statements I made, or generally discredit my candidacy.  One questioner, whom I later learned was a current board member, the only male member of the board, condescendingly thanked me for my military service but then launched into a very awkward statement/question that proffered that since I was the only outsider running against two incumbents, I probably had no chance of winning.  

He then dismissed the first half of my written bio in which, as a former HOA president and treasurer for 18 years, I listed my accomplishments and how the way we ran our meetings and that HOA differed significantly from the dictatorial way they ran this HOA.  (I did not directly say anything about our HOA's way of doing things, but the contrast was apparent.)  He then patronizingly said that I really had not given much information about what I had accomplished in my life, what I had contributed to the world, I suppose.  He was being disingenuous.  This was well into what I later realized was an interrogation rather than a questioning session.  At this point in the meeting, such as it was, was over 45 minutes long.  (It would not end for over an hour.)

My mouth was dry from initial nervousness and the constant grilling by those who were clearly out to discredit me and my candidacy.  The Canadians claimed that they are just as in touch with what was going on in the community even if they were many miles away.  They and their followers on the call claimed that the board did not concern itself with day to day troubles the community got into and let the management firm handle any problems that arose.  I would later realize that these folks don't really get their hands dirty doing HOA business. 

Even the one management company rep got in her criticisms of me.  I would later be told by a couple of my supporters who were on the call that I had actually done well and kept my cool when it was obvious that those speaking were simply trying to trip me up and expose their opinion that I did not understand how things work in our HOA.  (Earlier, when the appointed incumbent gave her spiel, she admitted that even though she was a CPA, she had to spend hours coming up to speed on the way the treasurer's job worked at our HOA.  Even if I did not understand it all, I was obviously not given the same credit that I could quickly learn the board's business once I got elected.) 

The continuous grilling of me did not let up.  Some of the other questioners were snarky.  Those I knew said the whole thing was clearly an ambush and unfair.  Even when the other two candidates were asked a couple of questions, they were softball ones.  They were certainly not grilled as I was.  A couple of times even the questioners admitted that they realized they were ganging up on me and asking me most of the questions.  Throughout, the current board members, even those not running, kept saying that this existing board was one, happy, productive family and that the incumbents ought to be reelected so they can continue their spectacular work for the HOA uninterrupted.  "Let us be!" was their motto.  They were clearly stacking the deck against my candidacy.    

Even the board president said that comments I had made many months before on social media had been "hurtful" to her even if they were factually true.  I had been hearing more and more complaints from others in the HOA that she was sticking her nose and prestige into more and more areas of the HOA and that was not appreciated.  I realized long ago that she was a control freak who had opinions on everything and how it all should be done the way she wanted it done.  There were no alternatives to her view of things.  I did not say any of that, even while she doubted that I could work with her or she with me.  

When the torture was over, and my mouth entirely dry, I was able to close to phone, find Mark, and head home.  It was only then that I realized that the entire evening had been a set up to discredit me.  They were not interested in what I intended to do if I were elected.  They did not want me on the board and that was that.  I would soon learn that only about 35 people were on the call.  One of my supporters was knocked off the call by the management company rep.  Another was on the call but she could hear nothing during the entire call from anyone.  It was all silent even though she tried to get the management rep to fix her situation so she could hear what was being said. 

I also realized that 35 people being on the call was nothing.  The in-person meeting last year had more than twice that number in attendance.  If they had attempted to widely discredit me with the call, they had failed.  

We have over 1200 homes in the IPCCA HOA.  That means possibly more than 4000 part- and full-time residents, each household getting two votes in the election.  The call had only a tiny portion of the electorate listening.  We shall see what impact the call had on the election. 

On the drive home, we stopped in front of the house of a pair of supporters.  They were standing on their driveway and they were livid.  The questions and the questioning were unfair.  They were furious most especially with the board members on the call. 

We got home soon after.  I had not eaten dinner and I was too knotted up to eat, so I went to bed.  I penned the following post on our Indian Palms FB page, letting the board know that I knew it had all been a setup to screw me over.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to thank everyone who attended the IPCCA candidate Zoom call yesterday evening. I was told afterwards that only about 35 people were on the call (I know that last year's in-person meeting was attended by far more members than that). Also, unlike last year, which was a regular HOA meeting with the seven candidates briefly speaking at the end, this was entirely a lengthy meeting to ask questions. (I do not recall any questions being asked of any of us seven candidates last year.)

And there were a lot of questions. Most of them seemed to be directed to me, and the meeting lasted over an hour. A couple of folks I know either could not get on the call because of Internet issues or could not hear what anyone was saying during the entire meeting. The one person tried to notify Shelly of her situation but nothing got resolved. She heard nothing.

I should have brought a bottle of water since I did seem to be getting the bulk of the questions and often seemed to be the center of significant concerns from those eight or so individuals who did ask those questions. One questioner did not seem to think I had a chance to win, an apparent outsider running against two incumbents as I am.

I was extremely heartened to learn in the meeting from one of the board members that the IPCCA board will finally be conducting surveys of us owners going forward. LOTS of surveys, she said. This is a policy I have been advocating for a long time, and I am glad to learn that the board now believes this should happen far more often. We owners pay the bills, so we ought to have far more input into how our money is spent. I genuinely thank the board for now taking an approach that I fully endorse.

At least two or more questioners seemed to indicate that they could not vote for me because Mark works at the LifeStyle Center. I told them what I have told everyone several times last year and this, I know when to recuse myself should an apparent conflict arise.

Remember that I taught at the U.S. Air Force Academy whose honor code motto is the following: "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do."

Fortunately, elections are won or lost with ballots and not individual observations. We got our ballot yesterday and will be mailing it out today in the envelopes provided by PPM. There is an inner, anonymous ballot envelope and an outer mailing envelope. Put your ballot in the former and that sealed ballot envelope into the latter.

Shelly outlined in the meeting for any of you to let her know if you are in IPCCA and do not get your ballot in the mail. She has extras just in case. As I have said last year and this, the most important thing you can do for our HOA is vote. This year you have two votes and three candidates to choose among. You can vote for one candidate or split your vote between two candidates. Whatever you decide to do, and whomever you decide to choose, VOTE. It is the power no one can take away from you. You have our collective future in your hands.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we wait.  The results will not be known until the evening of March 18th at the next regular meeting after the votes are counted at 3 PM by an independent trio. 

Is there to be an anti-incumbent or anti-Canadian bias this time, folks opposed to three members of the board being absent for half of each year? 

Or will the two of them being incumbents help them win? 

Will the fact that, to have the two Canadians win, each of their voters have to split their votes between the two, sufficiently divide their support? 

Will my supporters give me both of their votes instead of splitting the ticket by voting for one Canadian and casting the other vote for me? 

Will my being gay and having a husband who works at the LifeStyle Center really cause enough voters to support the two Canadian incumbents instead?  Or will that not matter? 

Will my last name being Hispanic cause enough voters to avoid voting for me?  (Last year, the two of us candidates with Hispanic last names got a combined 626 votes, with over 3600 votes possible and three votes for each household.  There will be over 2400 votes available this time if every household sends in their ballots and exercise their two votes.)

Last year, the Canadian appointee running to keep her seat got just 256 votes in that election, coming in seventh and last.  I got 300, coming in sixth. Will that be reflective again?

Will my having served in the U.S. military garner me more votes over two Canadian women who obviously never served?