A message from the [PMCPOA] Chairman
“New petition to change bylaws and rules”
September 11, 2023

There is an ongoing effort to gather signatures on a petition to amend bylaws and remove rules. The amount of misinformation being shared in support of this petition is significant as members are being intentionally misled to gather signatures. Here are some of the issues;

The special vote being proposed will not be free. The petition is not about “the right to vote,” it specifically identifies changes to bylaws and rules requested to be voted upon and the petition advocates are selling it as “we don’t care how you vote, we just want you to have the right to vote” while they clearly push the changes within the petition. Members already have the right to vote before bylaws are ratified when proposed to be adopted, amended, or repealed.

The two bylaws and rule changes at issue were not all passed during COVID. Bylaw 10.10 (previously numbered as 10.12) regarding the disposition of projected year-end budget variances was voted on and approved by members on June 15, 2019. The proposed change could be considered at the next election instead of spending money to conduct a special vote.

Bylaw 6.06 was voted on and approved by members on June 20, 2020, and the change to that bylaw regarding removal of term limits was initiated as a result of a change in the civil code. The law changed again on January 1, 2022, and allowed term limits but it was not a requirement. The petition-author(s) fail to mention that Director Bailey has already submitted a resolution to the board to restore term limits that will be on the board agenda in October. The proposed change could be considered at the next election instead of spending money to conduct a special vote.

The changes to Article 22 Rule 22.03 involving the limitations of operating short-term rentals were approved by the board on October 16, 2021. The petition-author(s) wrongly interpret Civil Code 4741 contrary to section (f) regarding three legislative options to “do nothing,” “remove STR’s from the community,” and having only a cap of 25%. The law required a change to the governing documents (which occurred), removing STR’s from the community is not an option (and did not occur), and a 25% cap is an option.

Regarding the STR rules, directors have been discussing the past two months amending this rule to consider a 25% option. They are researching how a 25% option would be implemented with respect to current owners and new owners if a 25% cap is approved. The current rules cannot be removed without a replacement rule that complies with Civil Code 4741. Members do not amend rules per CC&R 1.02 and Bylaw 9.05E.

One of the petition-backers asks, ”Why is it becoming more difficult to sell a home here for a decent amount?” He tries to blame the board exclusively when a simple search online reveals the primary reasons. Rising mortgage rates, as the current market is experiencing, often mean fewer buyers and a smaller pool of buyers who can afford the price the sellers want. One of the most striking findings is that 82% of consumers believe it’s a bad time to buy a home. This percentage has increased from 78% in June. This perception highlights challenges such as high home prices and unfavorable mortgage rates, factors that are dampening the enthusiasm for home-buying.

I hope I’ve been able to clarify some of the information factually for you related to the petition. I also hope the petition-gatherers will consider the facts and current efforts being made to address their proposals because two changes are already in progress by several board directors and the bylaw changes could be decided in the near future and ratified at the next regularly-scheduled and budgeted election

If you are thinking about signing the petition, I request you consider the facts and not the fiction. If you have signed the petition, and believe that you may have been deceived, you can ask that your name be removed.

There is other misinformation being disseminated which will be addressed in separate messages to the members.

Respectfully,
Bill Lewis II
PMCPOA Chairman

==========================================

SEPTEMBER 12: A Response from Shawn Coulter, the member who submitted the petition:

On September 11, 2023, PMCPOA Chairman Bill Lewis sent out an email regarding the
signatures that several members have been collecting over the past weekend. My initial
response is that Bill has very likely violated Civil Code Section 5135 on Advocacy by the
boards which prohibits “Expressly advocating the election or defeat of any candidate (or
item) that is on association election ballot.” Since the proposed changes will be on an
upcoming Election Ballot, as a board member he is prohibited from commenting. His
advocacy against this member petition is grounds for the board to censure Bill and have him
removed as chairman. Please see my comments below on several of his statements that I
consider to be misleading.

A message from the Chairman
“New petition to change bylaws and rules”
September 11, 2023
There is an ongoing effort to gather signatures on a petition to amend bylaws and remove
rules. The amount of misinformation being shared in support of this petition is significant as
members are being intentionally misled to gather signatures. Here are some of the issues;
The special vote being proposed will not be free. The petition is not about “the right to vote,” it
specifically identifies changes to bylaws and rules requested to be voted upon and the petition
advocates are selling it as “we don’t care how you vote, we just want you to have the right to
vote” while they clearly push the changes within the petition. Members already have the right
to vote before bylaws are ratified when proposed to be adopted, amended, or repealed.

What Bill fails to tell you here is that it is within the members rights to call a special member
meeting for any lawful purpose. This right is codified in Corporations Code Section 7510e
and in Bylaw 5.02. The member petition is proposing a few very impactful bylaw and rule
changes and the board cannot legally interfere with this process.

The two bylaws and rule changes at issue were not all passed during COVID. Bylaw 10.10
(previously numbered as 10.12) regarding the disposition of projected year-end budget
variances was voted on and approved by members on June 15, 2019. The proposed change
could be considered at the next election instead of spending money to conduct a special vote.
Again, what Bill fails to mention is that what is being proposed is a modification to Bylaw
10.10 and no, the members have not yet had a chance to vote on this proposed modification.
Bylaw 6.06 was voted on and approved by members on June 20, 2020, and the change to that
bylaw regarding removal of term limits was initiated as a result of a change in the civil code.
The law changed again on January 1, 2022, and allowed term limits but it was not a
requirement. The petition-author(s) fail to mention that Director Bailey has already submitted
a resolution to the board to restore term limits that will be on the board agenda in October.
The proposed change could be considered at the next election instead of spending money to
conduct a special vote.

We fact checked Bill’s comments with Director Bailey. Director Bailey confirmed that he did
submit a properly formatted resolution more than a week prior to the deadline for the
September Board meeting. He then stated that he had been informed by Association staff
that this resolution was to be included in the September board agenda. However, the
resolution was not included in the September agenda. Upon further investigation he stated
he was told that his resolution was removed from the agenda by Bill without Director Bailey’s
approval or notification.
In my opinion, the removal of Director Bailey’s resolution constitutes Chairman misconduct in
direct violation of Robert’s Rules of Order. The Rules of Order state that: “the chair of a
meeting cannot refuse to put a motion to the body provided the motion is in order at the
time. If a chair abuses his authority in this way a board member can put forth a motion that
he be censured and removed as chair.” By delaying term-limit reinstatement until the June
2024 ballot, Chairman Lewis and two other incumbents would not be be prevented from
standing for reelection. Further, Bill states in his email that Director Bailey’s removed
resolution is on the October agenda, but fails to mention that the October agenda has not yet
been published. In my opinion, we have no assurance that what happened to Director
Bailey’s resolution in September will not recur in October.
The fact is that this item really belongs as part of an agenda for a members meeting, as board
members have a built-in conflict of interest on the subject of term limits. If this resolution
does come before the board, in my opinion at a minimum the three incumbent Directors
whose terms are expiring this fiscal year should recuse themselves.

LEWIS’ EMAIL: The changes to Article 22 Rule 22.03 involving the limitations of operating short-term rentals
were approved by the board on October 16, 2021. The petition-author(s) wrongly interpret
Civil Code 4741 contrary to section (f) regarding three legislative options to “do nothing,”
“remove STR’s from the community,” and having only a cap of 25%. The law required a change
to the governing documents (which occurred), removing STR’s from the community is not an
option (and did not occur), and a 25% cap is an option.

COULTER: The proposed elimination of Rule 22.03 B & C removes the STR restriction currently in place for post January 15, 2022 property owners. Upon passage of this resolution, the Board of
Directors would still be required to propose a replacement rule that complies with Civil Code
4741 without creating two classes of POA members. Considering that less than 5% of homes
in the Association are used as STRs, the fact of the matter is either no STR limitation or a 25%
STR limitation cap makes any real difference.

LEWIS’ EMAIL: Regarding the STR rules, directors have been discussing the past two months amending this rule
to consider a 25% option. They are researching how a 25% option would be implemented with
respect to current owners and new owners if a 25% cap is approved. The current rules cannot
be removed without a replacement rule that complies with Civil Code 4741. Members do not
amend rules per CC&R 1.02 and Bylaw 9.05E.

COULTER: What Bill fails to tell you here is that is within the members rights to call a special member’s
meeting to veto/remove a rule that has been passed by the board: See the below California
Civil Code Section 4365.
Civil Code § 4365. Veto of Rule Change by Members.
(a) Members of an association owning 5 percent or more of the separate interests may call a
special vote of the members to reverse a rule change.

LEWIS’ EMAIL: The two bylaws and rule changes at issue were not all passed during COVID. Bylaw 10.10 (previously
numbered as 10.12) regarding the disposition of projected year-end budget variances was voted on and
approved by members on June 15, 2019. The proposed change could be considered at the next election
instead of spending money to conduct a special vote.
One of the petition-backers asks, ”Why is it becoming more difficult to sell a home here for a
decent amount?” He tries to blame the board exclusively when a simple search online reveals
the primary reasons. Rising mortgage rates, as the current market is experiencing, often mean
fewer buyers and a smaller pool of buyers who can afford the price the sellers want. One of the
most striking findings is that 82% of consumers believe it’s a bad time to buy a home. This
percentage has increased from 78% in June. This perception highlights challenges such as high
home prices and unfavorable mortgage rates, factors that are dampening the enthusiasm for
home-buying.

COULTER: Several local real estate agents have disclosed that homes continue to fall out of escrow due to this limitation on STRs. As much as Bill suggests, the laws of supply and demand have not
been suspended. The price a prospective property owner is willing to pay decreases when
they realize they will not have the same rights as other members to help subsidize the costs
of ownership. Accordingly, the overall demand for homes in PMC goes down, thus
depressing the housing market.
In my opinion, Mr. Lewis’s email is misleading and violates his authority as Chairman of the
Board. I trust the membership will see his comments for what they are. The member have
every right to ask for Chairman Lewis’ immediate resignation for his violation of Civil Code
Section 5135 which states prohibits “Expressly advocating the election or defeat of any
candidate (or item) that is on association election ballot.”
We will be collecting Signatures on Saturday, 9/16, right after the board meeting. Please
come down and SIGN THE PETITION!

This is part of the September 15, 2023 online edition of The Mountain Enterprise.

Have an opinion on this matter? We'd like to hear from you.