Our governing documents clearly state:

• Elections must happen at a unit owners' meeting

• Voting must be in person or by proxy, with a quorum present

• A quorum is 25% (78 units) represented in person or by proxy. 

• Mail-in elections are not authorized in any section of the bylaws or the Uniform Condominium Act

• Only owners, by a 67% vote, can change election procedures, not the board

👉 [Read the full bylaws here]
👉 [View the 2025 Annual Meeting Notice]

For the third year in a row (2023, 2024, 2025), the board is conducting a mail-in only election, without homeowner approval.

• Proxies are banned

• There is no quorum

• Ballots are sent to all owners, but are returned to and counted by the "association’s" attorney

• No homeowners or unbiased third-party representatives are present during ballot collection or counting

• Results are delivered to the board before anyone else sees them

• Harassing, disparaging, threating, and trying to intimidate the only homeowner (me) willing to stand up to the bullies.

This process violates the election rules in the bylaws and removes homeowner oversight as well as violates the board's fiduciary responsibilities. 

This does not ensure integrity of the election process. Quite the opposite. 

• The 2026 HOA budget now includes over $71,000 in legal fees

• These legal fees are being paid from your HOA dues and assessments

• The board is using HOA funds to:

  • Sue the homeowner who organized the 2023 special meeting

  • Block access to financial records

  • Control and run mail-in elections

  • Defend their continued occupation of board positions

Note* The lawsuit originally was sent to the interim board members, but all but one (me) has signed a non-disparagement, non-disclosure settlement agreement and false affidavit and agreed to testify against the one remaining homeowner (me). This was the requirement the removed board insisted on in order for the co-defendants to be dismissed from the suit.

Here are the facts:

• In August 2023, a special meeting was held according to the governing documents

• Homeowners voted to remove the board and elect an interim board

• The board refused to step down

• The association’s attorney (acting as the board's attorney) then filed a lawsuit to:

  • Invalidate the special meeting

  • Prevent the interim board from taking over

  • Personally target the homeowner who organized the meeting and requested financial records

This lawsuit is not about the budget or annual elections; it is about holding power and silencing those who ask questions.

The same law firm representing the board in the lawsuit,  Sandberg Phoenix, is running the election:

• They mail the ballots

• They receive the ballots

• They count the ballots in private and without oversight

• They report the results directly to the board, so homeowners do not see the results before the board does. 

  • the homeowners do not know if the results were counted correctly by the attorney
  • the homeowners do not know if the board changes the results before sending to the homeowners

There is no independent oversight, and homeowners are excluded from every step of the process.

• Mail-in board elections are not valid under our bylaws

• Proxies cannot be banned just because it’s more convenient

• The association’s attorney is working to protect the board, not represent homeowners

• Legal fees are coming from HOA funds to sustain this system

• The current board is acting against the will of the homeowners — and using our money to do it

Based on what happened in 2023 and 2024, we fully expect this year’s meeting to follow the same pattern:

• The attorneys from Sandberg Phoenix will run the meeting, not the board and not the homeowners.

• Attorney Todd Billy has targeted the homeowner (me) who is currently being sued, calling her “childish” during past meetings and refusing to let her speak.

• Any homeowner who simply spoke to or supported me were also not allowed to ask questions at the meeting.

• There was no open discussion, and questions were filtered or silenced.

This conduct violates the Missouri Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct, which apply to all licensed attorneys in the state.

Attorneys are required to act with fairness, integrity, and professionalism, even in contentious matters.

Silencing a homeowner, labeling her as “childish,” and refusing to allow others to speak simply because they associate with her is not only inappropriate, but it may be an ethical breach.