Recall election?

A “recall election” is an actual election; candidates campaign and the person with the most votes wins the remainder of the unexpired term. Even the California Governator only got to fill out the unexpired portion of Gray Davis’ term…and that WAS a legitimate recall election. But here in our Association, the 9/4/08 meeting was not a “recall election.” Jim Morrow was elected by members at the disputed 9/4/08 meeting to fill out the unexpired term of a removed director. See the Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief.

At the 9/23/08 Board meeting, President Joe DeSantis kept calling the 9/4/08 special meeting to remove me a “recall election.” But our By Laws have no mechanism for a “recall election.” Show me where it is written. You can’t, because they’re making this stuff up. The 9/4/08 meeting was a special meeting of the Members for the purpose of removing me as a director. Then, if desired, the Members could elect someone to fill the unexpired portion of my term according to our governing laws. But the Board just blew by this little detail, awarding Jim Morrow a brand-new 3-yr term in the “recall election,” arbitrarily creating yet another seat on the Board. Remember when I asked in Elections 101 how the Board and Comanco got us into this election mess regarding directors’ election stagger and terms? You do? Well, this is how.

In the midst of a lawsuit, when self preservation would demand a careful adherence to the governing laws, the Board continues to blissfully violate them and dissembles their way through opposition like a bulldozer. It appears this Board has convinced themselves against all reason the lawsuit is frivolous, easily dismissed, and business-as-usual will be restored before the end of the year. This seems to be an example of what psychologists refer to as engaging in magical thinking. It appears this Board cannot or will not distinguish between their invented reality and that of our governing laws. This pathology creates chaos and confusion for any homeowner trying to interact with the Board, has already brought us into the red, and will cost our Association a whole lot of money before a judge inevitably reacquaints this Board with reality.

A benevolent intervention seems in order.