Rebuttal to Suissevale’s Open Letter of January 24, 2020

As some are already aware, I am the member who was removed from the Board at the January meeting. I was removed because, after giving the Board several months to investigate the policy of not making the voter checklist available to the membership, they had not done so and adamantly defended a policy that simply contradicts state law.

First and foremost, let me assure everyone that I in no way accuse the Board of fraud. Rather, I pointed out in emails to the Board beginning last Spring as well as at the September Board meeting that the availability of the checklist is a tool to prevent error and fraud. I had researched voting practices during the Spring of 2019 as I was serving as Secretary and considered it part of my obligation to our Association. I shared information from New Hampshire’s laws and election manual with all board members at that meeting and also have several earlier email exchanges with the Board members involved in the election process pointing out the specific references.

The Board’s position then and now is that, because no law specifically deals with Home Owner Associations, Suissevale’s Board can proceed as they see fit and without consideration of related statutes. However, RSA 292, the New Hampshire statute under which we are formed, requires that our Association do nothing “repugnant to the laws of this state” (RSA 292:5). The state requires that voter checklists be available to the public. Additionally, New Hampshire Condo law, which governs a type of ownership closely related to Home Owner Associations, allows access. Also, in a past court case specifically involving Suissevale the court awarded access to election documents to the litigants (Carroll County Superior Court 212-2016-CV-00148).

It is true that in the January closed session the Board offered me funds of up to $1,000.00 to drop the case and seek legal opinion. I did not take them up on this offer as I had already sought legal advice from Robert Ducharme, a NH lawyer specializing in HOA and Condo law, and had been assured that the practice of not allowing checklist access would not be viewed favorably in court. Rather, I wondered why the Board had not investigated the policy at any time since they were first made aware of the issue last Spring. Therefore, as the Board was unable to provide me with any assurance that their practice would be upheld, I filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgement.

A Petition for Declaratory Judgement is just that: it requests that a judge rule on the appropriateness of a practice. I am not suing the Board. However, I feel strongly that the validity of our voting practices needs to be confirmed, especially as we will have other issues such as our future water concerns that will most probably require votes of the entire membership. I feel that this issue is best dealt with proactively rather than during a more contentious vote that might involve funds for water or other improvements.

During closed session I offered to withdraw the Petition if the Board reversed their position and allowed access to the checklist. They did not do so but claimed that my filed Petition would cost the Association money as they would have to defend against it and inform our insurance carrier. As I am not suing the Association this perplexed me on two fronts. First, I am not certain why the Board would have to involve a defense lawyer as I am asking for a ruling on the validity of a practice. Also, as I am not suing, I am concerned that the action would cause insurance issues. I was and am upset that the Board claimed that I would potentially cost the Association funds and I asked to see the insurance policy

but I have not been allowed access to it. Later, Rich Deforge reached out to me via email and asked me to withdraw the petition on grounds that it would cost the association money and I agreed to reconsider after review of the policy but again I was refused access to it.

I chose to pursue this matter during the winter in hopes that it could be resolved without any major disruption to our association. The Board has known about the petition since September. In fact, when I requested a tax document for the petition, I wrote on the form and in an eventual email that it was for the petition and I reiterated that when I was eventually allowed to view the document in November.

The Board has chosen to elevate the issue by publicizing it via both blast email and regular post as well by filing a motion asking that the petition be dismissed rather than allowing the Court to make a determination that would very possibly save our association time and money later should the issue arise again. I would have thought that it is in all our members collective interest to see this issue resolved in a manner that leaves no doubts as we move forward. Therefore, I am disappointed that my fellow Board members chose to take this particular course of action.

At the February meeting, I asked the Board to put this rebuttal on our Website so that all could be aware of the entire issue, but they refused to do so. Thus, I am asking that the rebuttal be put on the LoveSuissevale Website and Facebook pages.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Ginny Mooney