If you would allow me to suggest the very absurdity of keeping the questions secret -- First off, the questions from the committee are almost always 100% milquetoast. For example, Why do you want to be on the board? Do you support maintaining our infrastructure? Do you love your spouse?

Never expect to hear a question like: Do you agree with candidate Langevin that the GM should resign? Or, "Was president and now candidate Tom Terry right in spending $11,000 investigating Marty Clarke?"

Secondly, if 150 or so association members show up for the candidates forum, it is a big crowd. By comparison, the questions posed to the candidates that go out to all 8440 association members are provided to the candidates in advance. The notion that these candidate forum questions are somehow so important to be kept secret is ridiculous. The Candidates Forum pales to insignificance when compared to the impact of what candidates write in the paperwork sent to association members with the ballot.

Dan Stachurski is a perfect example. Last year he wrote eloquently how he would be a fiscal conservative regarding board spending; would work to reduce what the board could spend without a referendum. I found the claptrap nauseating to read. Uninformed lot owners, probably 70% of those voting, ate it up. Dan was coming to their fiscal rescue. How's that working out?  Look for Mr. Conservative to be the next board president.

How about allowing association members to ask questions directly from the floor? Not allowed. The Elections Committee prepares questions in advance, and any questions from association members must be in writing, submitted to the Committee and the Committee decides if the question will be asked.

What is so important about keeping the vote results top secret until the next morning? I know, I know -- someone will tell me if the results were known few people would show up for the annual meeting. A joke. Makes no difference if no one shows up. The election results still stand. Besides, even if 5000 association members show up they cannot conduct any association business. The annual meeting is a farce insofar as the ability of association members to actually do something goes. I know that becasue Joe Moore told us so, and board sure doesn't want association members to actually conduct business. It is no more than a OPA public relations meeting. Harsh comments? Perhaps so, but an accurate description of reality.

At root, this entire process is all about CONTROL -- trying to control those pesky association members.

The HOA statutes are designed to prevent the worst offenses, but they must be tempered with a measure common sense in situations that are not fully defined.

The HOA Act does indeed fully define when a board or a committee can go into closed session. The Act language stipulates the ONLY times a closed session is appropriate. What is ambiguous about ONLY? By the way, when OPA decides to ignore the HOA Act based on "common sense," whose brand of common sense are we talking about?