John, I'm not sure how anyone can say Jim's comment is well said. What he essentially said was that he is happy the board of directors decided to violate the bylaws to prevent a valid petition for a referendum.

What I support is the right of association members to use the existing bylaws approved by a referendum of the membership back around 2008. The current bylaws allow members to bring a petition for a referendum to the board in order to change the bylaws.

In the current case, over 800 board-validated member signatures called for the board to hold a referendum on changing the bylaws to set a maximum expenditure on any single project at $1 million without a referendum for the expenditure.

While you and others may not support the goal of the petitioners, how on earth can anyone suggest the board should violate the bylaws and not bring a valid petition to a referendum?

The petition and referendum are two distinct issues. A petition does not require a vote of the entire membership; it only requires the signatures of 10% of association members. The petitioners followed the bylaws and Resolution on petitions approved by the board. It is the board violating the bylaws, not the petitioners.

After a valid petition is received, the board is required to perform certain duties under the bylaws. This board failed in complying with the bylaws, leaving the petitioners no option but to take their case to court.

Those who oppose the intent of the petitioners will have every opportunity to vote for or against the proposed bylaws change when the referendum is mailed to all members.

As for legal fees, that is 100% on the Board of Directors. What should have been a simple referendum mailing costing about $10,000 as a result of a petition will now be a legal battle that may well see that $10,000 expenditure increased tenfold.

The board's action on this petition is disgraceful.