The issue in this video segment is what constitutes an OPA member in good standing for purposes of voting. Surprisingly, a number of board members were not even aware that the Declarations of Restrictions (DRs) state the Board of Directors must vote to declare a member to be in continuing violation of the DRs, and notify the member of their decision before voting rights can be removed for violations.

Even more surprising is that OPA counsel Joe Moore admitted to not knowing this provision of the DRs, even though he expressed an opinion to the board on this issue last year in a discussion about whether or not a letter from CPI staff about a violation to a board candidate would preclude the candidate from running until the violation was settled.

At one point Dan Stachurski suggests the board should send such a letter immediately, along with the violation notice from CPI. This would remove voting rights without any due process. Later Stachurski softened his position.

Stachurski, Sandusky and Cook said the Board had never declared a member to be in continuing violation, raising the question of how many members were improperly denied ballots over the past six years, or more, based solely on violation notices from staff without the Board declaring the member to be in continuing violation. Cook seemed of the opinion it is too much to ask of the Board to follow the DRs and vote on such matters.

General Manager Tom Olson indicated the board authority to declare a member in continuing violation should be delegated to staff, thus allowing a CPI staff inspector to remove the voting rights of association members

All in all, it seemed the only persons at the table with a grasp of the Declarations of Restrictions, the Articles of Incorporation, and the by-laws in regard to this topic were Director Bill Zawacki and By-Laws Chair Al Bridgman.