1.1 CALL TO ORDER - The regular meeting of the San Lorenzo Village Homes Association Board of Directors was held Thursday, January 20, 2011. President Kathy Martins called the meeting to order at 7:42 p.m.

1.2 SALUTE TO THE FLAG - President Martins led the Board and the audience in the pledge of allegiance.

1.3 ROLL CALL - Directors Kathy Martins, Mel Medeiros, Margaret Wright, Brenda Carr and Art Wydler were present. There was no recording for the first part of the meeting.

2.0 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

2.1 Approval of Minutes of Meeting #1238 on December 16, 2010 and work sessions #1237 on December 8, 2010.

Director Wright makes a motion to approve the minutes and work sessions. Director Medeiros seconds, the motion carries unanimously.

Director Carr noted that she still had concerns that no minutes are taken at the work sessions.

3.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS

3.1 Community Engagement Committee (CEC) -- President Martins stated that there will be a meet and greet prior to next month's meeting on February 17, 2011. The new Supervisor for San Lorenzo, Wilma Chan, will be present for residents to meet. Martins announced that the CEC is also helping the San Lorenzo Little League with a Casino Night fundraiser that will be held in the Community Hall on April 2010. (Recording was started for the meeting).

3.2 H.A.R.D. (Hayward Area Recreational District) Advisory Committee -- Director Wydler noted that there was no meeting last month however, he wanted to address some questions from the last meeting about Measure WW funds. There were 1 billion-plus funds that were allocated from the measure on a per capita basis. Approximately 125 million dollars of these funds was allocated for San Lorenzo and Wydler stated that to date no funds have been expended for the area. He said that Measure WW funds can only be used for capital improvements and developments for existing parks or facilities, but not for maintenance. HARD has asked that residents come forth with ideas on where to spend these funds. It was discussed as to whether WW funds could be used for acquisition of property, and whether the property recently purchased by HARD at Hacienda and Via Toledo was done so with these funds. Director Wydler stated that he would bring back this information at the next meeting in February so that the Board and the membership could be clear on the issue.

3.4 Library Advisory Committee -- Director Wright stated that there was no meeting this past month. The next meeting will be held on 2/24/11. Director Medeiros stated that he is still concerned about how the money is going to be used for the new proposed library. President Martins noted that the library is in lease negotiations which will enable the board and the community to have a final say on how the funds are spent.

3.5 Redevelopment Committee -- President Martins said there was no report, no meeting this past month.

3.6 Unincorporated Committee -- Director Wright reported that there was no meeting held this past meeting. The next meeting will be January 23, 2011, where Supervisor Chan will be present at 6 pm in this Community Hall.

3.7 Youth Advisory Committee -- No report.

4.0 COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES

4.1 CHP Report -- Sgt Paula Sins introduced herself as the acting Sergeant for the Castro Valley area, and Officer Bauers as the officer for the San Lorenzo area. She said that unfortunately they did not have statistics this evening due to technical difficulties. The Sgt stated that the DUI arrests are up, although DUI traffic citations are down, which notes that they are citing those driving drunk, prior to any traffic violations occurring. Sins also stated that the traffic collisions in San Lorenzo are also down for the past month. Officer Bauers stated that they are targeting school areas for any traffic violations/speeding etc, which is helping with student safety.

Director Medeiros noted that there continues to be jay-walking in front of Grant Elementary and there will be a meeting held at the school on January 27, 2011. At this meeting they will discuss the problems with parking, the dropping off and picking up of children before and after school. Director Carr thanked them for their enforcement in the San Lorenzo area.

4.2 Sheriff's Department -- Officer JD Stewart left a print out of statistics for the past month. He also spoke about their success with the Toys for Tots programs and their work during the holiday season.

Resident Lisa Gudjohnsen on Via Nube stated that there was a burglary on her block on December 22, 2010. There were a group of individuals dressed in "orange vests" that were going door to door. Stewart stated that there had been no report that he knew of, but he would look into this for the next meeting.

Deputy Stewart announced that his department lost Officer Mark Ortiz this past month in a motor vehicle accident. He asked the audience to pause for a minute of silence in honor of the Officer.

There will be a dinner/fundraiser this coming Friday at the Portuguese Hall off of Grove at 6pm for his surviving wife and children.

President Martins offered her condolences on behalf of the staff and board, to Officer Ortiz his family, fellow officers and friends.

4.3 Supervisor Chan -- Staff member Gene Calderon, said that Supervisor Chan will retain the office in San Lorenzo. Calderon is currently working in Oakland until they finish some renovations at that office and can be reached at 510-272-6693. He said that the Supervisor is looking forward to working with San Lorenzo.

Director Wright wanted to confirm she will be at the unincorporated meeting. Calderon stated yes the Supervisor will be present.

4.4 Zoning Enforcement Report -- No report was left for the audience.

4.5 Public Comment - Items not on agenda

Avani Desai from COMPRE stated that on Monday, February 7, 2011 at 6 pm, the Alcohol Ordinance will be reheard. She invited the audience and board to attend.

Resident Lois Moser from Via Sorrento stated that the KIPP school renovations were approved, even though pink slips have been issued to get rid of some teachers in the district. Moser wanted to know if Measure O funds were being used for the project. She asked whether Superintendant Byas was aware of what was going on with KIPP and how residents felt about the new construction. She wanted Byas invited to an Association meeting to discuss this issue. President Martins stated that they would agendize the item for an upcoming meeting.

Resident Mr. Gomes on Via Corta asked about corporation laws. He is concerned about certain members’ right to vote and cited corporation law that he believes supports his claims.

Resident Lisa Ratto from Via Redondo, asked to see the recall petition and its signatures. She gave the board a written letter requesting the same.

5.0 FINANCIAL REPORT

5.1 Approval of December 2010 Expenditures -- Director Medeiros made a motion to approve the December 2010 expenditures, Director Wright seconded. The motion carries with the following vote: Ayes: Martins, Medeiros, Wright, Wydler; Abstain: Carr; Nays: None

6.0 OTHER BUSINESS (motions may be required)

6.1 CC&R and By Laws Legal Update -- Director Wydler reported that the Association's CC&Rs were written a long time ago and the board has been discussing how it feels they no longer reflect the community at this present time. They will be looking at having the CC&Rs and the Association By-Laws reviewed. Wydler stated that he has looked into a firm to help with this. The Board would like to look into the legal aspect to see if anything should be changed with the current laws as well as to look into the content of the CC&Rs to see if anything can be done about the content and how they affect our residents currently.

Resident Howard Beckman from Via Dolorosa stated that we have a superb set of CC&Rs the problem that we have is the interpretation and thus the enforcement of the CC&Rs. He felt that Bohannon wrote a very good set of CC&Rs and is opposed to any revision of the CC&Rs. If there is any opposition to whatever proposed changes that occur in the CC&Rs it will be very difficult to get the sufficient vote needed to change them from the membership. He stated that the fact that the CC&Rs are not consistent with case law is irrelevant.

Beckman stated that the last time there was discussion of changing the By-Laws there was not sufficient discussion prior to the changes being made. The desire to go forward with these revisions needs to have a strong reasoning behind it. He did not feel that there was strong enough reasoning discussed tonight.

Director Carr stated that she realizes that we have 48 sets of CC&Rs and in order to get revisions for any of these, there needs to be 75% agreement in that particular tract.

Many residents commented on the CC&Rs from the desire to change what some people see as "targeting" certain residents, to looking at bringing them "up to date" with violations that are now relevant to today's population versus those that were considered when they were first written in the 1940's and 1950's.

Director Wydler made a motion to have the Administrator find three law firms to do the service of rewriting and the updating of the CC&Rs and the By-laws and to obtain sample pricing and contracts from those firms and report back to the board and that money be set aside in next year's budget to undergo this review. Director Wright seconded.

Director Carr asked a point of clarification, whether the board could just concentrate on the CC&R's.

Director Wydler stated that the firms that he has looked into do both at the same time as a package. He was unclear if they would offer to review each individually. President Martins noted that the motion would allow them to look into quotes from firms to move forth and they could make a separate decision after they look at these quotes.

The motion carries unanimously.

6.2 Appointment of CCR Ad Hoc Committee -- Director Wydler stated that since a new board will be seated in February 2011, he is opting to hold off on making a motion for the new committee until after this new board is sworn in.

6.3 Resolution Process for Ballots to be counted February 1, 2011 (detailed minutes)

President Martins: Item 6.3 Resolution Process for Ballots to be counted February 1st, 2011.
 
President Martins: During our work session we received some questions for proper resolutions from 
UniLect regarding how we deal with irregularities in the balloting process. During that time, Director 
Carr stated that you weren’t comfortable voting on any of those resolutions, is that still your 
position? 

Director Carr: That is my position. It is my position that I am concerned that I actually read off some 
information, do you want to talk about this now or do you want to finish this statement. 

President Martins: I just wanted to quickly because there were some questions regarding whether we 
would need to have a unanimous vote of directors so I just needed to know if your position remains that 
you will not be voting on any of the resolutions? 

Director Carr: My position is that there needs to be a neutral party and that we are not in compliance 
with what corporate says. Specifically, Civil Section 1363, In reference to the procedures on this 
recall has transpired to date. 

President Martins: So would you be voting on the resolution? 

Director Carr: I will abstain. 

Director Medeiros: Did Nancy give the information on the resolution if we need all the five votes? 

President Martins: Nancy and I have spent considerable time talking to UniLect. Before we move on to 
the process for ballots to be counted, I would like to make a statement. After doing considerable 
research with UniLect, the company consulting our attorney with the position the board has, I would 
like to make the following statement. I apologize to my fellow directors who have not heard this yet. 
It certainly is not going to make me or the board more popular, but I accepted it by seeing it as my 
fiduciary responsibility as the current seated President of this Board, to make the best possible 
decisions for the Homes Association and its 26,000 people. This is the first recall in the 
association’s history and a new experience for many of us. While the association believes and it has a 
history behind the process to back it up, that there are adequate safeguards in place to ensure the 
most credible of elections. It seems as though we have no choice at this time but to call this election 
process to a halt. If I could finish my statement please. Procedural issues have arisen, specifically 
the 300 missing ballots. There are many theories regarding these ballots, ranging from the nefarious to 
the completely circumstantial. If there were any attempts to defraud the system attested, our 
safeguards so far will prevent them from being successful, examples, stolen ballots, taking ballots to 
submit or look at, etc. etc. In addition, as an extra safeguard, our independent elections inspector 
has agreed to open each ballot envelope themselves without the assistance of staff or volunteers. 
However, Director Carr believes that there could formally be a reason to challenge the process or 
resort to the courts. The elections inspector proposed four resolutions that would result in issues 
prior to the counting of the new ballots. Ms. Carr indicated that she did not sign off any of these 
resolutions, which she reaffirmed tonight because she wanted to reserve all the rights to challenge the 
election in courts. We hope that all parties would agree on how the election would proceed, and be fair 
to everyone involved in order to avoid any more cost, however, that doesn’t seem to be a possibility at 
this time. Thus, we the board, are faced with a very difficult decision. If we proceed with the 
election and Director Carr decides to challenge it in court, this could cost the association untold 
amounts of money. In addition, to continue the election at this point, we need to pay an inspector of 
elections to count ballots. If we cancel the election and start the process from the beginning, 
contacting all the responsibilities to an independent contractor, then we are looking at an additional 
$15,000-$20,000. We know that no matter what we decide, our homeowners will be unhappy about this type 
of expenditure as we are. When homeowners petitioned to recall Director Carr, we had and still have a 
legal obligation to hold an election. The members that presented that petition did so at a time where 
it could coincides with our regular election in order to save some money. Our volunteers mailed out the 
ballots which they have done so in the past and previous elections in order to save our association a 
significant amount of money. In hindsight, that probably was not the best way to proceed with this 
election. I am going to ask the board shortly to make a motion to stop this recall process. If this 
means that we are going to be stopping the recall process as a whole, but the fact of the matter is 
that there are too many questions arising from this election. I have struggled with myself over 
the last month, shortly before Christmas, when I found out about the 300 missing ballots, I struggled 
at that point whether to call the election. In the beginning, the hope was that the recall either way 
would be that the 300 ballots didn’t matter. Spending a considerable amount of time in researching and 
spending a considerable amount of effort, the fact is that 300 ballots are missing and it shows that 
there are irregularities in the election. And allowing the election to go on, I believe it is 
irresponsible on my part as your president and our part as a board. I know that this economic crisis is 
difficult for many people at this time to come up with the $100 a year. I know that several people have 
fixed incomes. 

We’ve seen that the loss of jobs is damaging our economy and I know that the $100 was not to run our 
election but to increase our CC&R enforcement and continuing to make San Lorenzo the best possible 
place we can. However, I feel at this point it is irresponsible, with all the questions arising, to 
allow us to be in litigation which will cost us far greater than stopping the election now and 
restarting it. I want this recall to be over, I want it to be over for everybody involved, not only is 
it dividing the board, but it is dividing the community. 

I can’t publically go places now without being told people are being totally harassed. Neighbors who 
used to be friendly now have taken sides. People have taken this personally, blamed it on either side, 
you have to realize that this is nobody’s fault. This was a petition started by the members, we as a 
board had no choice once the petition was given to us to go forth with the recall. There’s been a need 
to blame the board for the recall. Again, it was started by the members. What I am asking the board 
now, and I apologize for springing this on everyone today, but I have spoken with UniLect, they have 
consulted with the independent attorney, not the association’s attorney but another attorney and I feel 
that at this point it would be irresponsible to let us continue with the election. 

So what I will ask this board to do is to pass a motion to stop and halt this recall process and then 
make another motion to reinitiate this process using an independent third party for the stuffing, the 
mailing, and the receiving so that no one on the association, no one on the board and no one from the 
public has their hands on the ballots. 

President Martins: I need a (second to the) motion. 

Director Wydler : I second that motion. 

President Martins: I have a second for that motion, is there any discussion on this issue from the 
board? 

Director Medeiros: Yeah, I would like to say something. I kind of agree with you, this has split our 
community. And what has split our community is all that crap that you read in the Patch. I love the 
Patch, I read it every morning, but it is getting out of hand, all of those innuendos, misquotes, 
things  that are said that aren’t true, are outright lies. They will take one part of a saying out of a 
paragraph and  call it the truth. I find it very irritating, I can’t go anywhere without people asking 
me what’s going on, what’s going on with the board? If I had known all of this was going to happen, I 
wouldn’t have stayed another three years. I had no idea this was coming I had no idea that there were 
so many people out there that are vicious, that could care less about San Lorenzo, that they just care 
about their little issues. San Lorenzo is our community. I always liked Brenda Carr. I asked her to 
come on the board, like I said it’s been a real problem. I want to tell everybody out there, 
transparency, I have been on here three years and not once, not once has this board kept anything from 
their community. And its shame on all of you people that have said we have. I find that irritating. 
Thank you. [applause] 

President Martins: Thank you. Director Wydler, you would like to make a statement before the passing of 
the motion. 

Director Wydler: I have a question that I hope you could answer. 

President Martins: Sure go ahead. 

Director Wydler: I know there were some timelines once. A petition once submitted, if that process is 
halted and restarted do the timeline that we are obligated to fulfill, are we within that time period 
to accept, act on the petition that was given to us? 

President Martins: From what I understand, is that we have followed the time table to a tee, however 
to preserve due diligence it’s our responsibility to stop this election, the timeline starts again once 
we stop it. And we would go forward with contracting a company and getting it done as soon as possible. 
Was that your question? 

Director Wydler: I think that answers the question, yeah. 

President Martins: We don’t start the entire process over again, when the petition has been inspected, 
we have to move forward. The only reason we are not falling within the guidelines is because we believe 
that there are irregularities with the election. Again, everyone has their opinions but the fact of the 
matter is nobody knows. And for me and probably other board members there’s too much of a question 
there, there’s too much of an irregularity. So many of you have come just for this issue, neighbors 
have turned into enemies. People who were cordial have turned into people who aren’t speaking, it needs 
to stop. I don’t think this will stop people from choosing a side but we need to choose a side and 
agree to disagree respectfully. I think continuing with this election will not make anybody any 
happier. So yes, we are. Once we stop we have to move forward with that part of the process again as 
soon as possible. More comments? Director Wright. I will get to the public after the entire board has 
spoken. 

Director Wright: So you’re proposing that we just start the whole process from giving the ballots out 
to the public. 

President Martins: UniLect is an independent third party that was recommended by Echo, which Director 
Carr indicated in the previous work session as excellent organization, which is why we wanted Echo in 
the first place. Director Carr did bring up the County Registrar of Voters, and I just wanted to say 
that after doing some research, the registered voters signatures on file but those are only for 
registered voters. They cannot guarantee us that a majority of our homeowners are registered voters. So 
while that may be something that she requested we look into recently, we have looked into it and it is 
unreasonable to expect that every person who has voted in San Lorenzo home owners is a registered 
voter in Alameda County. So again, we are going to go with an independent third party and I need to 
call a special meeting of the board, which I have the right to under Robert’s Rules of Order, with less 
than…with 48 hours of notice on the board, to elect a new inspector of the election that is agreeable 
to everyone that is what we will do. We are going to start the process over, there is no room for error 
on anybody on this board, in our staff. Again, nobody knows what’s happened. Did I answer your 
questions? Thank you. Director Medeiros. 

Director Medeiros : I just wanted to thank this board. I don’t know if you all know it, this board 
stands neutral the whole time, all five of us. So I just wanted to thank everybody for staying out of 
the mix. 

President Martins: Well, that might exclude you [laughter], considering your opinion earlier. Director 
Carr. 

Director Carr: I would just like to add, the motion that you have on the floor right now is inclusive, 
to call or recall and would you repeat that motion. 

President Martins: Okay, if I could restate what I said because I don’t remember exactly what I said. I 
rule that the board halt the current recall election and begin the recall election and with an 
independent party handling each and every step of the election from the printing to the mailing to the 
receiving of the ballots. 

Director Carr: As I would want to abstain to be part of, which is the stopping of the recall and you 
know my position on that, I would support and I do support that the recall process go through from the 
very beginning in accordance to Corporate Code, so we know who has asked and has provided us with a 
petition and I support this position. And that is my concern as a board member. I will continue to 
follow proper procedures. So I guess my question is you had asked me if I was going to vote one way or 
the other, and I would not vote on, it would be very difficult for me to want to vote on that 
particular motion because the motion to me would be in two parts: one would be that the recall is 
halted, which I choose to abstain to. The second part is that the recall move forward which I agree to, 
the recall procedure in accordance to the law, move forward, to include, though I would have to add 
that the signatures be verified by an outside neutral party. 

President Martins: I am going to add that the petition signatures be verified by a neutral third party, 
they were verified prior to appointing an inspector of elections. There are many people who are quoting 
the law, I am not a lawyer. I am going to say it again. People have claimed that I don’t know the law 
that is probably the most reasonable thing I have heard about myself in a long time. I do not know the 
law, I am a volunteer; I am not a lawyer. We will look to the professionals to interpret the law. The 
only thing I can say is that we have discussed the petition, there has been a request for copies of the 
petition, the request was denied. There’s been another request for the petition, the request was 
denied. The point that the petition needs to be looked at by an inspector of to validate however we 
didn’t determine we needed an inspector of election until we knew there was a valid petition. So I do 
not wish to amend the motion to include another verification of the petition, that is your right, we 
talked in the work session to request that yourself, you can do that and pay for that out of your own 
pocket. That’s per our association’s attorney. Because in order to have another verification, we are 
talking about another $800 to $1,000. The petition was verified by the Homes Association’s staff, it 
was verified by several members of the staff. No one on the board has actually physically seen the 
petition. Is that correct? 

Response by the Administrator: correct. 

Brenda Carr is not the only person being denied the right to look at this petition. I have a letter 
here, if you will bear with me here for just a minute. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding 
about the recall process. This is from Glenn Youngling, our Association attorney with 20 years of 
experience, who represents several home associations, I believe 200, is that correct? 

Administrator: I can’t verify that. 

President Martins: I can get the number if anyone is looking for it. He sent letters on December 15th, 
I’m sorry I wasn’t prepared for this, December 13th and December 21st all about requesting the 
petition. And basically what it is is that there is a case in 1995, the legislators emphasizing for 
privacy in the voting process, and since 2006 section code 1363.03, requires secrecy of the process of 
voting material and extending the roles of inspectors of elections to save the integrity of the process 
to maintain secrecy. I want to state again Director Carr is not the only person who has not seen this 
petition. The only people who have seen this petition are the staff members who verified the petition, 
of which there were three. I am not willing to at this time amend the motion. If someone else would 
like to amend the  motion to include the petition that is well within their rights. 

Administrator: If I may, one clarification, director Carr, I believe you said that you wanted a neutral 
party to verify the signatures. Did I hear you correctly? 

Director Carr: Yes. 

Administrator: And you have been told that can be done. You were just sent an email a couple days ago 
by myself saying that you could absolutely do that. 

Director Carr: At my cost, correct. 

Administrator: At your cost, that is correct. 

President Martins: Okay so there is a motion. Is there anyone else on the board who has anything in 
regards to this motion? Okay we will take comments from the public but I will ask again, go to the 
right (of the podium). I will use my gavel much to the distress of some members because we want to keep 
on point. 

Administrator: Do you want a time limit? 

President Martins: I do would appreciate a time limit. 

Administrator: Three minutes. 

President Martins: Yes. 

Resident Howard Beckman: I think this is an extraordinarily wise recommendation. It’s not going to 
change much and I will tell you why. When you say that you have an ability of encountering a great deal 
of animosity, that animosity was there years ago and it has been building and it’s not going to go 
away. I dealt with many non-profits that have become fractured by factionalism or personality complex. 
Regardless of the outcome of this election, we are going to live with negative consequences for years 
to come. But I still think that it is a very wise decision to remove the extremist problems and start 
the election process over again, of the manner in which this election has gone forward. I want to say 
with respect to the petition, much of my lawyering is directed towards free speech and the process. 
Traditional practices, fair play, I have serious problems with the petition and I may or may not 
challenge the petition, regardless of the election. I think that the manner in which the signatures are 
verified is really not important and I would recommend against including that in any new process that 
goes forward. I don’t see the point of that and for those who would like to have the signatures 
verified in another way ought to explain more what the advantage of that is. 

President Martins: I just motioned for a new election process (not to include the recount of the 
petition) 

Resident Beckman: I don’t see it, but I will encourage you to restart the election process with the 
understanding, and this is my personal opinion, that it’s not going to lead us into a better place 
regardless of the outcome of the election. When I first moved back here 12 years ago, my first meeting 
with Nancy was to talk with her about the shocking news that I got here about how negative people 
were about the association. I wanted to talk to her about ways of improving that and educating people. 
And like I said to you before over the years, I don’t think the association has done a bad job. 

President Martins: Thank you. 

Resident Mark Mitchell – Via Corta: this is the first meeting I have been to in several months so I 
haven’t seen some of the issues of Brenda Carr versus some of the board members. 

President Martins: It is not Brenda Carr vs. the Board Members, this is a petition started by the 
membership the Board has nothing to do with the petition. 

Resident Mitchell: Okay, most of what I have known about it is from reading comics and the seminars, 
as far as the opinion people have either way you look at it, of certain board members, but I think 
there is one which heralds some people to come together and I separate that with whether Brenda Carr is 
the best person on the board or is she the worst person on the board, are there better board members 
than her or worse board members. I think that the biggest issue really is that simply we should give 
everybody some air..is it worth it. Whether she should be the one removed or everybody else should be 
removed and she should be kept, a few days ago my wife and I we were talking about the fact that 
about 20 years ago she was seeing red lights. This is certainly not something worth arguing about, no 
hard feelings, I mean I think everybody should not be getting so mad at each other, we are damaging the 
community…I would try to blow the whole house down *laughter+. 

President Martins: As a point of clarification, we have no choice but to continue once the recall 
petition was verified but thank you very much Mark for your comments. We are glad to see you back. 

Resident: I would just like to say thank you very much Kathy for making that decision and for helping 
us out. As a community member, I am ready to talk about the folks that are going to be leaving this 
spring instead of all of this stuff and getting ready to be a part of the neighborhood and community. 

President Martins: Thank you. 

Resident: I guess the only comment that I had was I am glad whatever is happening honestly, you said it 
is dividing us, so if it is dividing us then why are we going to redo it again? 

President Martins: We have no choice, once the petition was submitted and verified; we had no choice 
but to move forward. You know the very complaint that the people have about the board is that we 
have no accountability and transparency. That’s what’s been said, however I understand your question, 
and we don’t have a choice. It’s mandated by law. 

Resident: No, I work hard in the community with the high schools and I want to see the community 
together. It’s hard getting it together. 

Resident: I understand that you can’t show people whose signatures are on this petition but as far as 
the people who did the verifying, we all are allowed to know that and we are also allowed to know how 
they were verified and we are also allowed to know what was the criteria on the paper. 

President Martins: We discussed that. I would be happy to discuss that when your turn is up as a point 
of clarification. 

Resident: Okay, well I am interested in their phone number and whether they were the head of the 
household, you know what I mean. Stuff like that that. Okay, second of all, if we are going to recall 
this election we need to recall the whole election, the entire thing and if somebody is going to get 
these signatures we can’t pick choose which parts of the recall we want to do. We need to go through 
the whole process over again. 

President Martins: Okay so let me answer your question, the first thing is the verification was done by 
association staff. Names were matched up to titles of homes, so no your sixteen year old son could not 
have signed the petition, stuff like that. I am trying to remember all your questions, I should have 
written them down. Stuff like that is verified through titles, to make sure that they were in fact home 
owners, anyone who was not a home owner was thrown out, make sure that the person on the petition 
is listed on the title. Did I miss anything, oh, you talked about picking and choosing the only part of 
the process right now that is in question is the balloting and the election, so that is the part we are 
choosing, we have to at this point, to start over. 

Resident: You said the whole recall process, and the whole recall process is inclusive. 

President Martins: No it isn’t. Okay, go ahead and finish. 

Resident: I don’t understand your thinking. The recall process… 

President Martins: If you would like to speak, we are going to have some order here. Okay that means 
everybody. If you would like to respond, respond. Just one second. The recall process was initiated by 
a petition. The recall process is the process by which we have a recall election. 

Resident: Well, I have one other question too, when people have requested this copy of the paperwork 
where people sign the petition, how come they weren’t letting know that they couldn’t receive the 
actual copy but what their rights were? 

President Martins: It has been told to people several times. It has been told in writing, it has been 
told to anyone requesting the petition. 

Resident: Okay, can I see a copy of that paperwork? Can I get a copy of that? 

Administrator: It’s on the web. 

President Martins: Your turn is actually up. There are copies of the letter… 

Resident: What’s on the Website? 

President Martins: You know what, I am trying my best to accommodate you, if you don’t want to work 
with me that’s fine. I could let you see my copy this very minute that is if you can’t wait till the 
web, but I have my copies right here, right now. 

Resident: That’s fine. 

President Martins: You can see it right now. 

Resident: That’s fine. 

President Martins: Okay. Order please everyone, we don’t need to be mean. Go ahead please. 

Resident Wydler: My name is Diana Wydler and but I guess it is a good idea to start the ballot all over 
again because of the discrepancies. It is up to the Home Owners Association to elect people they want 
to see on the board, we can also unelect people. Not necessarily through a recall, but when their term 
is up, you can elect somebody else. As for the normal time, you would unselect somebody and then select 
somebody else. This happened to be in the middle of the term which is causing so much conflict and 
complications. I would also like to point out that I think that a lot of this is happening, look at all 
of the people here. Who wanted to run to be on the board? Nobody. Nobody voted for me. I am just going 
to do it because nobody came and submitted paperwork and so I said okay I’ll submit the paperwork. So I 
just want to say that when you are interested, come to the meetings, join the community, and volunteer 
to be on the board, put your name out there. We only just have five people who are trying to handle 
everything on the go. Going back, I think that it is proper that we do restart the re-balloting process 
over again. I am just sorry that this whole thing is coming back. [applause]

President Martins: Thank you. I am just trying to maintain order. 

Resident Keith Barros: I wanted to repeat something because for some reason it doesn’t seem to get in 
print and people begin to believe that the board has initiated this regardless of what has happened. 
This recall started with a petition. By the way, for clarification, for the concern of this gentleman, 
what you are doing is you are stopping the ballot process, you are not stopping the recall process and 
that needs to be clear. The recall is going to start, the ballot process is being stopped and being 
restarted. And I need to know which signatures is it that you were talking about verifying, I need to 
know that, signatures of what? 

Administrator: Would you like to stop the clock to answer him. 

President Martins: What’s the question, which signatures are you talking about? 

Resident Barros: I am talking about future verification of signatures, I don’t know whose those are, 
are the signatures on the ballot envelope, signatures on the petition, and what are we talking about? 

President Martins: I believe what he was speaking about was the original petition. He asked how they 
were verified, I answered that question. 

Resident: Okay, it’s not future verification you are talking about changing *directed to member of 
audience]? 

President Martins: We don’t have, and I am going to say it again a statement of the December minutes, 
we do not have signatures of each of you in the Homes Association. We do not have the signatures, if I 
sign something today, and you ask the Homes Association, can I see Kathy Martin’s signature? We don’t 
have that. The Registrar of Voters would only have that if you are a registered voter, which I am. But 
the question which I have right now is that I am registered to vote and I am 18 years old, I guarantee 
you some 21 years later, that signature looks different. We do not, have not, and let me say ever, 
verified signatures by signatures. We verified them if they are a home owner, (that is) if they are 
listed on a title. 

Okay start the clock. 

Resident Barros: The thing I want to remind people of, that doesn’t seem to get to the media and the 
press, or Patch unless it’s unless it’s me that is writing it, is the reason that it is on the petition 
to begin with. It was for reasons of ethics, it wasn’t for reasons of being disagreeable, and it was 
for reasons of ethics. I am not going to get into the details of that because it will waste my time up 
here. Lots of folks have come forward from I don’t know where, I am hearing a lot of them from Via 
Corta, who have not been at any events or have not witnessed any behavior that the ethics charges are 
based on. None of them were there. 

President Martins: Okay I need order in the audience please. 

Resident Barros: Anyway, I have lots of respect for the Patch, I read it every day, I get things from 
it, it’s a shame that, you talk about free speech, but there’s a lot of stuff on there that people are 
abusing of all sorts. I refused to stop answering some of the questions, in one case, regardless of all 
the questions that I answered with correct answers that could not be argued with, he was remained 
unreasonably argumentative and I told him that he got his last answer and he never got another one from 
me. 

President Martins: Please, Mr. Barros, can we get back on the subject? 

Resident Barros: Oh, I am sorry. 

President Martins: I believe that Mr. Daniel Carr was given his three minutes. 

Resident Barros: I’m just going to say that I didn’t have time to do what I did along with Mr. Orselli 
in initiating this, I didn’t have the time to do this. I did it because I believed it was necessary and 
I did it because it really needed to get done. And if we have to do it over again, I have always been 
one in favor of openness and I have always been in favor of extreme balance and of security, and I wish 
the first balloting had been held the way the second balloting is going to be held. So I am going 
to..and that’s all I have. 

President Martins: Thank you. 

Resident: I feel this whole thing has become a giant cat fight. I think we all need to very seriously 
stop putting each other down and need to start bringing each other up. I am not in agreement on this 
recall at all, I find Brenda to be a very warm and caring person, and she has heard all of our first 
amendment rights, so therefore I would like to see this whole thing recalled and no ballot done again. 
Thank you, may god bless all of you. No one is a target. 

President Martins: Thank you. 

Resident Mendez: Good evening, I am Nicki Mendez, Via Segundo, I just want to say that in regards to 
the re-ballot, I think that is the right thing to do. I know that was not an easy decision for you to 
make but with 300 votes missing for whatever the reasons are, it is the right thing to do to start the 
process over because 300 votes may be the deciding factor one way or the other. In regards to all of 
the comments that all of the directors are receiving. I am going to say that a long time ago I was a 
soccer referee, no matter what call you decide to make, or even if you try to stay in control, one side 
is going to love you and one side is going to hate you. You are all in a position that is very visible, 
and I know that you all are trying to do the very best that you can, and we are trying to go through 
the process that was started by the Member’s of the home association for this recall, it is the right 
thing to do, continue with the process and the process has to be done correctly so, that’s all I am all 
for it, and I think it’s a great thing to do. Thank you. 

President Martins: Thank you. 

Resident: Mike Ratto, 1734 Via Rodondo, come by any time if you have any questions. I wasn’t planning 
on speaking tonight, but I just want to say in terms of the petition and anything that goes on, you 
want to make sure that it is valid. When I was reading some comments about why this particular petition 
is valid, I think this one a piece of paper that I got at this office, they said that each member gets 
two votes which is incorrect. And really, I realize that this has to do with laws and it has to do with 
lawyers and stuff, but really, read a law book. It’s not that complicated. In terms of the bylaws, it 
says each member shall be entitled to cast two votes for each lot he owns and if there is more than one 
person in a house, you still get the same amount of votes which is two votes per house. So what that 
means is, each member that lives at the same house, again you have two people that live at the same 
house, that’s two votes. Okay, you have one person at one address that is still two votes. If somebody 
else signs that address, it would be one or the other. If you have three people, that would be two 
votes. Okay, and the other thing, in the bylaws it says in a recall, you have to follow California 
corporation code 7222. In California Corporation Code, it says, validity of membership approval may 
require under this section, meaning that this petition has to be validated. And like I said, I really 
think it needs to be validated by a third party that really understands the rules and I have no faith 
in the way it has been handled so far. 

1734 Via Rodondo, come out. [laughter] 

President Martins: Thank you. 

Resident Don Clowser: You know what, I am really proud of the board. We’ve come to the board in the 
past with petitions. This is our only regret; we turn this in every year. As of right now, you are 
spectators at a board meeting. Everybody is here voting according to law. My daughter, she’s an 
attorney; she told me the law on that. When I told her something, she straightened me out. Attorneys 
are the only people that can interpret the law. You read one thing, but then you will find out other 
reasons. One attorney will say one thing and another attorney will say another thing. Well, you are 
afforded one protection in this community, and that is if you want to exercise your right to send out a 
petition, you can modify the rules, by petition. Okay, so this is your right: to sit around and 
petition, to show what the community wants done. I don’t like the idea when people come here to 
meetings and say, you haven’t been here before, you don’t have a right to speak up, give me a break. We 
are all in this community, and if we come once a year your voice is heard. But exercise a right to do a 
petition, and do it right. Get a third party and move on. And that way, the voice is heard from the 
community, it is addressed. Somewhere according to the law, somewhere I read the board can or maybe 
never. Am I right? 

President Martins: So they can remove them from office.

Resident: Remove who? 

President Martins: It’s done by the President, not from the director. 

Resident: So there you go, if I read it wrong somewhere it’s adjusted. I will read the law? 

President Martins: Thank you. This is our last comment for this section. You know what, I need order. 
Please state your name and address. 

Resident Natalie: Paseo Del Rio. You know I keep hearing this, I don’t know the exact ballot. But won’t 
it continue even if we do a third party because if somebody’s voted out, then there’s gonna be a 
challenge, it’s going to cost the association more money. There goes more of our dollars.

President Martins: Is that your entire statement? I just want to say again it was not in our power to 
start the recall so it is not in our power to sit there and say let’s just stop it because no one wants 
to spend money for it. We can’t. 

Resident: I think a more decent question is, once we get this third party in there, say the recall 
happens, isn’t there going to be an appeal? Unfortunately, they don’t want you in office, so if she 
appeals it, isn’t it going to cost… 

President Martins: Well, I think there is this right. It’s our fiduciary responsibility, which I 
believe, we can never stop someone from repeating something, that is the system we are in right? 

Director Carr: As long as this process is handled by a third party, that includes verification of the 
signatures, I am concerned not so much about the signatures verification on the petition. My biggest 
concern is not so much the recall, it’s the process. I don’t want people to point fingers at the Home 
Association, at the staff, the administrator, the board. We were brought a petition to 5 members and 
the members took the time to get the number of signatures necessary. This petition then needs to be 
reviewed by an outside party so there is no question. The petition is not weak, because they are not 
workers of this association, but an outside neutral party needs to look for the signatures to see if 
the petition was done correctly, to ensure the signatures are all by the members and to move this 
process forward. This board will not put their hands on anything, and neither did any individuals of 
this association. At that time it is the neutral party, and whatever the judgment is of the people. And 
if they choose to recall me, I will respect that position, if they choose not to recall me, I will 
finish out my term. So that’s where I’m at. 

Resident Natalie: That’s good to know because I was hoping that whoever started this all, takes that 
position too. 

President Martins: I believe that our job as the board of the association is not ensure, one way or 
another that there is not going to be an appeal. I feel our job as the board is to make sure that the 
election runs as smoothly and as credibly as possible. 

Resident Natalie: Right, because I know some appeals can go on for years and it’s a no-win situation. 

President Martins: I just have one question for the Administrator. Did the attorney validate the 
petition as well? 

Administrator:: No. 

President Martins: So it’s just the three people who were the (office)staff? 

Administrator: That is correct.