I like covenants if they are applied correctly and not used as tools for vengeance or personal vendettas and methods of generating revenue.

I have said in the past that the covenants board was given power it should have never gotten. The letter of assignment was invalid and was void from the start. I brought it to the last meeting and all the board members ignored it. Jen Barber stated “it was legal when I signed it” well that is the excuse they always use. I tried to get them to rescind it but no such luck.It was admitted that it isn’t needed anymore.

Mr.Richards please understand, I was getting slammed in court last summer by the same people who want you to forget they tried to jail me on 5 Different occasions and bankrupt me. I hope the rest of Woodmen Hills wakes up and realize that Larry wants to get filing 11 now.

I implore you to get to as many residents as you can to prevent Larry from using his position to post more letters telling everyone how this board save us from doom and gloom.

So please remember My name is Ronald Pace and I will do these 5 things if elected:
#1 Stop funding of covenants out of our budget
#2 Refund all fees charged to residence collected by WH on behalf of WHCMB
#3 Stop all litigation of any type against any residents.
#4 Rescind the contract with the WHCMB
#5 Lower monthly water bills by cutting spending and passing the saving on to all residences

This my promise and I keep my promises If I can’t I will resign and let someone else do it.

I would cease funding WHCMB from O&M, plain and simple. Not only is it unfair to filings that already have an HOA, or to our commercial customers; not only is it illegal under CRS 32-1-1004(8)(b), it’s also unethical and unscrupulous the way the two boards (WHMD and WHCMB) went about seizing control.

Notice how defensive they get when anyone asks them? Heck, Jan has opened two board meetings trying to address these issues, and finds herself continually on the defensive. Watch…every time the board is questioned on this, they try to redirect the subject to “we don’t control the covenant board”.

Point of fact, they DO! Not only do they fund them (thereby perpetuating their existence), they also have unilateral abrogation rights, by the last line of the assignment letter.

I believe WHCMB is a separate and legal entity under Colorado Law, so WHMD cannot dissolve them; however, if they are doing such good for the community, perhaps they can solicit their covenantees.

I do have one question for Dave though. If you were to be elected to the Metro District Board, would it be your intention to officially dissolve the Covenant Management Board as an entity or just to cut the funding of that organization from O&M (which may have the same result)? I assume since the WHCMB was created by the WHMD that it could also be dissolved by it, but to be honest I am not sure of the legalities involved, if any.

For the record verified by Secretary of State. The District (Larry) made the call on this one. He was the one responsible for the absence of any mail-in ballots.

I have called Connie and warned her that any malfeasance will be meet with swift and blinding legal action.

I have already prepared a letter outlining the prior actions here. This time the Bernies office will be on guard. When they count the votes this time I’ll be there.

The rule then was a District had discretion on whether or not to send out those ballots.
The new Law states that they now must.

Kudos to Mrs/Ms. Elizabeth you hit the nail on the head. Why would you expect anything else.

Pathetic was too nice a word!

Oh please don’t fret the election is already in the bag for the incumbants. I’ll bet you $100.00
All the incumbents who run will get re-elected. Larry will spend over $10,000 to save them with newsletters and whatever mailing he chooses.

I believe the district’s paying of covenant enforcement fees from O&M funds is illegal, and yes, I would stop it.

Covenant enforcement fees in and of themselves are not illegal–so long as the covenants a homeowner was subject to when they bought their house specified that fees would be collected, and the district splits out accounting lines such that it is clear the filings that are subject to covenant enforcement are the only ones paying for it.

I understand that others have reassigned enforcement rights; these were the three that I knew of and could prove at this point (as evidenced by the “instrument number” which refers to El Paso county court filings). When I get the others, I will update the post.

It was not my intent to say the extension of insurance coverage equated to an increase in premium. What I was pointing out is that any premium paid is paid for by everyone that pays fees to the district…and that it’s very likely the insurance premiums would increase if/when coverage had to be called upon to defend these homeowners.

Creating an “assignment committee” who’s sole membership requirement is to assign enforcement rights to the covenant management board…hmmmm.

1. Only two of the three residents listed have signed over their enforcements rights. One couple has since moved out of the area and therefore revoked their assignment.

2. There are more than these two that have signed over their enforcement rights. I believe the two you listed are in filing 8, but other residents in other filings have signed over their enforcement rights.

3. Even though you do not state that the insurance coverage of the members of the Assignment Committee caused an increase in insurance cost, it seemed implied. I wanted to make it clear that this coverage did not cause an increase in cost. The increase in cost was a result of the lawsuits against the board. The coverage of the Assignment Committee was automatic because all committees under the WHCMB are covered immediately upon formation.