The election process in Stonebridge last year, in our opinion, was flawed because it favored the incumbents running for re-election mainly because of name recognition. Improvements to this policy were sought by an ad-hoc group of residents (“Stonebridge Election Group”) by submitting suggestions to the board and election committee.
After a year of negotiation, on March 5, 2019 the board called a special meeting and voted (4-0) on more restrictive Election Rules. Reading and seeking advice, the rules were clearly too restrictive to pass constitutional scrutiny and made the election even more unfair. For the next 5 weeks, we had meetings with the board and the election committee several times. The board called a meeting to discuss rescinding the rules, let the meeting descend into chaos and let the rules stand. We consulted a constitutional attorney and were advised that the majority of the rules violated not only a candidates rights it violated all Stonebridge resident’s rights as well. We had a decision to make. We engaged the lawyer to help resolve this issue. At a subsequent meeting with the board I was told the chaos at that meeting indicated to the board they had support of the residents. Unfortunately, and the board and the board’s attorney knew that the rules were unconstitutional.
With only 4 weeks left in the election we had no choice but to seek an injunction forcing the board not to enforce the questionable rules. We had a day in court and no one from the board showed in court only the associations attorney. It was clear the rules would not be allowed by the court because the attorney could not support any of the offending rules with legal opinion. A restraining order was issued by the judge but the attorney asked for another day in court because the association as rights. The judge questioned that move but granted a May 2nd hearing. At the 11th hour, the board’s attorney agreed to all of our proposed changes, those are the same changes that were in the hands of the board and election committee long before the complaint was ever filed in the court. The judge signed the agreement during the candidates night meeting Tue April 30. This action should not have ever happened and residents should question the board why it happened and the one board member who is on this years ballot for a board seat and voted in favor of this failed action at the association’s expense. So far, there has been no announcement to the residents on the status and disposal of this complaint to the residents.
There are 946 homes in Stonebridge and there is no reason there are not 946 votes cast and we urge everyone to speak to their friends and neighbors and get the vote and information out. So far, there has been only one side of this complaint sent to residents and those notifications included mislead statements, inaccurate descriptions of the complaint, inaccurate summary of the court hearing and questionable legal advice to residents at an an open board meeting. All very disturbing a board would take this action.
Steve Birnbaum
Loren Sattinger
Stonebridge Election Group (“SEG”)