Protect our money. Care for our property. Apply rules fairly. Keep homeowners informed. Here are the campaign’s questions—and what it proposes to change.
Protect homeowners’ money.
Explain the budget and assessments in plain language.
Review finances regularly and plan for major repairs.
The campaign’s published account describes a September special assessment and questions about reserves and recall costs. The underlying financial records were not available for independent verification during this rebuild.
The campaign questions the basis for a $581 assessment, the combined impact of insurance and other assessments, and whether applicable approval requirements were met. It says supporting resolutions or a member vote have not been provided.
The campaign reports a transfer or loan from reserves to operations, with the amount, terms, and balance undisclosed. It says only portions of the reserve study were supplied and questions whether long-term planning is sufficiently detailed.
The campaign describes an August 24, 2026 letter from association counsel Brad Walker of Tinnelly Law Group to Scott Magner estimating recall-related election, management, and legal costs above $14,000. It contrasts this with an Inspector of Elections invoice of approximately $1,500 and requests the complete cost breakdown. These are different scopes of expense, not directly comparable totals.
Source: Original campaign accountability page, retrieved September 9, 2026. Underlying records have not been independently reviewed here. Campaign legal assertions have been retained as questions, without adopting their legal conclusions.
Maintain the community responsibly.
Care for buildings, roads, the pool, and landscaping according to the governing documents.
Compare vendors and document major spending decisions.
The campaign reports receiving roofing contracts and invoices, but says the full decision-making file remains incomplete. This website does not independently establish the project’s condition, cost, or approval history.
The campaign describes an initial repair recommendation of approximately $7,000, reserve planning of approximately $100,000 for each of 20 roofs, and eventual spending above $200,000 on a full roof replacement. It asks how this roof was prioritized and the scope and budget approved.
The campaign says it has not received documentation of multiple bids for the roof it identifies as serving the president and vice president. It asks for deliberation and recusal records. It acknowledges that a different roof repair received multiple bids.
Source: Original campaign accountability page, retrieved September 9, 2026. Underlying records have not been independently reviewed here. Campaign legal assertions have been retained as questions, without adopting their legal conclusions.
Apply rules fairly.
Give homeowners understandable rules and consistent treatment.
Provide notice and an opportunity to be heard in disciplinary matters.
The campaign raises questions about governing-document history and enforcement. Its questions do not establish that the current board is invalid or that any legal violation has occurred.
The campaign seeks the 1992 bylaw amendment and secretary’s certificate supporting a five-member board with staggered two-year terms. It says it has not located the authorizing documents.
The campaign raises concerns about selective enforcement and limited visibility into disciplinary procedures.
Source: Original campaign accountability page, retrieved September 9, 2026. Underlying records have not been independently reviewed here. Campaign legal assertions have been retained as questions, without adopting their legal conclusions.
Show homeowners what is happening.
Provide understandable meeting notices, agendas, and minutes.
Share inspectable records and explain insurance and elections.
The original campaign page describes records requests, correspondence, and disputes. Those underlying documents were not supplied here; these accounts remain attributed campaign concerns.
The campaign reports denied records requests, limited minutes, unavailable insurance details, and unanswered questions about voter lists and reverse cumulative voting. It also alleges disclosure of recall petition signers’ names. No independent legal finding is asserted here.
The campaign describes a letter from Brad Walker of Tinnelly Law Group responding to Scott Magner’s August 11 election questions. It says the letter withheld explanations as private legal advice, characterized his emails as harassment and intimidation, warned of liability, directed future communication through counsel, and instructed him to stop contacting vendors. It reports counsel attended the next board meeting.
The campaign says the board brought its attorney to an IDR requested by Sunni Spoon, adding legal expense. It calls for informal problem-solving and transparent billing.
The campaign says a statement circulated for Dan Vadchhedia did not represent him and was not adequately corrected by the board and Inspector of Elections. His candidate page here presents the statement published on the campaign website.
Source: Original campaign accountability page, retrieved September 9, 2026. Underlying records have not been independently reviewed here. Campaign legal assertions have been retained as questions, without adopting their legal conclusions.
Share a concern, ask about the campaign, or suggest a better way forward.
Send the campaign a note