CHAPTER THREE:  ABUSE OF PROCESS BY BOARD.  So, the question is how does it make sense that the HOA Board at the Point on the River Condo refuses to withdraw a fine assessment against me when it is made clear that the fine assessment was based on a lie (i.e. that there was a complaint filed) and none of the required processes under the official Rules was followed?

It makes sense once you understand that the Board President despises me as much as a person can despise another person.  The cause that I have given to him is that I do not hesitate to point out to him the many occasions on which his governance style (dictatorial, arbitrary, and no one's views but his on any subject are valid) violate State of Wisconsin corporate law, the HOA's Bylaws, and the Rules, not to mention common sense and human decency.  He is profane and derogatory to any Resident who questions anything that has been done--which isn't easy because it is all secret. There are no open Board meetings; no attendance or minutes are kept; and magically everything is done by unanimous consent (except I suspect no votes are actually held).  But he despises me.  He has used his power to appoint committee members to remove me from two committees; in one case for no reason and the other one for expressing my free speech right to suggest that maybe the Board should have open quarterly meetings and maybe there should be a candidate forum before the annual election so Residents could ask some questions (and some of the smoldering anger against him by a number of Residents could be defused).

It also makes sense when you understand that this president takes no guff from the other two directors.  One is elected by the commercial residents and never seems to appear or vote on anything.  He has never responded to any email I sent him about issues concerning corporate law and Board meetings.  The other is elected by our three person Residential Committee.  The Committee elects two of its three members to the Board.  So, basically, two people have complete control over everything and the Board president has total and absolute control if his co-directors are not engaged or do not have the strength of character to stand up to him.

As of the December 7, 2014, Board meeting our president's fellow Residential Committee member director is no longer his best buddy. Now, his co-Director is a person who complains about the Board president constantly to others but who has yet to disagree with him on anything.  She has fully endorsed the fine against me, as has the third director by his silence.  I attribute this to her lack of character and her dependence on men to tell her what to do.  These are terrible qualities for any corporate director ,of course.  But just because the president really doesn't like me is he exempt from the law and the Rules?  I hope to prove that is not the case.