Changing the Rules

Why are they changing the Rules Change Mid-Election?

On July 17, I asked the Election Committee (EC) Chair, Ms. Littleton, for clarification on Section II, Point 2 of the Election Committee Information Packet, which states:

“The POA will permit candidates to submit campaign material in digital format for broadcast emailing to all registered Property Owners no more often than once every two weeks. (No material negative to another Property Owner, the Association, or the Company will be permitted.)”

I submitted the following questions to Ms. Littleton and to POA Communications Director, Delaine Faris:

• What are the guidelines (if any) around what qualifies as “campaign material” we can submit in digital format for broadcast emailing to Property Owners?
• If those guidelines have not yet been established, how do we go about doing so?
• Who do we submit these materials to?
• What is the editorial and review process?
• What are the publication deadlines?
• Where can I find examples of how this has been done in the past?

Those questions were never answered.

FULL EMAIL HERE

The July 25th Email Rule Change

Instead, on July 25, Ms. Littleton sent an email to all candidates and EC members that read in part:

“The EC is very concerned that following this procedure will result in too many emails, coming from too many people, overwhelming our Property owners and causing them to unsubscribe from ALL POA communications. Unsubscribing from POA communications creates a serious safety concern for Property Owners as weather alerts, road closures, emergency information, etc. all come through POA emails and texts. The EC takes full responsibility for not catching this antiquated language in the Candidate Information Packet.”

She went on to say the EC would instead “offer the opportunity for one joint email to be sent from the Election Committee to all registered Property Owners containing a message from each candidate during the Primary Election.”

FULL EMAIL HERE

This is a reasonable concern. Bi-weekly emails would give each candidate a better opportunity to share their message with the community. However, sending one email per candidate every two weeks would result in too many emails.

In an effort to find a resonable compromise I suggested the POA send one email containing a message from all candidates every two weeks. This would limit the number of emails received while still complying with the election policies and giving all candidated equal opportunity to share thier respective messages with Property Owners.

That suggestion was not adopted. Instead, the EC went ahead with the one-time “one joint email”. That single joint email was sent on August 21 with all candidate statements included.

The Aug 29th Mailing Label Rule Change

The Candidate Information Packet also clearly includes Section II, Point 3, which states:

“The POA will provide mailing address labels with a minimum of five working days’ notice, and no more often than once every two weeks per candidate. The POA will sort the labels by Big Canoe mailing addresses and non-Big Canoe addresses if requested, but will provide only one additional sort beyond that level (e.g., alphabetic, zip code, etc.).”

On August 25, I submitted a formal request for mailing labels.

On August 29, I received a response from Fred Shultz, the new EC Chair (after Ms. Littleton was removed for making false claims against me). Mr. Shultz denied my request, citing Ms. Littleton’s July 25 email as precedent.

Mr. Shultz said in his email:

In reviewing the July 25th communication, it was clear to me that the intent was to state the joint email from candidates was in lieu of providing the mailing labels but agree it perhaps could have been expressed more emphatically in the communication. …

Given that no candidate received the property owner mailing labels and all candidates were offered and accepted the offer to provide their information in the joint email that was sent to property owners, I believe all candidates were treated fairly and equitably.

So, just to be clear, the property owner mailing labels will not be provided to candidates for this year’s Primary and General Election. It is unfortunate that this year’s Candidate Information package included the language regarding the mailing labels, but I believe the offer for the joint candidate email to property owners was fair and equitable for all candidates.

But Ms. Littleton’s email from July 25 made no mention whatsoever of mailing labels or postal mail. It addressed only digital campaign emails.

I responded to Mr. Shultz expressing my concern for misinterpretation of Ms. Littlton’s email and the sudden change of rules.

This clearly refers to sending email, not postal mail. In fact, there is no reference to postal mail or mailing labels in her email.

Should you uphold your decision not to supply mailing labels, it will not be the first time the Election Committee has decided to change the rules after I’ve made a request related to something clearly permitted in previous elections and outlined in the information packet provided to me. This selective enforcement reinforces the appearance of bias by the POA and EC.

While I understand and agree with the notion of revisiting and modernizing the election process, the time to do so is not during an active election.

FULL EMAIL HERE

Changing the Rules Mid-Game

As I said to Mr. Shultz in my response; while I understand and agree with the notion of revisiting and modernizing the election process, the time to do so is not during an active election.

1. Why was I denied access to the very process that was written into the Candidate Information Packet and available to candidates in past elections?
2. Why were my two separate requests—both for things explicitly permitted under the published rules—rejected only after I attempted to exercise them?
3. When rules are changed in the middle of the game, and when those changes are applied inconsistently, it raises an unavoidable question:

Is the Election Committee acting fairly, or is the POA tilting the election against me?

All of this adds up to what appears to be direct and coordinated efforts to diminish and hurt my campaign, my businesses, and my good reputation.

I’m trying to be reasonable and understanding, but this doesn’t sit well.

Speaking of Rules

In last night’s August POA Board Meeting, at timesstamp 1:14, Mark Green made a statement that the Election Committee Rules “prohibit candidates from campaigning on non-official Big Canoe social media sites”. His emphasis on the word “rules” is interesting. He goes on to say these “rules” will remain in place for this election.

The “rules” he is referring to are outlined on Page 12 of the Election Committee Information Packet. In particular “Candidates may not post campaign-related matters on any Big Canoe social media…”. This is an attempt to control and limit free speech on platforms the POA has no authority over.

At the July 14th Candidate Orientation meeting I asked the Committee what consistutes “campaign-related matters” and who decides when a casual conversation crosses the line into campaigning. They said that “ultimately it is up to the voters to decide”, and went on to say that the EC doesn’t police these things, has no authority to do anything about social media posts. They also said they would not disqualify any candidate for posting on social media.

Now, we’re at the point where the POA Board and Election Committee have changed some rules to prevent candidates from spreading their messages all while attempting to squelch those same candidates from using social media. Not to mention the implication that candidates who use social media are “breaking the rules”.

Note: I’ve not posted any “campaign matters” on the groups mentioned in the Election Packet. In fact, I’ve been banned from those groups and cannot even access them. Meanwhile two graduates of the lauded Leadership Big Canoe and members of the “Comms Assist Project” are openly posting content against me and my campaign.

How is that fair?

All of this adds up to what looks like clear and persistant bias against me from the POA Board, Management, and Election Committee. I sincerly hope that isn’t true, but actions speak louder than words.

An election hangs in the balance. What happens next will be telling.

Thank you for reading my platform. I hope you found it informative and helpful in understanding my vision for our community.

Prefer to talk? Book a time with me.

—

J Cornelius — Candidate for the POA Board
jcornelius.com/poa

—

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. – Margaret Mead