First, congratulations to the two newly elected board members, Pam and Newton. The both won their seats by a substantial margin. perhaps now we can restore some transparency and accountability to our HOA governance.

After last night’s meeting, one nagging legal issue remains. Prior to the election votes being counted and certified the outgoing board took an action which is likely not legal. An existing board member, Rod resigned creating a vacancy. No problem there. Immediately following, but before the election was completed Steve put himself forward as a replacement appointment. The existing board, including Steve voted for the appointment. This would have been OK had the appointment been for a non sitting member. However, the issues are these. First, can a board member who has resigned and therefore no longer a member, vote for his replacement? We doubt it. If not, a tie vote would exist and the appointment would not be valid. Second, and equally important, if Steve were allowed to fill the vacant seat, he would hold two positions. Even if it is for a short time, we doubt this is legal by HOA rules and corporation law.

We urge the new board to seek legal advice from the board attorney, and perhaps outside council. We believe the appoint to be invalid in which case the new board should vote to fill the vacancy. Common sense says this is what should have happen ed in the first place.

As always, comments welcome. Perhaps an attorney who is an owner can weigh in on this.

There will be an annual meeting on March 30. The votes will be tabulated and the election results will be announced. Whatever the outcome, the community will have spoken. However, it appears the outgoing board members will attempt to send a parting shot.

Rod has announced he will resign from the board leaving a vacancy. His seat has one more year to go. It seems fair and logical that when he does resign the incoming board should make the appointment to fill the vacancy. This will allow a smooth transition. However, when we look at the proposed agenda for the meeting, included below, the board plans to appoint Rod’s replacement before the election is certified and the newly elected board members take their seats. We believe this is so wrong and not in the best interests of the Community.

the new board should fill the vacancy. If you agree we urge you to attend the March 30 meeting and make your voice heard. We need to take back our Community. PLEASE ATTEND THE MARCH 30 MEETING!

Apathy has a price. We need a quorum for the HOA election to count. We need 196 of our 586 homes to vote. Otherwise we have to do the whole process over with a reduced quorum of 118. As of yesterday we had only 134 votes counted. An election redo will cost several thousand dollars of your money and ours for double postage and fees to the electioneer. We can do better.

Lost or tossed out your ballot? No problem. Email the election management company at info@thirdpartyvoting.com. Request a replacement ballot and they’ll send out a replacement one immediately. Do it now.

We are still Recommending Pam Porter and Newton Kwan, but regardless of who you vote for PLEASE VOTE!

Apologies for those of you who have already voted. Thank you.

By now you should have received your ballot for the Morgan Creek HOA election. You made your wishes for change known overwhelmingly in the recall election. Now it is imperative you follow through.

There is a quorum requirement of 196 owners. Thus, your vote is extremely important to complete the process.

If you haven’t already done so, pull out your ballot and send it in today. If you’ve already voted, thank you.

One of our long time homeowners has taken the time and trouble to put together a timeline of the events surrounding the recall election. We thought it worthwhile to print here as a reminder of where we are and where we should be headed as we prepare to VOTE in the upcoming election. (Note: the attachment is only visible on mcowners.com)

In the recent recall election the community voted overwhelmingly (80%) for change. It only failed to pass by use of an obscure interpretation of the voting rules. Only two candidates represent change back to the stability, transparency, and responsible governance we lost in the last election.

The candidates we are recommending, Pam Porter and Newton Kwan, both have been very active in community affairs over many years and know our needs. The remaining two candidates have no such experience and were likely hand picked by the existing board majority block. If you want to stop the chaos, vote for Pam and Newton.

What follows are brief candidate statements. Please review them carefully, and above all, VOTE NOW. Let’s finish the job.

Newton Kwan Hi neighbors, I’m Newton Kwan. Many of you know me from my previous service on the Board, where my focus was always on one thing: excellence in operations. I’m proud of our track record of maintaining high community standards while successfully lowering our dues.

I am stepping up to run for the Board again because Morgan Creek deserves a return to professional, resident-focused management. While I previously had to step away to manage a career transition, I am now in a position to fully dedicate the next two years to serving our community. I am ready to get back to work for all homeowners.

If elected, my focus will be on:

• Fiscal Accountability: Managing our budget with the same scrutiny I use for my own finances to ensure every dollar is spent wisely.

• Streamlined Operations: Improving the responsiveness of the ARC process so homeowners get clear, timely answers without unnecessary delays.

• Vendor Management: Ensuring our contractors—from landscaping to security—are held to the high standards we pay for as residents.

I’m not interested in the politics of the Board; I’m interested in the results. I would be honored to have your support in bringing a steady, professional, and committed approach back to Morgan Creek.

Pam Porter: Hi neighbors, I’m Pam Porter. I currently serve as your Board Secretary, and I’m running for re-election because I believe our community is ready for a chapter defined by stability, transparency, and professional governance.

I know some may see a familiar name and worry about a “status quo” mentality. However, my time on the Board over the last two years has given me a unique perspective on exactly where our processes have drifted. I am not running to look backward; I am running to ensure our Board functions as a professional service for all homeowners.

My commitment to you:

• Fair & Consistent Governance: I believe the Board’s primary role is to uphold our standards fairly. I will advocate for a culture where decisions are made in the open and always reflect the collective will of the community.

• Prioritizing Homeowner Interests: An HOA Board should have one clear priority: protecting the property values and quality of life for every resident. I am committed to independent leadership that is focused solely on our neighborhood’s well-being.

• Restoring Trust: I hear the call for a new direction clearly. I am dedicated to moving past recent friction and returning to a culture of collaboration where every neighbor feels heard and respected.

I’m asking for your vote so we can move forward with a Board that is efficient, transparent, and focused on the future of our beautiful community.

232 voted to remove Stephanie. Only 60 no.
234 voted to remove Steven. Only 58 no.

That is the community speaking.

And yet due to their last minute questionable rule change, nothing has changed.
Stephanie is still in power with Rod, and Steven. They still control the board.

This election on March 24 is how we fix that. VOTE!

There are TWO seats.

If we spread votes across multiple candidates, the current majority stays in control.
If we stay focused, we take it back.

Right now:
• Compliance is inconsistent and selective
• Transparency is lacking
• Committees are being controlled for personal gain instead of representing the community
• Financial decisions lack proper oversight

We need to get back to:
• Clear, consistent enforcement
• Open communication and transparency
• Committees led by volunteers who represent the community
• A proper, independent review of the budget and reserves

When your ballot arrives, vote for BOTH:
• Pam Porter
• Newton Kwan

That’s it. Don’t overthink it. Don’t split your vote. One vote each.

If the same homeowners who voted for change do this again, the board flips.

Let’s also be clear:

The other candidates being promoted were hand selected and supported by the current majority. Electing them keeps the same voting block in place.

We already made our voices heard. Now we need to follow through.

Watch for your ballot.
Vote immediately.
Vote Pam and Newton.

This is how we take back control of our community.

Last night’s recall meeting was one of the most intense and revealing meetings Morgan Creek has seen in years.

The purpose was straightforward: the membership voted to recall two directors, Stephanie Bernal and Steven Lalliss.

What unfolded was anything but straightforward.

A Supermajority Voted to Remove Both Directors

Ballots were counted. The numbers were clear.

The results:

•  Stephanie — 232 yes votes to remove her, 60 No votes to keep her

•  Steven — 234 yes votes to remove him, 58 No votes to keep him

A supermajority of participating homeowners voted YES to recall both Stephanie and Steven.

Let that sink in.

The community spoke loudly and decisively.

Under the original formula communicated to homeowners before ballots were cast, both recalls would have prevailed.

Instead, neither director was removed.

Why? Because the formula changed.

The Formula Change

During the meeting, the Inspector of Elections explained that the recall “block” threshold had been recalculated after legal consultation.

The new interpretation used cumulative voting rules and divided ballots cast by the number of directors plus one, creating a significantly lower threshold of “no” votes needed to block the recall.

He has run several recalls involving cumulative voting and NEVER used this interpretation of the formula.

Homeowners immediately questioned who initiated this change.

The Inspector stated on the record that the challenge came from one of the board members who was being recalled.

Stephanie publicly stated that it was not her. She certainly supported it.

There were only two directors being recalled.

That leaves one person.

In addition, it was revealed during the meeting that Steven was the one who hand selected and led the effort to obtain the second legal opinion that ultimately supported the revised calculation.

The result was a last-minute reinterpretation of the rules that directly changed the outcome of the election.

If the Original Formula Had Been Used

If the recall had been calculated under the formula that homeowners were told would apply when we voted, both directors would have been removed.

Instead, because of the revised threshold, the recalls were blocked despite overwhelming support for removal.

That is not a technicality.

That is the difference between accountability and remaining in power.

What Happened After the Results

After it was announced that she was not recalled, Stephanie stormed out of the meeting.

Multiple members asked her to resign in light of the supermajority vote against her.

Her response was clear. She refused.

At one point, a frustrated homeowner attempted to ask questions and was repeatedly prevented from speaking by Stephanie.  Words were exchanged. Stephanie tried to kick him out and called security, all the members wanted him to stay.  

This is not how you respond when over 200 of your neighbors vote to remove you.

Board Attendance

Only three board members were present:

•  Stephanie

•  Lorenzo

•  Pam

NO Rod, NO Steven

Given the gravity of a recall election, the limited board presence did not go unnoticed.

The Bigger Issue

This is not about personalities. It is about process and trust.

When homeowners are given a formula for how their votes will be counted, that formula should not change at the eleventh hour.

When a director facing recall initiates a legal reinterpretation that ultimately saves his own seat, homeowners are right to question the optics.

And when a supermajority votes for removal, ignoring that mandate does not make the underlying message disappear.

The community has spoken.

Loudly.

Now Is the Time to Act: You will receive a ballot shortly. Your vote will be urgently needed to correct this travesty.

The supermajority vote last night showed overwhelming demand for real change and better governance. The annual HOA board election is coming soon (delayed to about 30 days after the recall process per community updates).

We will have strong, experienced candidates ready to bring transparency, accountability, and homeowner-focused decisions. Stay tuned for an upcoming post with. Our candidate bios and recommended choices for the two vacant seats.

Return your ballots promptly when they arrive.

This is how we turn frustration into progress. The community spoke, now let’s make sure the board reflects that voice.

Neighbors,

Please attend the recall vote count tomorrow, February 10 at 6:00 PM, in person or via Zoom. Your presence matters.

Tomorrow is the vote count on the recall of Stephanie Bernal and Steven Lalliss.

When ballots were sent out, the official notice and the independent third-party voting site stated that once a quorum of 33% was achieved that 98 “no” votes would be required to block removal. If more than a quorum was reached then a majority of votes would cause the recall to pass. As of today, that information still appears on the voting website.

On the eve of tabulation, the Board announced that the blocking threshold will instead be calculated based on ballots cast, currently about 48 “no” votes with 286 ballots returned. We have no odfficial word from the election manager.

Regardless of how anyone voted, this election began under one published framework and the Board says it is now being concluded under another. That raises serious questions about process and transparency.

If members are not present, decisions will be finalized without visible community accountability. This is an opportunity to:

• Observe the full tally

• Ask if, how and why the threshold changed

• Request documentation of the legal basis

• Show that this community expects fair, consistent governance

Meeting:

February 10, 2026 at 6:00 PM, District Education Center at Creekview Ranch School

8849 Cook Riolo Rd, Roseville, CA 95747

Or join via Zoom:

Meeting ID: 301 858 3756

Password: 801569

Forward to neighbors who care about the future of Morgan Creek.

See you there.

Vote counting is little more than a week away. According to the election management company we are near a quorum. We can make this election meaningful if you simply take the time to vote.

To ensure timely delivery, completed ballots must be mailed by February 2.  If your ballot is sitting on the counter, please drop it in the mail today.

Every vote matters.