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.
All of it on both sides was so unprofessional
We can do better if every Board Member just focuses on “making our community better” and sets their personal agendas aside.
Excellent reporting- clear, concise, to the point and a critical call to action! Hopefully, this “ supermajority “ will maintain its momentum and force a regime change that will be beneficial to all residents, not just the few. LET’S GET THE VOTES FOR CHANGE IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION!!!
And as soon as the vote was read the Zoom was dropped and we were left to chat amongst ourselves.
I was talking to the gentleman that was running the computer at the end of the meeting and he said the only way to avoid this from happening again is to have all the homeowners vote to eliminate the cumulative voting option that is in the rules now. He said most HOA’s have eliminated the cumulative voting option. If that is done then the majority of votes wins in the future, every time, and we don’t have this last minute change in the interpretation of the rules like we did 24 hrs before the vote. I hope someone is looking into this and starting that process.
As I understand it, the cumulative voting is designated in our By-Laws – not the rules. The Board would need to take action to change the By-Laws. Then the changes should go to a community vote and, if passed, the change in the By-Laws would need to be registered with the County to make it an “official” change to the Morgan Creek HOA By-Laws. It is not an easy process and could be expensive. One of our previous Management Companies estimated it would take around $10K to make an official change to our By-Laws or CC&R’s. This is important enough to make it official.
I pulled up our Morgan Creek Bylaws and this is what it says about Quorum requirements and Voting requirements. Under Section 5.05 (a)(ii) it says this……..
Section 5.05. Quorum Reguirements.
(a) Quorum Requirements Generally. The following quorum requirements must be satisfied in
order to take valid action at any meeting of the Members or by written ballot in accordance with Section 4.06,
above:
(ii) Quorum for Valid Action on Other Matters. In the case of a membership meeting
or written ballot called or conducted for any other purpose, the quorum shall be thirty-three and one third
percent (33 1/3%) of the Members eligible to vote and represented in person or by proxy at the meeting. In
the case of Member action that is taken by written ballot pursuant to Section 4.06, above, the quorum shall be
established when written ballots have been received from at least thirty-three and one third percent (33 1/3%)
of the Voting Power of the Members within the time prescribed for the return of written ballots.
(b) Members Represented By Proxy. Members present at a membership meeting in person or by
proxy shall be counted towards satisfaction of the quorum requirements specified herein.
(c) Effect of Departure of Members From Meeting. The Members present in person or by proху
at a duly called or duly held meeting at which a quorum is present may continue to transact business until
adjournment, notwithstanding-the withdrawal of enough Members to leave less than a quorum, if any action
taken (other than adjournment) is approved by at least a majority of the Members required to constitute a
quorum. If a quorum is never established for the meeting, a majority of those Members who are present may
vote to adjourn the meeting for lack of a quorum but no other action may be taken or business transacted.
And under Section 4.07 of membership voting it says this
Section 4.07. Majority Vote of Members Represented at Meeting Required for Valid Action. At
a meeting, the affirmative vote of a Majority of a Quorum of the Members who are entitled to vote and voting.
on any matter (other than the election of directors) shall be the act of the Members, unless the vote of a greater
number is required by the California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law or by the Governing
Documents of the Association. In the case of director elections, the candidates receiving the greatest number
of votes, up to the number of directors to be elected, shall be elected to fill the vacancies.
I’m not an attorney but it seems like the recall was successful based on the Morgan Creek bylaws? Is there something I am missing?
Assuming you are correct. Now what? It is clear that they are not interested in stepping down.
This might help; although like some others, I am not an attorney. Additionally, I apologize for the length. While the first 6-7 Q&A items might be of interest, the remaining items are probably not – I just couldn’t delete that part!
https://mbkchapman.com/owner-california-hoa-laws/
I would be so mortified if I were Stephanie about how many residents voted to get rid of her. I would step down immediately. Her real estate business is really going to suffer now as this is all over Next Door. If you google her name this is going to come up. I’d hate to be her right now. A pariah.
This might help, but like some others, I am not an attorney.
https://mbkchapman.com/owner-california-hoa-laws/
It seems to me that the governing portion of the Morgan Creek Bylaws that apply for this recall is this:
Article Vll Board of Directors
Section 7.07
(F) Special Rule for Removal of Class A Director: Any director elected to office solely by the votes of Class A Members may only be removed from office by the votes of at least fifty-one percent (51%) of such Class A Members.
To me, this seems to make the outcome of this election pretty clear – It would have taken almost 51% of the existing homeowners to vote yes to recall the current Board Members. With almost 600 homeowners, that means the almost 300 votes would have been required to recall Stephanie and Stephen.
What am I missing here?