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.

Last Thursday an open meeting of the Morgan Creek HOA was held at Creekview Ranch School and by Zoom. The Association’s attorney, John Hanson was present to clarify his role and the Boards and to answer questions. Here are the basic facts discussed:

• The Board’s role is much like that of any corporation. They are voted in by the community and charged with running the affairs of the Association. The Board acts as they see fit. They may or may not listen to the desires of individual or community groups. They can deceive us and act against our attorney’s advice with impunity.
• If the community is not satisfied with Board actions, the only recourse is RECALL.
• The Associations attorney acts as advisor to the Board. He has no control over how his advice is used. He does not deal directly with individual owners. In fact, he discouraged contact from owners as handling them will only incur charges. His ultimate responsibility is to the Board.

With regards to the 2026 budget, in her introductory remarks Stephanie once again perpetuated the lie that the budget was reviewed by the then management company, First Service, or to their knowledge any CPA. The egregious manipulation of the reserves and dues structure continues. There were numerous comments over the fairness of the dues structure.

Compliance is no longer a priority of the community. The GM will only submit violations for gross compliance issues as he goes around the community. The GM suggested neighbors submit compliance issues to help compliance. 

Regarding the Landscape Committee report, there were a significant number of projects pending when management companies were changed. These pending projects require HOA Board approval and Budget funding. Tracking these projects has been a tedious task and inaction by the management company and HOA Board majority has resulted in contractors being unable to schedule the work in a timely manner. 

The new board rules governing committees were discussed. All committee volunteers must now be reappointed every year. (Ridiculous in our opinion.) The call went out for volunteers to submit applications. A serious inconsistency was pointed out: The social committee allows for 7 members. Six are serving. There are two active applications, James Shelby and Dianne Kerr., yet the Board has refused to act in filling the vacancy. The committees seem to be populated by those that will serve the Board rather than the community, this is  based on who has been selected from the applications and who the Board did not consider and still isn’t considering This is a concern!
T

A new revelation: The ButterflyMX system now will require additional changes and costs. There appear to be problems with the underground wiring. Also, everyone will need new RFID tags. Two will be given “free” with others at $2 each. No implementation date was announced. The surprises keep coming.

Latest information is that only around 60 recall ballots have been returned, way short of the necessary quorum Come on people VOTE NOW!

So far there are five people applying for the Board:

• Newton Kwan
• Wes Owsley
• Pam Porter
• Mathew Riley
• Gurjeet Singh

We will be following up with more candidate information and recommendations.

As always, comments welcome. Click “Comments” at the top of the post.

Log on to mcowners.com to view all the important reasons why you must vote YES.. We need responsible governance. Make no mistake, today’s reckless Board actions will affect you directly!

This recall will be decided by a very small number of votes.

If 98 people vote NO, the recall fails, even if hundreds of homeowners never vote.

Do not assume someone else will take care of this.

The Facts

• Ballots mailed: January 10
• Ballots due: February 10
• Quorum required: 196 homeowners
• Replacement candidate deadline: January 16
• Next open HOA meeting: January 20

Why This Recall Is Happening

Too many decisions are being made without transparency, without homeowner input, and not in the best interest of the full community.

This recall is about ending personal agendas and restoring a Board that:

• Communicates clearly
• Acts responsibly with our money
• Represents all Morgan Creek homeowners

What You Need To Do

• Vote YES
• Return your ballot immediately
• Talk to your neighbors
• Put up a yard sign

Doing nothing helps block the recall.

If you want change, vote YES.

Comments welcome. On the web post click “comments” on the top.

A QUESTIO0NABLE INCREASE IN YOUR DUES IS COMING JAN 1-WHY SHOULD YOU CARE? WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Of the 586 owners in Morgan Creek, 377 will see an increase of over $18/month. Some will see little change. However, some “lucky” few in the Lake community will see a decrease of over $56/month! Two of the HOA Board members will significantly benefit from this change. In our view, this is a self serving breach of the Board’s fiduciary responsibility to the HOA. It is one significant basis of many for the recall election coming up February 10.

Most members were emailed a summary budget on November 13. Make no mistake, this budget was the work of Steven Lalliss, the Board’s Treasurer, and his alone. We have confirmation in writing that, contrary to misleading statements he made at public meetings that the budget was reviewed by the Community manager’s controller or the associations’ CPA, It was not. This final budget was given to the full board only one day before a hastily called special board meeting and railroaded through to meet a 45 days notice time limit on increasing dues.

So, other than most of us paying more while the select few pay less, what’s the big deal. The changes were made to skew the allocation of money the Association is required to set aside as reserves for future replacements and repairs of infrastructure. These reserves are broken don down by areas, e. g. Lakes, Villas, general. While the new budget does not change the overall amount of money required by the audit of Browning, an independent firm, It does dramatically skew the reserve amount away from Lake properties and toward the other members, leaving the Lake area underfunded, less than 20% of the amount needed. Read the report in the budget documents. It’s all there. Who does this benefit, Board members Steven Lalliss and Stephanie Bernal.

So, if any of the above offends you and your pocketbook as it does us, in addition to supporting the recall by voting YES, we suggest you write to the Community managers, the Board, and our Association’s attorney demanding the budget be revised to correct this financially irresponsible wrong and leave the existing dues structure intact. In addition, we suggest that you request the HOA attorney review the budget process and go on record as to whether any rules were violated. You can reach Action Property Management at the below address, and ask them to forward your correspondence to the Board. In addition, the HOA’s attorney, John Hansen can be reached at the address shown below.

rleng@actionlife.com

jhansen@bayjaclaw.com

If you wish to comment click the “comments” word at the top of this post.

Support the recall. VOTE VOTE VOTE We need a quorum. YOUR VOTE MATTERS

First the good.  We had a near record turnout on Tuesday night.  There were about 80 people who attended in person and another 54 who tried to attend by Zoom, 134 total.  Unfortunately, the Zoom connection failed, limiting the meeting to those on hand.  More about that later. 

Another positive was the Introduction of Action Properties, our newly appointed community managers.  They introduced their Company and some of their preliminary plans.  They seemed competent and professional.  Their approach seems to be tech intensive and light on hands on management.  They will be starting December 1 with only one on-site manager one day a week while they recruit a full-time professional.  They rolled out their snaphoa app for their portal and have sent out signup instructions to the owners.  We’re clearly in the honeymoon phase.  We’ll see how it goes.

Now on to the bad and the ugly.  Stephanie started the meeting with the rules of decorum the Board intended to follow.  From there she lost control entirely and the meeting often became chaotic.  Viewing from afar we got the impression that Director Steve was running the show.  That said, what follows is the meat of the meeting:

• From the beginning the offered Zoom connection failed.  Zoom attendees couldn’t hear and finally around 7 pm were kicked out entirely.  Davis Stirling rules require that since Zoom was an offered option, the meeting be paused for a best effort attempt to fix the problem.  That failed.  Therefore, the meeting must be stopped and rescheduled.  Steven and Stephanie were informed of the rules and chose to proceed anyway, claiming Zoom was optional.  A formal protest is being filed.
• Steven, as Treasurer, then attempted to explain the new budget.  There were numerous questions from the floor asking him to respond to why Lake dues (where he and Stephanie live) were being reduced by $57.86 while 377 homes in the general area were being raised $18.20  Also, questions were raised about the reserve study update which shifted reserves out of the Lake Community causing them to fall to a dangerously low level of under 20% of the study’s recommended values.  This should trigger a special assessment of the Lake Community.  Steve’s responses were evasive and never answered the questions. 
• A major discrepancy was exposed when Steve insisted the final budget was delivered to the board in August.  Director Harris said they did not receive it until the night before the Board meeting to approve it, a breach of HOA rules.  Per HOA rules a minimum of 4 days is required.  In addition, Steve, when asked if anyone but him reviewed the budget he prepared said that both the FirstService Controller and our lawyer had.  There is no evidence that this is true.  FirstService has been formally asked to verify this in the full budget package to be mailed to us shortly.
• Again, Steven raised the charge that the recall election has caused significant delays and unnecessary costs, moving the voting out to February.  None of this is true.  Both the annual and recall elections could have been held at this meeting.  Extending the date to the maximum allowed was solely at the Board’s discretion.  See our November 16 post for details.
• Among the committee reports, the only highly controversial one was the Social Committee.  Due to potential conflicts of interest, the committee voted to eliminate event sponsorships (a bad move in our estimation since they can significantly reduce costs).  The only clear conflict would be if a sponsor held a management position with the HOA.  That would be Stephanie Bernal.  The committee also objected to Steve, the Treasurer, arbitrarily reducing their budget from $2,800 to $600 without full board review and approval.  Another issue involved the revision of the committee charter by the board.  The committee chair and one member present stated they were never consulted concerning the change.  Steve and Stephanie insisted they had.  We wonder who is correct?
• As a result of the Zoom fiasco and other interruptions, the owner forum was limited to about 10 minutes when President Stephanie abruptly adjourned the meeting.

In summary, here are some outstanding issues yet to be resolved:

• Will the Board reconvene the open meeting with working Zoom intact as required by law?
• Will FirstService fulfill their fiduciary duty and explain whether or not the final budget was reviewed by their Controller and HOA counsel?
• Will the major change in reserves allocation made single handedly by the Treasurer and ensuing change in dues structure be allowed to stand?
• Will the proposed Social Committee charter change actually include input from committee members who are closest to the issues?

As always, comments are welcome.  To see comments click the  word “comments “ at the top of the post.