General Information on Nominating Committee

The nominating commitee is in our original CC&Rs although throughout the last decade they have made significant adjustments within the nominating committe, giving them additional power to control who is on our ballots with little oversight. 

Why should a small group of people, nominated by the existing BOD, be allowed to select who can and who cannot run? The only decision maker as to who sits on the BOD should be the community.

Section 3 is the amendment speaking directly to the nominating committee this was signed in 2012, by then president, Cheryl McCoy. There have been a number of residents that do not recall voting on these amendments and records of this vote have been requested. We have recieved a response to the request for votes in 2012, the response was they were not retained. When going through the annual minutes, the only record of the vote was “passed”.

Section 2 of our CC&Rs in regards to making amendments.

Who Sits on The Nominating Committee?


  • Ben Kalkman
  • Cheryl McCoy
  • Keith Ryan
  • Sharon Maiden
  • Kelly Beaith
  • Diane Havertine


  • Dustin Snow
  • Diane Havertine
  • Kelly Beaith
  • Laurie Bingenheimer
  • Sharon Maiden
  • Marci Johnson


  • Cheryl McCoy
  • John Bollman
  • Richard Andrews
  • Dustin Snow
  • Diane Havertine
  • Sharon Maiden
  • Melissa Scovel
  • Charles Schultz

A list of previous years’ members have been requested, although we have not recieved. It should be mentioned that Simone McGinnis (the community manager) takes part in the nominating committee interviews, so essentially she is taking part in choosing her boss.

Documented Actions the Nominating Committee Have Done To Unsurp Your Vote

During the time the nominating committe began to take hold of our elections and validate/invalidate community members that wished to be placed on the ballot the three career board members were at the helm. They have used this as a way to sway the votes in their favor with people they (the career board members) wanted on the board. 


September 12
The deadline date of September 29 for submitting director applications was published to the membership 

On September 29, there were four applications received.

Gary Adams
Christopher Wilson
Laura Brown
Nathan Brown

October 9
At a Special Board meeting, Bill Travis made a motion to extend the deadline date to October 19. The motion failed. That means the Board refused to extend the deadline. So, the September 29 deadline as unchanged and no more applications could be submitted. 


Sometime after October 9, (past the deadline date of September 29) the Chairperson accepted three more applications:

Bill Travis
Steve Nielson
Marci Johnson

On October 17, the Chairperson held candidate interviews, which should have just confirmed that the candidates were qualified (members of the Association) and confirm that they are willing to serve on the Board if elected. 

Instead, it appears as if the Chairperson informed the committee of some other qualifications, and convinced them that they could vote to eliminate candidates.

They nominated only four of the seven “qualified” candidates:

Gary Adams
Christopher Wilson
Marci Johnson
Steve Nielsen

At the November 2017 Annual Meeting, President Dustin Snow stated that it was ok that the Committee extended the deadline (notwithstanding that the Board voted against extending it) because “it was not a deadline, just an administrative deadline”.


However, in 2015, the deadline was a real deadline:
        In 2015, candidate Alec Sutherland submitted his application fifteen (15) minutes late, and the application was refused! 


And here is another case of the deadline being a real deadline.
    In either 2018 or 2019, another candidate submitted their application late, and the application was refused!



What the Nominating Committee Was Told in 2018

This was announced internally, but never announced to the community at large

Hello Committee Members,

The deadline for submitting Board of Director Candidate Applications is fast approaching. Next Friday, September 28th, is the cutoff date. Of the four current directors, whose terms are expiring (Dustin, Cheryl, Charles and Alec) just Dustin has said for sure he is not running again. To date we have received two applications. It looks like the committee will need to solicit additional applicants.  We have been making announcements and calls for candidates since August, by word of mount, in the newsletters and community emails blasts.

Interviews should be scheduled between Sept. 28th and Oct. 16th.  Ideally the names to go on the ballot would be announced on the October 18th Board Meeting, but that is not absolutely necessary since the Board does not need to approve the selections.  The absolute drop dead date for announcing the candidates for the ballot is October 23rd. That’s the date Jeannie needs to finalize the ballot in order for the election to begin on October 26th.

The Association wrote the following in a Sept 18 notice to Members:

“…The Nominating Committee will be scheduling appointments the first two weeks of October to interview and select
those to be placed on the ballot to be voted on by the members.”

What that really means is this:


What they are doing is eliminating people they don’t want on the board, using their own qualifications – qualifications
that are not in the Bylaws – so that you cannot vote for them – and you would never know about it, because the names
of those eliminated won’t be published.

NOTE: The Association was sued over this issue after the 2017 election, and they prevailed in the Office of Administrative Hearings because the Administrative Law Judge did not properly interpret the law and the Bylaws. However, that does not make case law. Case Law is only decided after being tried in the Arizona Superior Court and then appealed in the Arizona Appeals Court please find that suit here. That law suit cost the Association probably in excess of $10,000 and now they are putting your Association funds at risk of another lawsuit.

Do you want another lawsuit that this time may most likely be tried in Superior Court and eventually in the Court of
Appeals, which could cost the Association to have their carrier refuse to renew their insurance policy, like happened
several years ago?

The Board must be stopped from choosing the directors and denying your right to choose the directors.