Special Recall Vote — Official Community Recap
Published: November 23, 2025
On Thursday evening, homeowners gathered for a Special Recall Vote that drew the largest turnout in our community’s history. The meeting began 45 minutes late in order to check in the 165 voting members — representing over 74% of all households.
Before the recall proceedings even began, the community had already won by achieving something remarkable: unprecedented engagement. This level of participation is exactly what this site has been encouraging — neighbors becoming informed, involved, and invested in the direction and future of Chatfield Bluffs South.
Meeting Proceedings
Each side was allotted 15 minutes to present their case as to why the Board should be
recalled or retained. Representing the growing movement of concerned homeowners,
Ashley Denton presented the case for removal. On behalf of the current Board,
Karen Pawlak delivered the response advocating retention.
The Case To Recall
Ashley Denton opened the meeting by clarifying the purpose of the recall: it was not about personalities, rumors, or punishing individuals, but about whether the Board is truly safeguarding the community’s finances, property, and future. Ashley emphasized that the decision before homeowners was about raising standards and choosing leadership that prioritizes transparency, financial stability, and genuine service to the community.
Ashley drew on her professional experience as a Chief Financial Officer to analyze the HOA’s financial direction. She explained that the Board’s primary fiscal responsibilities with Homeowner dues are to pay ongoing expenses and to build reserves for inevitable major repairs. Under the current Board, transfers to reserves — the community’s “savings account” — have been slashed by 60%. This dramatic reduction means that, for years to come, the HOA will not return to previous levels of reserve contributions, even as over $500,000 in common-area repairs loom over the next seven years.
Ashley provided specific figures: reserve contributions dropped from 22% of operating expenses in 2023 to just 8% this year, with next year’s budget only slightly improving to 9%. Meanwhile, operating costs have surged under the current Board — administrative expenses are up 32%, maintenance and repairs up 13%, and utilities up 23%. The only major expense that has decreased is the reserve transfer, which is precisely what protects homeowners from costly special assessments.
She referenced guidance from Altitude Law, the HOA’s own legal counsel, which warns that contributing less than 10% of operating expenses to reserves sets communities up for special assessments. Ashley cautioned that, without a course correction, homeowners could face surprise bills of $5,000 to $10,000 or more per household. She likened the Board’s approach to a financial advisor who cuts retirement savings, increases spending, and ignores looming obligations — a strategy that would be unacceptable in any household, let alone a $170 million community.
In her professional view, these financial trends reflect not just short-term budgeting issues, but deeper concerns about the community’s long-term planning and financial direction. For many homeowners, this was the central reason they supported holding the recall vote.
Ashley’s second major theme was governance and transparency. She outlined concerns shared by many homeowners regarding how Board decisions are being made and how communication with residents has been handled under the current Board. She noted that many residents have expressed frustration that the Board often appears to operate under the direction of a single dominant voice, creating an atmosphere that at times feels divided rather than unified. Homeowners have reported difficulty getting clear answers to reasonable inquiries, and in some cases, have experienced dismissive or discourteous interactions when attempting to understand Board actions.
Ashley explained that when residents raise questions about finances, legal matters, or policy changes that affect the entire community, they are sometimes characterized as being “difficult” or “bullying,” even when their intent is simply to seek clarity or express legitimate concerns. She emphasized that disagreements are normal in any community, but respectful dialogue is essential — especially when decisions have financial, legal, and valuation implications for every homeowner.
She also noted troubling patterns: incomplete or inaccurate meeting minutes, key documents missing from the HOA website, and a tendency to present only information that flatters the Board rather than providing full transparency. Ashley stressed that real transparency means sharing information openly and welcoming scrutiny, not marketing selective narratives. She called for respectful, inclusive dialogue, emphasizing that disagreements are normal but must be handled with civility and openness.
Ashley addressed the Board’s decision to open the south-facing bluff to foot traffic, reversing a 30-year restriction. She explained that this move increases the risk of injuries, lawsuits, and insurance complications — all during a time when communities across Colorado are facing rising premiums and non-renewals. The Board has claimed that state law required them to open the bluff and that they have a legal opinion supporting this action.
Ashley challenged this narrative, clarifying that the law gives the HOA the option — not the obligation — to open the bluff. She noted that the Board claims to have a written legal opinion supporting their interpretation of the law, yet they have declined to provide this written opinion to homeowners. Instead, the Board selectively lifted a line from the opinion and distributed it alongside its own narrative in flyers circulated throughout the neighborhood. When pressed by a homeowner’s legal counsel to confirm the accuracy of their quoted material, the Board’s attorney declined to do so.
By contrast, Ashley presented an independent legal analysis from an experienced HOA attorney, which advised against opening the bluff due to legal constraints, documented safety hazards, and negative impacts on property values. She argued that responsible boards do not hide behind cherry-picked quotes or claim their “hands are tied” without providing full transparency, especially in the face of a contrary expert opinion. Ashley urged the Board to share all relevant legal advice with the community, so homeowners can understand the true risks and rationale behind their decision — a decision that carries long-term legal and financial exposure for the entire neighborhood.
Ashley concluded by reading a heartfelt letter from Board member Christina Steinmetz. While completely unplanned, it was a moment that left a deep impression on everyone in the room. Christina’s sincere acknowledgement of the division that has grown within the community under the Board’s tenure and an apology for the way these events have unfolded. The letter was eloquently written, humble in tone, and demonstrated a level of reflection that resonated with homeowners across all viewpoints. She spoke candidly about the need for integrity, active listening, and treating every neighbor with dignity — regardless of disagreements.
In many ways, Christina’s letter felt like an olive branch extended to the neighborhood — a gesture of goodwill and a reminder that beneath all the policy debates, budget discussions, and disagreements, we are still neighbors who share the same streets, the same views, and the same desire for a peaceful, thriving community.
While reactions from Board members varied in the moment, the impact on the community was unmistakable. Homeowners sat in silence as Ashley read Christina’s words, many visibly moved, recognizing that this was more than a political statement — it was a moment of real human honesty.
Ashley’s final appeal was for a “yes” vote — not as a personal attack, but as a step toward higher standards, financial stability, and genuine transparency. She made clear that retaining the current Board would mean continuing down a path of reduced savings, increased spending, heightened risks, and restricted information — choices that could damage the community’s future.
The Case To Retain
Karen Pawlak, President of the HOA Board, opened her remarks by acknowledging the difficulties and frustrations the Board has faced in recent months. She emphasized the Board’s commitment to the community, underscoring values of transparency, integrity, and respect. Karen sought to frame the recall effort as originating from personal agendas and fear, emphasizing that only about 1.34% of the community (roughly three homeowners) initiated the petition, primarily over concerns about access to HOA-owned land. She stated this even as 165 lots — 74% of the community — were represented at the recall meeting.
Karen asserted that the recall was not about the Board’s performance, transparency, motivation, decision-making, or issues such as home values, insurance, or safety. She stated that the Board’s decisions have always prioritized the interests of the entire community, not just a select few. However, her messaging was contradictory at times. While Karen claimed to welcome diverse perspectives and insisted that all homeowners should have equal rights and benefits, she also cast doubt on the credibility of those supporting the recall — suggesting that both long-time homeowners and those newer to Board meetings were responsible for spreading selective or inaccurate information. This approach tended to minimize the relevance of their concerns, even as she stated that the Board represents everyone equally.
Addressing governance, Karen explained that the Board had identified and corrected “illegal language” in the Common Elements Open Space rules — language approved by previous boards that restricted access to the bluff area for the past 30 years. She argued that removing this restriction was necessary to comply with both the CC&Rs and state law, and that rules must apply equally to all five tracts of open space.
On financial stewardship, Karen outlined several actions taken by the Board to save money and ensure stability: absorbing administrative tasks from MSI, moving roughly 15% of reserve funds from equity-based vehicles to low-risk investments, maintaining HOA dues at the same level for two years, renegotiating vendor contracts, and “reallocating funds”. She claimed the reserve fund is solid and secure, with $550,000 available to cover the community’s assets — $535,000 of which are due for repair or replacement in the next seven years according to the Board’s current reserve plan.
Karen also highlighted a series of community improvements, including debris cleanup, landscaping, tree maintenance, pest prevention, fencing installation, mailbox replacement, and detention pond maintenance. She emphasized that these efforts addressed long-standing neglect and benefited the entire community. The Board also updated ARC rules and continues to review policies to ensure alignment with state law and the CC&Rs.
In terms of communication, Karen described increased outreach through E-Blasts, mailings, and monthly board meetings, most held via Zoom for accessibility. She stated that all meeting agendas, approved financial statements, and minutes are posted online, and that the Board has acted with transparency, integrity, and respect throughout its tenure.
Throughout her speech, Karen’s messaging often shifted attention away from the substantive issues raised by concerned homeowners — such as requests for information, explanations, and accountability — by focusing on the motives and methods of those leading the recall. While she stated that the Board welcomes input, her remarks frequently deflected criticism and placed blame on those seeking greater transparency and responsiveness.
Karen concluded by portraying the recall as a costly distraction — both financially and emotionally — for every resident. She framed the decision as a choice to “stand by the Board and the community” or, in her words, to “allow a select few to advance their personal agendas”. The tone and substance of Karen’s closing argument exemplify the divisiveness that has characterized the Board’s approach, while also sidestepping and minimizing the very issues the Board is entrusted to address as part of its fiduciary duty.
The Results
While the recall effort did not pass, the vote revealed something far more meaningful:
a highly engaged community that cares deeply about its future.
📊 Unofficial Vote Counts
- Karen: 85 recall · 75 retain
- Jeff: 83 recall · 77 retain
- Brad: 82 recall · 78 retain
- Louise: 81 recall · 79 retain
- Christina: 69 recall · 80 retain
Interpreting the Vote Results: What the Numbers Really Show
When the final votes were counted, the raw totals alone did not fully reveal the sentiment behind them — but
the vote differentials did. By comparing each Board member’s recall votes to retain votes, a clear
picture emerged of how strongly the community felt about each individual. Karen received the largest negative
differential (85 recall vs. 75 retain, a –10 margin), making her the Board member residents most
strongly wanted removed. Jeff (83–77), Brad (82–78), and Louise (81–79) followed closely behind with margins
between –4 and –2, indicating that each was viewed unfavorably but to a lesser degree.
In contrast, Christina was the clear outlier. She received only 69 recall votes and 80 votes to retain — a
+11 margin, the only positive result of the night. This means she was the most supported
member of the Board and the one homeowners were least willing to remove. Even more telling: only 149 total
votes were cast for her race, compared to 160 in the others. That means approximately
11 homeowners abstained from voting against her, a silent gesture widely understood as appreciation
for the heartfelt olive-branch letter she had written and allowed to be read aloud before the meeting. Unlike
the others, Christina received a meaningful expression of compassion and goodwill from the community — and the
vote numbers reflect that unmistakably.
Understanding the 67% Threshold — And What the Results Reveal
For the recall to succeed, the HOA bylaws require a quorum of at least 20% of homeowners (45 homes), with 67% of those in-person or by proxy voting in favor of removal. At the meeting, 165 homes were represented, but only 160 were permitted to vote — without explanation for why five ballots were excluded from the official tally. With 160 ballots cast, the Board needed just 33% or 52 votes to retain their seats.
Even if all 223 homes had participated, the threshold for retaining a seat would have been only 74 votes. This mathematical reality shaped the strategic landscape of the vote.
When the results were announced, a striking pattern emerged: every Board member hovered almost exactly at that 74-vote threshold. Karen received 75 retain votes, Jeff 77, Brad 78, Louise 79. This tight clustering suggested a very calculated approach, with the Board focusing their efforts on securing only the votes necessary to remain in power should all 223 homes vote rather than building broader support within the community.
In other words, while the recall effort mobilized a record-breaking 160 voters, the Board’s support reflected
the minimum viable campaigning required to retain control. Their results did not indicate a strong mandate
from the community, but rather that they had secured only what was necessary to remain in power and no more.
For homeowners looking ahead, this distinction matters: a board that wins by a technical threshold rather
than by community confidence has a responsibility to rebuild trust — not assume it.
What the Recall Effort Ultimately Revealed
The Board was correct about one thing: this recall did begin with just a handful of homeowners deeply concerned about a single, high-impact issue — an issue that should never have rested solely on the shoulders of so few. Whether one agreed with their stance or not, the Board’s subsequent actions brought numerous other concerns to light. The significance of these topics demanded far broader community engagement, and homeowners responded in force. For many, the information they learned about the Board’s conduct prompted them to attend their first meeting in the weeks leading up to the recall. Often, one meeting was all it took — especially given the troubling behavior and decision-making witnessed by those present.
What started with a few residents grew into the largest civic turnout in the history of Chatfield Bluffs South. Neighbors who had never attended a meeting before walked through the doors. Friends who hadn’t spoken in months sat side-by-side. People who disagreed on the issues still showed up, united by a new understanding of how important it is to pay attention to what happens within our HOA.
While the Board retained their seats by meeting a technical threshold, the overwhelming involvement from the community sent a different message. The majority of the community, regardless of how they voted, came together to say:
“No more division. No more silence. We want transparency, unity, and a community where every voice is
valued.”
This unprecedented participation proves something vitally important: the community is awake now.
Residents are paying attention. They want accurate information, open communication, and a renewed spirit of
cooperation. We may not all agree on every issue — and we never will — but this moment demonstrates that
Chatfield Bluffs South is ready to rebuild trust, heal division, and move forward together.
What happens from here is not up to a Board of five. It’s up to all 223 homeowners. The recall may be over,
but this movement toward awareness, involvement, and unity is just beginning.
What Matters Most to You?
To help guide future updates, research, and community outreach, we invite you to share the top three
areas you care about most. Your input will shape what information is published next and what issues the
community focuses on moving forward.
Share Your Top Three Priorities
