During the open forum at the April 2026 board meeting, homeowners were speaking to agenda items including proposed changes to the ACC guidelines. Board member Ryan Edwards then addressed his fellow directors with a comment that the forum had “gotten a little bit away from the… uh, intent of the open forum.”

A homeowner followed up in writing, asking three straightforward questions: what did “intent of the open forum” mean, where is that standard defined in CEPOA policy, and how was it being applied?

The answers Edwards provided created more questions than they resolved.

What Edwards Said in His Reply

In his April 24 response, Edwards pointed to the Conduct of Meetings Policy (effective November 25, 2023) as the governing document for meeting conduct. He quoted the opening paragraph of Section 8, which states that “the agenda for Member and Board meetings will include an open forum during which a Member or his/her representative may speak.” He then wrote that he was “not aware of an outline specific to the matter of open forums in this Section or Policy.”

There is no alternate policy. There is no missing document. The outline Edwards said he could not find is in Section 8 of the same policy he cited. It begins immediately after the paragraph he quoted.

What Section 8 Actually Contains

The Conduct of Meetings Policy, signed by the CEPOA board president on November 25, 2023, dedicates its entire Section 8 to “Etiquette / Remedying Disruptive Behavior.” The section opens with the open forum provision Edwards quoted, then continues with procedures for member participation on motions, followed by a lettered list of ten specific conduct standards that apply during open forum and all member participation.

Those ten rules are reproduced in full below, exactly as they appear in the policy. The rules Edwards described as his actual concerns — speaking without recognition, speaking more than once, and exceeding three minutes — are items (a), (g), and (h) respectively.

Conduct of Meetings Policy — Section 8, Items (a) through (j)
These ten rules appear directly below the paragraph Edwards quoted in his email. Rules corresponding to his stated concerns are highlighted.
a
The chair will ask those Members present to indicate on a sign-up sheet or by a show of hands who wishes to speak in favor or against the motion. Edwards Cited This
b
The chair will then determine a reasonable number of persons who will be permitted to speak in favor of and against the motion and for how long each person will be permitted to speak.
c
The chair will also announce the procedure for who will be permitted to speak, if not everyone desiring to speak will be permitted to speak.
d
Each person who speaks must first state his or her name and Lot address/number.
e
Comments must be offered in a civilized manner and without profanity, personal attacks, or shouting.
f
Comments must be relevant to the purpose of the meeting.
g
Except as allowed by the chair, each person will be given up to a maximum of three minutes to make a statement or to ask questions. Time limits may be increased or decreased by the chair but must be uniform for all persons addressing the meeting. Edwards Cited This
h
Each person may only speak once unless otherwise permitted by the chair. Edwards Cited This
i
The Board may decide whether to answer questions during the meeting.
j
Yielding of time by a speaker to another individual will not be permitted.

Every concern Edwards raised — speaking without being recognized, speaking more than once, and exceeding three minutes without chair approval — is addressed in writing in items (a), (h), and (g). These are not gaps in the policy. They are the policy.

The Bylaws Reinforce the Same Standard

The Conduct of Meetings Policy does not stand alone. The CEPOA Amended and Restated Bylaws, signed by the board on October 15, 2025, contain their own open meetings provision at Section 6.10. It establishes that members shall be permitted to speak on issues before a vote, that time restrictions must be reasonable, and that members may not interrupt board deliberation. It contains no “intent” qualifier and defines no category of participation that falls outside what is permitted.

CEPOA Bylaws — Section 6.10: Open Meetings (signed October 15, 2025)

“At an appropriate time determined by the Board, but before the Board votes on an issue under discussion, Members or their designated representatives shall be permitted to speak regarding that issue. The Board of Directors may place reasonable time restrictions on persons speaking during meetings. The Board shall provide for a reasonable number of persons to speak on each side of any issue.”

Source: CEPOA Amended and Restated Bylaws, Section 6.10

Read together, the Bylaws and the Conduct of Meetings Policy create a complete framework. Members have a right to speak. That right is subject to reasonable time limits and chair management. The chair enforces those limits using the specific tools in Section 8. There is no additional “intent” standard layered on top of this framework, because none was needed. The framework already addresses everything Edwards described.

The Homeowner’s Response

The homeowner’s follow-up reply, sent the same day as Edwards’ response, made the core distinction plainly:

That question has not been answered.

“Being new to the Board, I apologize if I have missed the outline you are referring to.”

— Board member Ryan Edwards, April 24, 2026, on the ten conduct rules listed directly below the sentence he quoted from Section 8

Why This Distinction Matters

If a board member had said at the April meeting, “some speakers exceeded three minutes without chair approval” or “someone spoke without being recognized,” those would be accurate, policy-based observations. The chair has clear tools to address both situations. Section 8 is written precisely for moments like that.

What Edwards said instead was that the forum had drifted from its “intent.” That is a different kind of statement. It implies a standard beyond the written rules, one that cannot be found, quoted, or applied consistently because it does not exist in any CEPOA document. It is a subjective characterization dressed up as a policy concern.

When a board member suggests to the rest of the board — in an open meeting, in front of homeowners — that participation has exceeded some undefined purpose, that carries weight in the room regardless of whether it reflects any written standard. It signals to the chair that intervention is appropriate. It signals to other homeowners that they may have spoken out of turn. And it has the practical effect of chilling participation, which the Bylaws explicitly protect.

The homeowner who raised this issue did so because the actual standards — already written, already signed, already in force — protect every homeowner equally. An undefined “intent” standard does not, and cannot, do the same.

CEPOAWatch Note

Board member Edwards cited Section 8 of the Conduct of Meetings Policy as the governing document but acknowledged no awareness of the ten conduct rules enumerated within that same section. Those rules directly address the conduct issues he described as his concern. He did not respond to the homeowner’s follow-up question asking whether “intent of the open forum” is a defined standard or a personal characterization. CEPOAWatch will continue to monitor how open forum is conducted and whether the written standards in the Conduct of Meetings Policy and Bylaws Section 6.10 are applied consistently and evenhandedly at future meetings.

Timeline

  • April 2026 — Board Meeting During open forum, homeowners speak to agenda items including proposed ACC guideline changes. Board member Ryan Edwards addresses fellow directors, stating the forum has “gotten a little bit away from the… uh, intent of the open forum.”
  • April 24, 2026 Homeowner submits written request for clarification: what is the “intent” standard, where is it defined, and how is it being applied?
  • April 24, 2026 — Edwards Response Edwards cites Conduct of Meetings Policy Section 8 but writes he is “not aware of an outline specific to the matter of open forums.” States his actual concerns were speaking without recognition, speaking more than once, and exceeding three minutes. Does not reference the ten conduct rules in the section he cited.
  • April 24, 2026 — Homeowner Follow-Up Homeowner notes that Edwards’ stated concerns are already addressed by the existing Conduct of Meetings Policy, items (a), (g), and (h). Asks directly whether “intent of the open forum” is a defined standard or a personal characterization. No response received.