At the April 21, 2026 board meeting, held online via Zoom, one of the big topics was the board’s proposed ACC Guidelines 2.0. Board president Russell Ziegler told members the guidelines were still in the feedback stage, that the board appreciated the comments it had received, and that it was still gathering more.
When the open forum began, several homeowners spoke on the proposed guidelines, Hochstedler among them. He questioned the proposed 30-day application review language, and his concern was document-based. The proposed language would require all documentation to be submitted before the 30-day review period begins, and he questioned whether tying the clock to a “complete” application could shift control over when the review period starts. He developed that point more fully in writing days later, linked below.
How the Open Forum Exchange Went Down
As Hochstedler was speaking, board secretary, Nina McVicker, noted that his three minutes were nearly up. He finished his remarks. Before Ziegler could recognize him and thank him, as the chair had done for each speaker, board member Ryan Edwards began to speak, but Ziegler interrupted to thank Hochstedler, and after, Edwards continued.
He said he felt “we’ve gotten a little bit away from the… intent of the open forum.” Then, in the same breath, he took up the very substance he had just called a drift. He engaged Hochstedler’s 30-day point directly, questioning when an application is truly submitted, and went on to argue that parts of the proposed guidelines add clarity rather than expand control, using the definition of an outbuilding as his example. He spoke to the merits for the better part of two minutes.
So two things happened at once, and they sit uneasily together. Edwards said the forum had strayed from its “intent,” and then he treated Hochstedler’s comment as worth debating on its merits. A comment cannot be both off the forum’s purpose and substantial enough to answer at length. He was answering Hochstedler.
The Question After the Meeting
Hochstedler was left unsure what standard his comment had supposedly failed to meet. Wanting clarity on what the “intent,” or purpose, of the open forum was, he followed up in writing with Edwards. In his email, Hochstedler first responded to the 30-day proposal, arguing that tying the review clock to a “complete” application would let the reviewer decide when the clock starts, a functional change rather than a clarification, and noting that if clarity was the point, clearer language was available. Then he turned to the forum comment, quoted Edwards’ words back to him, and asked a narrow question.
“Separately, I wanted to follow up on your comment, ‘I feel like we’ve gotten a little bit away from the… intent of the open forum…’
The meeting policy outlines how open forum is conducted, including time limits, relevance to the meeting, and the role of the chair in managing participation. It does not define a standard for ‘intent,’ nor does it appear to authorize limiting comments on that basis.
Can you clarify what you meant by ‘intent,’ where that standard is defined, and how it is being applied in practice during open forum?”
The question was not whether Edwards agreed with the feedback. It was not whether the board may set rules for the forum. It was narrower than that. If a board member tells a member their participation has strayed from the forum’s “intent,” the member should be able to learn what written standard was applied.
Edwards’ Response
Edwards replied the same day. He did not engage the 30-day point, other than to say the position was “duly noted,” and turned to the open-forum question.
“I appreciate you expressing your comments on the April Board meeting. Your position is duly noted.”
“I assume you are referring to the Conduct of Meetings Policy, effective 11/25/23, which replaces and supersedes all previous policies, rules, and regulations regarding the subject matter of conduct in meetings. Section 8., Etiquette / Remedying Disruptive Behavior, provides procedures for Members to speak specifically to motions; however, I am not aware of an “outline” specific to the matter of open forums in this Section or Policy. Section 8., merely states “… the agenda for Member and Board meetings will include an open forum during which a Member or his/her representative may speak.” To my knowledge, this is the extent of relevance to open forums in this Policy. Being new to the Board, I apologize if I have missed the outline you are referring to, or if there is an alternate Meeting Policy, and ask that you please direct me to it/them so I may familiarize myself.
With that said, I addressed my comment to the other Members of the Board, whereby I conveyed my opinion that the open forum had strayed from its intention. My recollection for doing so was because Members spoke on multiple occasions, without being acknowledged by the Chair, and for greater than 3 minutes without the consent of the Chair.”
Two things are worth reading closely, because they are in Edwards’ own words.
First, Hochstedler had already said the Conduct of Meeting Policy doesn’t define a standard for “intent.” But Edwards went looking for the “intent” standard in the meeting policy. He was unable to find one and reported, “I am not aware of an “outline” specific to the matter of open forums in this Section or Policy.” Then he quoted the one open-forum line in the policy itself. Then he admitted, “To my knowledge, this is the extent of relevance to open forums in this Policy.” He could not find a standard for “intent” and ended by asking Hochstedler to find it for him.
“Being new to the Board, I apologize if I have missed the outline you are referring to… and ask that you please direct me to it.”
— Ryan Edwards, board member, April 24, 2026, responding to a question about a standard he had invoked“Please direct me to it” puts the burden of finding the standard on the member who questioned it, not on the board member who invoked it. Hochstedler’s question was simply, what did you mean by “intent”?
Second, he explained why he made the comment. He wrote that he had addressed it to the other board members, and that his concern was members speaking more than once, without recognition, and past three minutes. But that is not what he raised at the meeting.
When he spoke, he said nothing about time, recognition, or anyone speaking twice; he went straight to the substance of Hochstedler’s comment. The conduct concern appears for the first time here, in the email. He had already conceded he was “not aware of” any intent standard in the policy. Now, instead of dropping the point, he recast it as conduct, without acknowledging he had moved.
The meeting was on Zoom. On a call where every participant sits in the same forward-facing grid, there is no visible difference between addressing the board and addressing the person who just finished speaking. But he did not speak as if he were addressing the board. He spoke to Hochstedler directly, in the second person, taking up the 30-day point Hochstedler had raised and warning him to be careful about calling the changes an expansion of control. What participants saw was a comment aimed at Hochstedler, beginning the moment he finished, before the chair could close the turn.
The concerns he named are not gaps in the policy. They are conduct issues handled by the very section he cited.
That raises a plain question: if Edwards could go on to say what he meant by “intent,” why did he ask the homeowner to direct him to the standard so he could familiarize himself?
Across the exchange, the question was acknowledged, redirected, and explained around. It was not answered.
What Section 8 of the Meetings Policy Actually Contains
Section 8 of the Conduct of Meetings Policy opens by establishing the open forum, then sets out a procedure for member participation.
“At either a meeting of the Members or the Board, the agenda for Member and Board meetings will include an open forum during which a Member or his/her representative may speak. In addition, after a motion and second has been made on any matter before the meeting, but prior to a vote by the Members or Directors, Members or their representatives present at that time will be afforded an opportunity to speak on the motion as follows:”
Directly below that paragraph, the policy sets out lettered procedures for managing participation. Each of the concerns Edwards described is handled there, and in each case the authority belongs to the chair.
None of these is an “intent” standard. They are the chair’s tools for conducting the open forum.
At the April 21 meeting, Ziegler used all these tools. The chair recognized each speaker by name before the speaker started. That is the opposite of what Edwards described. The board secretary noted the time. The only member who spoke more than once was Hochstedler, and the chair recognized him each time. Rule h does not end where Edwards’ concern would need it to. It says each member may speak once, “unless otherwise permitted by the chair.” Hochstedler spoke a second time because Ziegler permitted it.
The bylaws point the same way. Section 6.10 lets members speak before the board votes and lets the board place reasonable time limits and allow a reasonable number of speakers on each side. It adds no “intent” test either.
So the picture is consistent across both documents. Members may speak. The board may set reasonable limits. The chair manages the process. Neither document creates an “intent” standard that can be used to recast document-based feedback as improper participation.
The Homeowner’s Follow-Up Question Was Not Answered
Hochstedler replied the same day. Edwards had answered, but the answer had moved. At the meeting, “intent” pointed at the substance of Hochstedler’s 30-day comment. In the email, after Edwards could not find “intent” in the policy and asked Hochstedler to go find it, it pointed at conduct instead; speaking too long, too often, out of turn. Those are two different meanings for the same word, and the second one describes matters the chair had already managed correctly. So Hochstedler wrote back, not to repeat the question, but to name the shift and ask it plainly: if “intent” is defined nowhere, was the concern ever really about intent, or was it the conduct the meeting policy already covers?
“You stated that your concern was members speaking more than once, speaking without recognition, and exceeding three minutes. Those are time, recognition, and meeting-control issues. They are already addressed in the Conduct of Meetings Policy. That is different from saying the open forum had strayed from its ‘intent.’ So my original question remains: is ‘intent of the open forum’ a defined standard in any CEPOA policy, or was that simply your personal characterization of conduct issues already covered by the meeting policy?”
Edwards did not respond. As of this writing, more than a week later, the question is unanswered.
Where the Record Leaves It
A board member said, “I feel like we’ve gotten a little bit away from the… intent of the open forum…”
Asked what he meant, Edwards said his concern was members speaking too long, too often, and out of turn. The record does not bear that out. He raised none of it at the meeting; it appears only afterward, in his email. The chair recognized each speaker, kept time, and managed the floor, and the only member who spoke more than once did so with the chair’s recognition. The conduct he described is, in any case, the chair’s to manage under the Conduct of Meetings Policy. None of it is an “intent” standard, because no such standard exists in any CEPOA document.
At the meeting, Edwards said the forum has gotten a little bit away from the… intent, and what he engaged next was the substance of Hochstedler’s 30-day comment. In that moment, “intent” was about content. When he could not find “intent” anywhere in the policy, the word changed jobs. In his email, it no longer meant content. It meant conduct: speaking too long, too often, out of turn, all of which the chair had already managed effectively and according to policy. Same word, a different meaning, and the change arrived exactly where the policy left him with nothing. So the question a homeowner is left with is the one Hochstedler asked: if “intent” is defined nowhere, and the meaning shifted the moment the policy came up, what was Edwards’ “intent” comment really for?
A Fair Question Under the Code of Conduct
CEPOA’s Board and Committee Member Code of Conduct and Communications Policy asks directors to review materials in advance and to refrain from acting when they are not fully informed. A board member is expected to know the basis for a standard before he holds a member to it. Edwards stated this in front of the room, as fact. A standard stated as fact should exist when questioned. This one could not be produced, and then it changed. The reader can decide what to make of a claim made that publicly that could not be produced when questioned.
It is the order that raises the question. A board member is expected to know the basis for a standard before he holds a member to it, not after. Invoking one in front of the room, then conceding he could not locate it, is not a small slip. It is using authority first and looking for its basis second. Readers can weigh that against the documents themselves.
A Pattern Homeowners Should Watch
Members can be civil and still disagree. They can follow the chair’s direction and still ask hard questions. They can question a proposed guideline without having the question turned into a problem with their participation. That is the line this exchange crossed, and it did so through a single mechanism worth watching, because it shows up in more than one place.
There is a thread that connects the open-forum exchange to the proposal that prompted it. Both the guideline and the forum turn on a word no document defines.
In the proposed ACC Guidelines 2.0, the review clock does not start until an application is “complete.” The proposal never defines complete, which leaves the reviewer to decide when the test is met. That structure lets a reviewer treat an application as incomplete and hold the clock open, and the delay needs no explanation, because the standard that triggers it is undefined.
The open forum ran on the same mechanism. An undefined word, held by the person with authority over it, becomes a lever. With “complete,” a reviewer can hold up an application. With “intent,” a member’s comment becomes the member’s conduct, and the comment itself disappears. It is a kind of magic: point at the person, and the question is gone.
A standard that exists only in the moment it is invoked can be applied to anyone, and checked by no one. Which leaves one question for every homeowner: when a word carries no fixed meaning, what work is it doing for the person who reaches for it?
Update: a third instance has since emerged. See below.
- Is “intent of the open forum” defined in any CEPOA policy?
- Which written standard did the member’s participation fail to meet?
- Will the board identify the policy basis for the “intent” comment, or confirm there is none?
UPDATE, July 2026
Weeks after the email exchange above, Edwards, unprompted, brought up the email himself in a private phone call on a different matter. He labeled Hochstedler’s email confrontational. He said he chose not to keep engaging it, because the way the email was going, it was better to stop there. However, Edwards never did call or reach out.
The phone call added a third turn of the same move, the pattern growing with each exchange. “Complete” decides when a clock starts. “Intent” turned a comment into conduct. Now “confrontational” turns a question into a problem with the person asking it, an attitude to manage instead of a point to answer. The word changes each time. The trick does not.