Preamble

• David Wiecking responds to my two-year ongoing, quest for access to the Corporate Documents;
• the recent 2025 board elections follow in a predictable pattern; and
• A look at the very full, mailbag, resulting from the release of the article, Ballot Harvesting.

My name is Gregory Pichler with the MXB Wire, reporting from the Dune Road Studio, and you are watching my community update for Saturday, September 30, 2025.

David Wiecking responds to my two-year ongoing, quest for access to the Corporate Documents

On August 29, 2025 David Wiecking replied to a follow up e-mail message that I sent him on August 16, 2025 or thereabouts. This may have been the last communication that Wiecking sent while still the acting community president. [1]

In my e-mail message, dated August 16, 2025, I offer a legal opinion as to whether I came to the board with a proper purpose when I solicated the board to gain access to the corporate documents in this case the proxy ballots.

In his e-mail message, Wiecking is responding as much to my e-mail message, dated August 16, 2025, as he is to the release of the article, Ballot Harvesting. In defense of his long history of overvoting proxy ballots Wiecking writes:

Any general proxies that were assigned to me at any point in time, whether these were proxies assigned to me during my time serving on the Board (September 2001-2016; September 2023-present) or times when I was not, were legally mine to vote as I wished. Period. This applies to situations where someone informed me they had assigned me as their proxy and I should vote as I saw fit, and to those that were returned to our property manager’s office with no candidate names checked off or filled in. If someone assigns me their general proxy, they are trusting me to make their decision for them or, if any candidates have been checked off or filled in, to vote in accordance with their choices.

There are two problems with this argument.

Firstly, over his two tenures as a board member and as community president, Wiecking largely developed the rules behind how elections are proctored. So, Wiecking is in effect following his own rules, the ones that a small number of board members drafted in several iterations of the bylaws. The board adopted the most recent incarnation of the bylaws over the course of the Spring of 2025. The membership was not involved nor consulted to any meaningful degree. One could argue (as I have done) the community was lied to as to the purpose of moving to an election process whereby elections are to be proctored by secret ballot.

Starting in 2008 or thereabouts Wiecking also oversaw changes to the governing covenants. Dan Lyons (now deceased) had articulated grave concerns about the covenants and how the proposed revisions to the covenants incrementally broadened the powers of the board at the expense of the greater membership. Lyons reportedly believed that the covenants removed certain responsibilities of the greater community membership, including presumeably how the bylaws are revised, and in effect who can change the bylaws. The bylaws do not now require a majority vote of the membership although at one time the bylaws presumably did. Instead the board now has exclusive authority to change the bylaws at the board's discretion, circumventing the membership. In effect the board can change the rules of the game, notably how elections are proctored at any time.

Given the rules that Wiecking had a hand in setting down, he now believes that he has a duty to fulfill his obligations to the association to install the people, that he wants to work with. Others on the board and any other member, who draws the proxy ballots of other members, also has that power.

Secondly, Wiecking is conflating apathy with endorsement. A large portion of the membership have no interest in the personalities of the various board members. These members just want the place to run. If you believe Tommie, the whistleblower in the article Ballot Harvesting the board typically overvotes thirty to forty ballots. That is not a small number as Wiecking later characterizes in his e-mail message, dated August 29, 2025. It is certainly not harmless.

Wiecking continues:

For the sake of completeness, as I have told you on MANY occasions, the number of general proxies assigned in their entirety to the Board is traditionally quite small-usually in the low single digits. By “in their entirety”, I refer to those submitted without voting for any candidates. Any proxies submitted with even one candidate’s name checked off would have been voted exactly that way-for only the specific candidate or candidates checked off.

Whatever that number is, the number of proxies assigned in their entirety to the Board, that number is whatever number more than what the community members have at their disposal.

In his defense of his actions Wiecking completely misses the main thrust of article. The bylaws, which the board, has sole responsibility to set down, are broken.

The bylaws serve the interest of the board and not the membership. The bylaws will tend to elevate corruption in lieu of the talents of the people, who the membership strongly approves of. In 2023 a survey found that the membership strongly disapproves of the people, who constitute the leadership of the board, whereas the membership largely approves of the board members, who have less of a leadership role.

the recent 2025 board elections follow in a predictable pattern

How did your predictions for the 2025 Board Elections go? Did you get it right this year. I didn's. I predicted that Margie Cyr would come in with the second highest vote tally. She didn't. Cyr tied Jim Silberman for last place in the vote tally. David Wiecking exercised his discretion and handed Cyr the fourth two-year term, leaving Silberman the balance of the two-year term vacated by Kerry Hall.

However, nowhere in the Cyr's Community Update did she mention that she tied Silberman for the fourth and final two-year term on the board. Cyr only announced that she had won a two-year term and that the board elected her as vice president.

A look at the mailbag, resulting from the release of the article, Ballot Harvesting

On August 19, 2025 at 1:35 PM, a former board member, who wishes to stay anonymous, wrote the following:

I applaud your efforts to hold the MXB “leadership” accountable.

On August 19, 2025 at 9:18 AM, a former board member, who also wishes to stay anonymous, wrote the following:

I fear that to many readers [the article, Ballot Harvesting] will just come across as a sour grapes rant. [...] You picked a tough problem to focus on.

In fact that is what we do here at the MXB Wire.

On August 28, 2025 at 8:08 PM, abitration specialist, Dr. Andrée McKissick, wrote the following:

Wow! What a story.

On August 20, 2025 at 11:01 AM, a community member, who also wishes to stay anonymous wrote the following:

[...] I think you are on to something.

References