(Note: this is a late post. I didn’t write about it at the time. It’s now needed to support this post.)

I received the following email from Coventry Group Community Management representative Mark Schloemer. (Full email will be provided upon request)

---

---

Where’s The Beef?

The management company asserted that this blog was “already starting to create confusion” among Winchester Landing members. It did not identify any allegedly confusing post, specify the nature of the supposed confusion, identify any member who had raised a concern, or provide examples of inaccurate information. Without that information, the assertion is too vague to evaluate or verify.

Disclaimer Request

I was asked to move my disclaimer stating that this website is not affiliated with Winchester Landing HOA from my About page to the home page. It further asserted that certain materials should be available only to Association members through a password-protected portal, rather than published on a publicly accessible website.

My Response

I declined the disclaimer request. Instead, I added the statement, “Competent Governance Welcomes Scrutiny,” to the home page. I also made no commitment not to post HOA records that I lawfully obtain.

---

---

Efficient Use of HOA Resources?

The management company’s email states that the HOA attorney was involved in this matter. That raises a straightforward stewardship question: How much Association money was spent on legal advice intended to influence an independent homeowner blog, and what specific legal problem did that expenditure address? Given the absence of any identified inaccurate post or explained instance of member confusion, homeowners deserve a clear accounting of the expense and the basis for incurring it.

What Have We Learned

The disclaimer request appear to have been an effort to limit the blog’s public presentation and discourage scrutiny of the Association.

Once again, the board has engaged lawyers—on our dime—this time to stop me from publishing meeting minutes and recorded board meetings here. Lawyers send what clients direct—and bill accordingly. But access to open meeting minutes and recordings is a member right under Virginia law.

Let’s be real: these are mundane materials. No one cares beyond us. This site discourages search indexing—try Googling “Winchester Landing HOA”; it won’t appear. I designed it low-profile intentionally.

Let’s be honest: the Board wants recorded meetings to dissolve into fog so non-attendees miss the full picture, their words and actions get buried, and open forum stays tightly controlled. Notice the 11-18-25 minutes‘ vagueness. This isn’t good governance—it’s narrative control.

---

---

Some may think I’m at war with the board. Examine: They jacked up records request fees shortly after my requests began, initially resisted producing snow removal contracts (lawyers first) before relenting, and now this. Who’s really at war?

Here’s where it gets really interesting: The Board signed a retainer agreement with Chadwick back in July—the same meeting where seven motions passed with zero explanation or input from homeowners, sparking transparency complaints. It’s almost like they anticipated scrutiny. Our HOA isn’t complex—legal needs should be rare. Pay-as-you-go is more fiscally sound than a standing retainer. These standing retainers rarely save money long-term—they’re just marketing bait for law firms.

---

---

What we’re seeing isn’t unique. It’s the pattern in other HOAs: a small group gains control, circles the wagons, and wields legal shields against oversight. You didn’t like it elsewhere—don’t accept it here.

This website champions open governance, putting board actions in sunlight, not shadows. Far from undermining our HOA, it equips homeowners with facts for smart decisions and true accountability. Strong communities thrive on visible trust—the board legitimizes this site with every overreach.

---

---

---

Update (April 2026):

It appears the Board has quietly backed away from its attempt to restrict publication of meeting minutes and recordings.

No follow-through. No enforcement. No legal action. Just silence.

That’s not surprising.

The original effort was never about protecting sensitive information—it was about controlling visibility. Once that effort was met with resistance and exposed for what it was, it became harder to justify spending HOA funds to pursue it.

So the issue faded.

That leaves a simple takeaway: access to HOA records isn’t optional, and it isn’t something the Board gets to dial up or down based on convenience. It’s a legal obligation.

If anything, this episode reinforces the point of this site. Transparency only becomes a “problem” when it conflicts with how decisions are being made.

Funny how that works.

At the September 23, 2025 meeting, the board adopted a new Member Access to Records and Cost Schedule, setting fees of $30 per hour for staff time and up to 30¢ per page for copies of HOA records requested by homeowners.

Virginia law allows associations to recover reasonable costs for producing records, and it requires boards to adopt a cost schedule before charging anything. So adopting a schedule was appropriate.

The question isn’t whether a schedule was needed.
It’s what the board adopted, when it adopted it, and how it was presented.

---

What the Board Approved

Under the new policy:

• Staff time is billed at $30 per hour
• Copies may cost up to 30¢ per page

Those rates are notably higher than what many associations charge for routine administrative work.

To put this in practical terms: a homeowner requesting a simple, three-page contract could be billed for a full hour of staff time plus copying costs — over $30 for a basic records request.

That raises a fair question about what “reasonable” is supposed to mean.

---

Timing Matters

This is a new association with:

• a limited number of records
• very few records requests
• no demonstrated backlog or administrative strain

Yet the board chose to adopt an aggressive cost schedule now, without explaining what problem it was intended to solve.

When policies that restrict access to information are adopted without a clear operational need, homeowners are justified in asking why.

---

Confusion About “FOIA”

During the discussion, references were made to “FOIA.”

That was puzzling.

FOIA does not apply to HOAs. Only homeowners are entitled to association records. Records requests cannot come from the general public.

Raising FOIA in this context suggests either a misunderstanding of the law or an attempt to frame records access as a burden that it is not.

---

What Was Missing From the Discussion

Notably absent from the board’s explanation was basic information that would help homeowners evaluate the decision, such as:

• how many records requests the HOA has actually received
• how much staff time those requests have required
• whether existing processes were insufficient

Without that context, homeowners were asked to accept a new policy without understanding its necessity.

---

Lack of Advance Notice

Once again, the full policy was not provided to homeowners in advance of the meeting.

The agenda was distributed, and there was ample opportunity to include the proposed cost schedule for review. Instead, homeowners were presented with the policy during the meeting itself.

Brief explanations are not a substitute for advance notice. Policies affecting access to information deserve time for review and discussion.

---

Why This Raises Transparency Concerns

The board has not eliminated access to records.

But increasing costs, providing little notice, and offering limited explanation all have the same effect: making information harder to obtain.

Transparency is not measured by whether access technically exists.
It’s measured by whether access is practical, fair, and encouraged.

When barriers quietly increase, trust erodes — even if the door isn’t formally closed.

---

Bottom Line

Adopting a records-access policy should make the process clearer and more predictable for homeowners.

This one does the opposite.

And that’s why it deserves closer scrutiny.

Transparency Issues Under Tom Denney

At the July 22, 2025 meeting, board president Tom Denney and other board members approved seven resolutions in quick succession, with little or no explanation and no meaningful discussion. That left many homeowners frustrated and confused.

Several residents, including myself, contacted the management company afterward. Concerns about transparency were raised directly with the board.

---

---

What Board President Tom Denney Said

At the September 23, 2025 meeting, Board President Tom Denney addressed those concerns.

He explained that the board does not need to walk through every resolution in detail and emphasized that homeowners elected the board to handle association business. He also stated that the resolutions passed were legitimate and intended to benefit the association as a whole.

Separately, Mr. Denney has previously stated publicly that:

• Board actions would be placed on the agenda
• There would be open discussion
• Decisions would be documented and transparent

Those statements set a clear expectation.

---

---

Where the Disconnect Appears

The concern is not whether the board can pass resolutions.

The concern is how those decisions are made and communicated.

Passing multiple resolutions without explanation, discussion, or advance notice conflicts with the board’s stated commitment to transparency. Providing information only after decisions are made is not the same as open governance.

Transparency isn’t about revisiting every detail after the fact.
It’s about giving homeowners enough information before decisions are made so they can understand what’s being considered and why.

---

What Homeowners Are Asking For

No one is asking to micromanage the board.

Homeowners are asking for:

• Clear agenda items
• Supporting information included with meeting materials
• Open discussion before votes
• Decisions made in the open, not summarized afterward

These are basic expectations — and they are achievable with modern communication tools.

---

Why This Matters

Trust isn’t automatic. It’s built through consistent, predictable behavior.

When board actions don’t match prior assurances, skepticism grows — even if the board believes it is acting in good faith.

This is especially true when multiple governance issues are unfolding at the same time.

---

Final Thought

Transparency isn’t about how many hours someone worked behind the scenes.

It’s about whether homeowners can see, understand, and follow the decision-making process in real time.

That’s the standard the board set for itself — and it’s reasonable for homeowners to ask whether it’s being met.

---