PETITION TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MEMBERS
We, the undersigned members of Lake Rockport Estates Property Owners Association, Inc., representing at least one‑third (1/3) of the membership as required under the Association’s governing documents (Bylaws, Article II, Section 2.2 – Special Meetings) and applicable Utah law (Utah Code §16‑6a‑702), hereby formally petition the Board of Trustees to call a Special Meeting of the Members.
Purpose of the Special Meeting
The purpose of this Special Meeting is exclusively to consider and vote, in person or represented by proxy (By-Laws, Article II, Section 2.5 – Voting Requirements, Amended), on the removal of Paul Strader from the Board of Trustees, pursuant to the Association’s governing documents (Articles of Incorporation, Article VI, Trustees) and Utah Code §16‑6a‑808.
Because Trustee Paul Strader was elected by the voting members, Utah Code §16‑6a‑808(1)(e)(i) requires that removal may occur only by the affirmative vote of a majority of all voting members of the Association, not merely a majority of those present at the meeting.
No other business shall be conducted at this Special Meeting.
Click here to view and sign the petition »
1. Why is this recall being requested?
The recall is being requested because multiple documented actions by President Paul Strader have undermined transparency, financial oversight, and lawful Board process. These issues are not isolated; they form a consistent pattern across meeting conduct, financial management, water related communications, and committee oversight. Members have a right to accurate records, proper financial controls, and decisions made by the full Board acting in accordance with our governing documents and applicable law— not by a small group acting without authorization.
2. Is this recall personal or political?
No. The recall is based on documented governance failures, not personal disagreements or policy preferences. The concerns involve:
- Inaccurate meeting minutes
- Unauthorized committee communications
- Exclusion of the Treasurer
- Misrepresentation of Board positions
- Conflict of interest concerns
These are procedural issues that affect the entire community.
3. What happened with the October 2025 meeting minutes?
The minutes state that the Board was “pursuing Mountain Regional,” even though:
- The motion to select Mountain Regional failed
- Multiple Board members confirmed in writing that the motion did not pass
- The Board agreed that no decision should be made until feasibility studies were presented to the membership
Publishing minutes that contradict actual votes misrepresents Board action and violates Utah’s requirement for accurate association records. This is a serious transparency failure because members rely on minutes to understand what the Board has actually decided.
4. Why is transparency such a major concern?
Members repeatedly requested:
- Meeting records
- Financial explanations
- Contract documentation
- Clarification of Board decisions
These requests were often delayed, incompletely answered, or ignored. Utah law requires associations to provide accurate records and timely access to those records upon member request. When members cannot obtain basic information, trust erodes and accountability breaks down.
5. What happened with the Treasurer and financial oversight?
The Treasurer — the officer legally responsible for financial oversight — was excluded from:
- The transition from PMSI to Sea to Ski
- Fund transfers
- Ledger reconciliation
- Account access
- Budget corrections
Sea to Ski confirmed they were working primarily with Paul Strader and Wendee Aguilar on financial issues, not the Treasurer. This exclusion violates the Bylaws and removes a critical safeguard designed to protect Association funds.
6. Were there financial irregularities?
Yes. The Association’s general ledger shows three large transactions:
- $83,360.30
- $100,000
- $550,000
These transfers:
- Appeared without Treasurer oversight
- Had no documented authorization
- Caused negative account balances
- Were not initiated by Sea to Ski
Negative balances and undocumented transfers are red flags in HOA accounting. They require immediate explanation and documentation — none of which were provided.
7. Why is the Water Committee part of the recall justification?
Because the Water Committee issued materials to members that:
- Presented conclusions (“dire,” “only viable option,” “exhausted supply”)
- Implied decisions had been made
- Framed alternatives as no longer viable
- Appeared to represent official Board positions
But:
- The Board never approved these conclusions
- No vote authorized the messaging
- No disclaimer distinguished committee opinion from Board action
Committees may only act within powers delegated by the Board. These communications exceeded that authority and misled members about the status of water decisions.
8. How does this relate to a broader pattern of governance issues?
Across water communications, financial transitions, vendor decisions, and meeting conduct, the same small group advanced actions without:
- Full Board approval
- Accurate documentation
- Required officer involvement
- Proper member disclosure
This pattern shows a consistent bypassing of lawful process and concentration of authority among a few individuals.
9. What is the conflict of interest concern involving the Treasurer resignation letter?
A resignation letter from former Treasurer Sarah Strader (spouse of Paul Strader):
- Advocated eliminating or minimizing Treasurer oversight
- Suggested outsourcing financial control
- Criticized internal controls rather than improving them
Subsequent actions mirrored this agenda, including:
- Excluding the current Treasurer from financial transactions
- Centralizing financial authority
- Advancing a management contract without full transparency
No formal disclosure of a conflict of interest or recusal appears in the record, raising conflict of interest concerns under Utah law.
10. How does this affect members directly?
Members are affected because:
- Inaccurate minutes distort what decisions have actually been made
- Financial irregularities put Association assets at risk
- Unauthorized communications influence member perception
- Excluding officers from decision-making weakens internal checks and balances
- Lack of transparency prevents informed decision making
- Concentration of authority reduces accountability
These issues impact dues, water decisions, enforcement practices, and long term community direction.
11. Why not wait for the next election?
Because the issues involve ongoing governance failures that affect financial integrity, transparency, and member trust. Allowing these patterns to continue risks further harm to the Association. Recall is the corrective mechanism provided by Utah law and the governing documents when a Board member’s actions undermine the Association’s proper functioning.
12. What does the recall accomplish?
A successful recall:
- Restores lawful, transparent governance
- Ensures decisions are made by the full Board
- Reestablishes proper financial controls
- Reinforces member rights and participation
- Rebuilds trust in the Association’s processes
The goal is not to punish an individual or to cause conflict in the community— it is to protect the community and return the Board to proper, accountable operation.
13. What budget errors are part of the recall concerns?
Several significant budget related issues were documented during the 2025–2026 budget cycle, raising concerns about accuracy, oversight, and compliance with the Association’s governing documents.
a. Errors in the proposed budget were identified but not corrected before presentation to members.
Board members and the Treasurer raised concerns about inconsistencies, incorrect line items, and missing explanations. Despite these warnings, the budget was advanced without a full correction process or clear documentation of assumptions.
b. The budget relied on a substantial operating shortfall covered by prior year funds.
Members were not provided with a written explanation of:
- Why the shortfall existed,
- What alternatives were considered,
- How this approach would affect future assessments,
- Or whether the shortfall reflected structural issues in spending.
This lack of transparency conflicts with the requirement that annual assessments be based on advance estimates of cash needs.
c. The Treasurer — the officer responsible for financial oversight — was excluded from the budget process.
The Treasurer documented that she was not included in:
- Budget preparation,
- Review of financial assumptions,
- Reconciliation of errors,
- Or final approval discussions.
This exclusion violates Bylaws §4.7 and undermines the internal controls designed to protect Association funds.
d. Known spreadsheet and billing errors were allowed to persist.
The Treasurer and other Board members identified:
- Incorrect charges,
- Misapplied expenses,
- Unreconciled discrepancies,
- And outdated or inaccurate financial data.
Requests for correction were delayed or ignored, and the budget proceeded despite unresolved issues.
e. Members were not given the information needed to make an informed decision.
The budget was presented without:
- A clear narrative explaining changes,
- A comparison to prior years,
- A breakdown of cost drivers,
- Or an explanation of the longterm financial impact.
This lack of disclosure conflicts with the Board’s duty to provide complete information to the membership.
Why does this matter?
Budget errors are not just clerical mistakes — they affect assessments, reserves, long term planning, and the financial health of the Association. When errors are ignored, oversight is bypassed, or the Treasurer is excluded, members cannot rely on the accuracy of the numbers they are being asked to approve.
These issues reinforce the broader pattern of governance failures that form the basis of the recall.
Click here to view and sign the petition »
This website is published by concerned members and is not a product of the Lake Rockport Estates POA or Board of Trustees.