"It's Just Politics."

We had hoped to end our election series. We asked candidates, now directors, for a final position. It isn’t over, for any of us.

That is what your board president told a volunteer when she asked him to correct false statements he had made during a community election. Statements he did not care, at the time he made them, whether they were true. Statements that were demonstrably false.

We would like to talk about what kind of politics we are actually dealing with here.

This is an article about a pattern — documented across months, across rooms, across the record — of a board president who responds to accountability with personal attacks, denies his own words when confronted with them, and has now told a volunteer, on the record, that he does not think she should participate.

This kind of politics is costing our LCC real money. 

Money which should be going to maintain the lake and the docks; issues conspicuously absent on board agendas.

The Governance Committee Meeting

In February, the board president and a fellow board member came to a bylaws committee meeting. They were the only members who showed up. The volunteer who chairs that committee sat with them for an hour and held a regular meeting, with input written directly into the meeting notes for Article VII. 

See Governance Committee Resources Provided to the Board

She walked the board members through the relevant language and topics in the article. She said she would incorporate their feedback into the next revision. She showed them the checklist the committee uses to make sure every section meets a minimum standard of to achieve best practices.

It was, by any measure, exactly what a committee chair is supposed to do.

When the formal meeting ended, the conversation shifted. The volunteer asked the board president to correct false statements from the election — including a claim that she was directed by a man rather than making her own decisions.

She is a woman. She found that characterization insulting and dismissive. She said so, and asked that Gowrylow apologize to the person who he falsely accused.

Gowrylow denied his statement.

She stood up to get her computer so she could show him his own words, now living in screenshots alongside the fact check.

That is when he pointed his finger in her face.

That is when he said to her: "You are sneaky and manipulative."

A witness described him as crimson, shaking, [redacted for Mike's comfort, but incredibly angry]. 

The meeting ended.

The volunteer wrote meeting notes. She included "sneaky and manipulative." She left out the body of the conversation to protect Gowrylow. She documented less than she witnessed.

The notes were internal, but the board asked that they be included with the Bylaws committee documentation.

The Conversation We Can No Longer Protect

It is clear that this conversation is still relevant to what is happening on the board today.

"Don't tell me what I said." — When a volunteer referenced Gowrylow's own prior statements.

"I don't take responsibility for my actions." —Gowrylow

"It's just politics. Grow up." — When asked to de-escalate election statements.

These are not isolated outbursts. 

They are a consistent posture toward accountability: deny, deflect, attack the person asking.

The Public Meeting — April 2, 2026

Yesterday, at a special board meeting called to address the bylaws committee's work, the board voted to hire outside legal counsel for a bylaws restatement — without acknowledging the committee's cost analysis, without acknowledging the work plan presented by the committee, clearly without reading the submitted materials, and nearly without legally required community comment.

After the vote, the committee chair raised her hand. She had two questions: 

• How do we get to research the board would accept? 

• What feedback does the board have on the work plan?

The board president said the board was not going to hear from her anymore.

She wrote the questions on a notebook and held it to her camera. It was the only communication channel left.

The board called it disruptive.

Challenged, she unmuted and spoke anyway.

She stood up for herself and the work of her team.

Later in the meeting, when another member announced he would conduct the bylaws process independently if the board refused to engage, a board member called that adversarial. 

A volunteer responded: rejecting research outright without engaging it is also adversarial. She had barely begun the sentence when another board member interrupted her.

"You just want control."

That board member had said, during the election, that she wanted to be Switzerland. 

So I asked her about it. She walked away. She did not apologize, explain where her statement came from, or give me an opportunity to change the story.

She didn't want to be included in candidate groups. That she wanted to stay neutral. That request was respected by us. 

She was not included in our campaign materials. She was not pressured by us to take a side.

She is the same board member who has referred to another member — a neighbor with the same rights as any of us — as someone she does not have to listen to, 'like a chihuahua.'

She is the same board member who reported a candidate to VIS, assigning a derogatory clinical diagnosis to justify removing a member from the ballot. When that didn't work, the board allowed her to complain about the candidate in a community comment.

Neutrality, it turns out, has a side.

The board president closed the meeting by saying the committee chair was too disruptive, too challenging, and didn't like the board — and maybe she should resign.

He ended the meeting.

When the Zoom went quiet, the chair responded: "Nice to have the power of the last word."

He said: "You just want control."

A member recognized the deep misogyny in this story, and stood up for her. 

Gowrylow told that member to “Shut Up.”

He removed the member from the meeting with a smirk.

The volunteer continued: "You have called me sneaky and manipulative. I understand you don't want me to participate. You don't like me. I still have a right to be here."

He said: "I don't think you should participate." 

And she was also out of the meeting.

What This Means

"Sneaky and manipulative." "You just want control." "I don't think you should participate."

These are not governance. They are not feedback. They are not even frustration.

What would you call it?

This is a board president telling a volunteer, who has done months of documented, substantive public work, that her real motive is power — and that she should be excluded from the process her membership entitles her to. He provides no evidence for an accusation of motive.

This is why it feels like we have a toxic HOA - because the board has already decided that members can be targeted.

How would anything look different if she simply had extensive experience and wasn’t afraid to talk about it? What if her motive was not control, but participation and engagement? What, substantially, would be different?

He told her it's just politics.

Those politics have already cost us more than $20000 this year in board decisions. We can show our work. Can the board show theirs?