What the REAL Flyers Said: A Documentation Review of Key Claims
- friendsofkenlake
- Dec 3
- 5 min read
Updated: Dec 4
The following clarifications are based on emails, event records, and public postings. They address the claims, not the individuals.
Claim: “the REAL friends of Ken Lake”
This is a classical rhetorical move—naming the slate as the “true” representatives implies their opponents are outsiders or harmful actors. Calling themselves the “REAL friends of Ken Lake” is about anchoring themselves to the neighborhood’s identity.
This makes dissenters appear out-of-step with the community.
There are repeated phrases that frame a specific group or individuals as harmful, chaotic, or dishonest. Examples:
“behind-the-scenes insults, accusations, and pseudo-attorney interpretations”
“hurtful and divisive tactics of some current board members”
“to twist facts”
“end the chaos that has engulfed our board”
This is political contrast messaging: elevating one group by positioning the other as a disruptive force. Simultaneously, the flyer uses language emphasizing civility, community, and order:
restoring civility
maintaining Ken Lake as a premium community
ending chaos
defending covenants
This tone combination—warning about a threat + promising stability—is very common in neighborhood HOA politics.
Claim: “We will defend our covenants against efforts to build high density housing in our single-family community.”
It situates housing density as a community-level threat and positions this slate as defenders of “single-family” character. This is:
designed to activate fear of change
a proven mobilizer for older or long-term homeowners
a way to shift the election toward one polarizing issue
What the documents show: There was no outreach to Friends of Ken Lake or its candidates requesting clarification about their position on multifamily housing or ADUs prior to the statements made in the flyer. No emails, messages, or inquiries were received. This is not a contrast or differentiator between candidate groups.
Claim: “We don’t have a fancy website to twist facts.”
This framing paints online transparency tools as manipulative and attempts to contrast one group as humble and fact-based.
There is a strong attempt to delegitimize alternative sources of information (e.g., community websites) by labeling them fact-twisting or manipulative.
The framing raises concerns about who is positioned as the ‘official’ source of truth, who defines the story of the board, and who gets to determine ‘community values.
What the documents show: At the time that statement was distributed, members of that slate subsequently created and launched their own website during the same election cycle. The issue was not the existence of a website, but that the original claim contrasted itself against others who used websites.
Claim: “[We don’t] hand out pastries to solicit supporters.”
The sentence continues with another contrast, this time implying that a pleasantry is used by the out-group as a tool for manipulation.
The effect of this framing provides justification for voting against others, and positions the opposing group as ethically questionable.
What the documents show: During the previous election cycle, at least one candidate from the REAL Friends of Ken Lake group did visit the home of a FoKL candidate and offer cookies while discussing that election. This is not presented as criticism—neighbors often share food socially—but it is a factual discrepancy with the claim.
For completeness, Elle has shared cookies with neighbors as a way to introduce herself and meet new people, but had torn out her kitchen by the time the election began. Elle also invited Evan for coffee during his presidency to learn more about how the HOA functions.
Claim: “We do pledge to end the chaos that has engulfed our board for 2 years.”
This statement suggests that “chaos” was introduced or sustained by a Friends of Ken Lake candidate, and that electing the slate would resolve it. It frames conflict as coming from a single direction, rather than as the result of a broader breakdown in communication, trust, or shared process.
In practice, governance conflict is nearly always systemic rather than individual. When disagreements escalate, it is typically because multiple factors — communication habits, procedural uncertainty, interpersonal mismatch, and structural tension — interact with one another. Describing the situation as the fault of a single candidate produces a simplified narrative that does not reflect the full documented context.
What the documents show:
In January 2025 board meeting, two other board members refused to approve the agenda, preventing the meeting from moving forward. No alternative agenda or process solution was proposed. This contributed to confusion and frustration, as the board could not proceed with its scheduled work.
In April 2025, 10 or more neighbors spoke at a meeting asking the board to maintain Evan Clifthorne in the role of President to stabilize the situation.
The new board majority voted to remove him from that role, without addressing the comments from the residents who had requested continuity and calm.
Several community members subsequently expressed that this decision increased tension rather than reducing it.
Following the vote, Mike Gowrylow was selected as the new President.
These events show that the conflict described in the flyer did not originate from a single person or slate. Instead, tension emerged from multiple board interactions, procedural disagreements, and moments where the board was unable to operate smoothly.
The claim that one candidate “created chaos” therefore oversimplifies a multi-party dynamic and does not align with the documented sequence of events.
What Actually Causes “Chaos” in HOA Governance?
In most associations, governance tension usually emerges from system issues, not from any one person. Common contributors include:
When these factors overlap, the result can feel like “chaos,” even when all parties are trying to do their best.
The surest way to reduce tension is to strengthen process, transparency, and shared understanding—not to assign blame to individual neighbors. |
Authority + Longevity Appeals
References like:
“first moved to Ken Lake in 1997”
“currently serves as president”
“previously served on our board”
These are appeals to experience, continuity, and trustworthiness, positioning the slate as veterans who represent “how things are supposed to be.”
Personalization of Conflict
The REAL Friends of Ken Lake flyers reference:
interpersonal behavior
“hurting,” “insults,” “behind-the-scenes,” “divisive tactics”
That sort of language signals that part of the campaign strategy is built on personal conflict narratives rather than policy alone. Such framing primes readers to view certain neighbors as untrustworthy or unkind.
Ken Lake is made stronger when neighbors feel informed, respected, and included. Reviewing the claims made in this election is one way to support that shared foundation. When we understand what was said—and what the documents show—we create room for clearer conversations and more trust across differences. Whatever our perspectives, we all benefit from a community where information is accurate and participation feels safe.
Is it Divisive? Quick-Check List
A simple checklist to sort whether language is helpful or divisive.
Separate issue claims from personal claims. If a message focuses on character (e.g., “chaos,” “divisive,” “behind-the-scenes behavior”) rather than bylaws, policy, or process, treat it as emotional framing—not information.
Watch for identity labels. Phrases like “real friends,” “true representatives,” or “people like us” divide neighbors into camps. Ask what the message is trying to achieve with those labels.
Identify fear-based appeals. Statements about threats, decline, or danger (e.g., “high-density housing,” “protect our community”) should prompt you to check whether the risk is documented or implied.
Ask what the message wants you to do.
Calls to action are often either:
process-based (vote procedures, policies, deadlines), or
emotion-based (defend, stop, restore, protect).
Messaging designed to inform looks different from messaging designed to provoke.
Slow down your reaction. If a message makes you feel alarmed, pressured, or angry, pause. Strong emotional cues are often used to bypass critical thinking.
Check what’s missing. If a flyer talks about people but not policies, or problems but not solutions, that signals how it wants you to interpret the election.
Comments