The 2024 Surfside HOA election was presented as another routine exercise in community democracy. In reality, it became a case study in how controlling the process can be just as powerful as controlling the outcome—and how censorship doesn’t always look like an outright ban. Sometimes it looks like “policy,” “process,” and “code of conduct.”

That year, only two independent candidates—Steve Wallace and I—ran against a full slate of Surfside Preservation–aligned candidates. Once again, the same group controlled the election committee, the interview process, and ultimately, what the membership was allowed to see and hear. I tried to volunteer for the election committee but was denied.

My experience with the candidate interview process made that painfully clear.

I had just seen a doctor for severe neck pain and asked if my interview could be moved. I was told it had to happen before the deadline or it wouldn’t be posted. So I drove to Surfside anyway. When I arrived, I was greeted by the head of the election committee with a remark asking if I was there for my “mugshot.” The implication—that I was some kind of criminal—wasn’t just inappropriate, it set the tone for what was to follow. It also fit a pattern: critics of Surfside Preservation are treated with ridicule first on newsletters written by  Surfside preservation, and fairness later—if ever.

Before the interview even began, I with a pre warning instruction: “No names. No personal attacks. In my case the no names was not mentioned. Other candidates got a mix of instructions of no names and no personal attacks. Others received no instructions. In my entire career at Intel, I never called anyone names but what the interviewed wanted was no actual names.

On its face, that sounds reasonable. In practice, it became a tool for censorship.

When I was asked what I didn’t like about Surfside, I answered honestly: that the president, Ron, and the board were not answering emails promptly—or at all. I was immediately stopped and told that mentioning the president by name was a “personal attack. I responded, ” That’s not a personal attack. They responded ok.  It’s a statement about how Surfside governance operated, and many members have complained to me at the time about a lack of response. Especially since the office lost two veterans.

Let’s be clear about what that means. Saying an HOA president doesn’t respond to member emails is not name-calling. It’s not harassment. It’s a criticism of job performance. But in Surfside, even that was treated as forbidden speech. I had received many complaints from members about unanswered emails and appeals being denied.

The response was not debate. The response was censorship.

My interview was taken down.

I was issued a “code of conduct” violation under a policy so broad it effectively prohibits members from criticizing board members, committee members, or, in practice, anyone connected to the HOA. The head of the election committee went further and told me that more code of conduct violations could potentially lead to a lawsuit.

Think about that for a moment. Speaking your mind. Criticizing HOA leadership. Using names when discussing governance. All of that was now framed as misconduct—with legal threats attached.

Worse, I wasn’t even told who had filed the complaint. I was informed that “someone” I mentioned had complained. That complaint, and the alleged code of conduct violation, were then listed on my interview page. So not only was my interview taken down, but I was publicly tagged with a violation—during an election—based on an anonymous complaint about me criticizing leadership.

Meanwhile, every other candidate’s interview remained online.

The only one censored was mine.

I was told I could resubmit my interview—but only if I removed the names of the people involved. So I did. I stripped out the names and accountability, and only then was the interview reposted. By that point, the damage was already done: during a critical period of the election, members were denied access to one candidate’s real, unfiltered views.

At that point, I had to ask a serious question: What is the point of running if you’re not allowed to speak honestly about how the HOA is governed in elections?

Faced with a system where criticism triggers violations, violations trigger legal threats, and the election committee controls what voters get to see, I decided not to continue with the second candidate interviews. I had already missed the first one due to a prior commitment, but by then the larger issue was clear: this wasn’t an open process. It was a managed one. But also people on the board who treat dissent with threats to silence opposition.

---

During the interview, I pointed out the rejection of a request. Last May 2023, the state passed Bill 1043. I know Ron took it to the association’s lawyer, who claimed the language meant the email list had a different interpretation. The law says the HOA must provide a directory of members’ contact information—either addresses or phone numbers—so members can communicate with each other. That’s a basic requirement of a functioning democracy within an association. Still, Ron denied this, citing the lawyer.

So I wrote directly to our state representative, Senator McIntyre, who wrote the bill, and asked him to clarify the language. He wrote me back and called Ron directly. He confirmed that, yes, the email list should be released to members upon request, except for those who have stated they want their email unlisted.

From my perspective, the representative even called Ron himself to emphasize this point—without me asking him to. As a candidate, I asked for the email list. You can argue about emails if you want, but the law is clear: the HOA must release either the phone numbers or the emails.

The board also took action against an office worker who provided the email list to a member. Despite being returned unused, the employee was suspended and then let go. 

I’ve written to the board, and they haven’t responded. As a candidate, I need to be able to reach members and make my case—just like any candidate should be able to. We should have had access to members’  emails. 

Ironically, Ron has posted multiple letters in the weekender to inform readers that email lists could be sold and that members can remove their emails from the record. Ironically, the accusation on the Surfside preservation website was that I gathered members’ emails as part of the election buddy testing and polling. I understand that members should opt in to receive emails. I go to great efforts to protect the list. Most people don’t realize that their email is already compromised and that their spam folder is filling up with unwanted junk emails.

But having access to the Surfside  list is critical to a fair playing field for elections.

This is how censorship works in practice. You don’t have to ban someone outright. You define criticism as “misconduct.” You enforce the rules selectively. You threaten consequences for speaking. And you make an example out of the person who won’t stay quiet.

This is how censorship works in practice. You don’t have to ban someone outright. You define criticism or naming names as “misconduct.” You enforce the rules selectively. You threaten consequences for speaking. And you make an example out of the person who won’t stay quiet.

The first part of the 2024 election exposed how speech is controlled. The second part, involving motions and outcomes, exposed how power is exercised. Together, they paint a picture of a system that doesn’t just prefer conformity with only Surfside preservation candidates —it enforces it.

Surfside likes to talk about civility. But real civility in a democracy doesn’t mean protecting officials from criticism. It means protecting the right of members—and candidates—to voice it.

When an election committee can decide who gets to speak, what they’re allowed to say, and whether criticism becomes a punishable offense, that’s not neutrality. That’s control.

And when criticism of leadership is rebranded as a “code of conduct violation,” that’s not about respect. That’s about censorship.

In the back of my mind I wondered about what they were censoring.

Did they want to keep the membership out of the email list controversy and electronic voting? Was this a threat to their elections?

---