Not so sure your statement above is correct. Here is the link to the board agenda of April 20, 2024, where a vote was taken to approve a second/final reading of what are now the current Guidelines that were obviously approved with much too little discussion. I call that a rubber stamp. Others can call it whatever they choose.

As Board candidate Amy Peck wrote, there is no "redline" version of the proposed Guidelines in the board packet for April 2024, making it virtually impossible for association members to understand the impact of changes.

Here is video of the board meeting where the board approved the 2024 Guidelines now in place:

Scroll to 56:10 or so in video to the discussion and vote on the Guidelines in April 2024.

No reasonable person can view the video of that discussion and come to the conclusion the board members had a clue as to all the ramifications of what they voted to approve. Zero details discussed in depth. No actual reading of the changes. A substantive part of the discussion was of board members Jeff Heavner, John Latham, and Elaine Brady patting either the ARC committe members or themselves on the back for passing the new Guidelines.

Incredibly, unless I missed something, a statement is made about how the new Guidelines from 2024 fixed the board candidate sign issues. It did not. But perhaps someone can show me where it did, and I will certainly make a correction here.