It has come to light that the Snug Harbor Board of Governors recently approved a significant policy change — without notifying the community, discussing it openly, or offering any opportunity for input.
This decision, made behind closed doors, introduces a new and subjective requirement that board candidates demonstrate “good character,” which includes avoiding any conduct that could “bring disrepute to the SHPOA community.”
This vague and open-ended language raises serious concerns. Who defines “good character”? Who determines what is “disreputable”? The answer: the very same board that stands to benefit from these subjective criteria.
This policy effectively grants the Board unchecked power to disqualify potential candidates — even those duly elected by property owners — based on arbitrary and potentially biased judgments. It undermines democratic principles, silences dissent, and discourages those who may challenge the status quo or raise valid concerns.
This is not a matter of upholding community values — it’s an effort to consolidate control. It’s a troubling step toward exclusion, favoritism, and gatekeeping, cloaked in language about “character” and “community standards.” Such policies don’t build stronger communities; they suppress engagement, erode trust, and divide residents.
If the Board genuinely seeks to foster community participation, it must begin with transparency, accountability, and a willingness to hear all voices — not just the ones that agree with them. Instead of asking why community participation is declining, the Board should reflect on how its own self-righteous actions are contributing to the problem.
The Board of Governors need to reconsider this policy, engage the community in open dialogue, and recommit to democratic and inclusive governance.
Property owners deserve to be informed, respected, and heard — not filtered through a subjective test of worthiness.
We are watching. And we will not be silent.
