Process Integrity Check
An Indefensible Position: Why the Board Must Immediately Reverse a Candidate Disqualification
September 28, 2025
The 175 E. Delaware Pl HOA election is now in crisis and faces serious legal and reputational risk. The election crisis stems directly from HOA President Scott Timmerman’s refusal to demand proof that the system rejected the candidate’s application, choosing instead to uphold her disqualification based only on management’s assertion that they “never received” the email in a staff mailbox, despite the candidate providing proof the email server accepted it. By upholding this exclusion, while refusing to use his authority to demand the required server logs, the President has chosen to defend a management error. This decision is procedurally incorrect, risks the Association’s insurance coverage, invites legal challenge, and requires the immediate reversal and reinstatement of the candidate.
Brought to you by Drew McManus, your neighbor in 7908.
The Only Thing That Matters
When Is An Email Truly “Received”?
The management company’s assertions rely entirely on the claim that the application was “not received” because a staff member couldn’t find it in a mailbox. However, the owner can provide concrete evidence proving that their application was successfully accepted by Sudler’s mail server and not returned or rejected. Disqualifying a properly filed application exposes the Association to potential litigation.
- Management’s Position: They define receipt as a staff member visually confirming the email in their inbox.
- The Correct Definition: Under standard rules, receipt happens the second the receiving system’s server says, “Yes, I got it.” Acceptance at the server level is what matters, not whether staff can find the message later.
Timmerman noted that management showed the owner the visible email accounts and stated there was “no record of any such email” (see the full email exchange below). This mailbox review does not prove the application was never received. Messages can easily be lost, filtered, or mishandled after the server accepts them; this is an internal routing issue, not a missed submission by the applicant.
The following is the unedited exchange with Board President Scott Timmerman, detailing the core disagreement over technical proof.
Drew McManus, Sep 16, 2025
Dear Scott and Jennie,
The decision to exclude [a candidate] as a candidate, despite their timely submission, exposes the Association to serious legal and reputational risk. Disqualifying a properly filed application not only undermines the integrity of this election but also opens the Association to potential litigation from an owner unjustly denied the right to appear on the ballot. The full email headers from the owner’s submission will clearly demonstrate that the application was transmitted to and accepted by Sudler’s mail server before the published deadline.
This message addresses four key points:
- No evidence provided: Sudler has not produced any server logs, bounce reports, or other proof to support its claim that the candidate’s application was rejected.
- Verifiable evidence exists: The owner can easily provide complete email headers that independently confirm timely submission and directly contradict Sudler’s claim the message was not received.
- Exposure to liability: Persisting in this position without proof places both Sudler and the Association at serious risk of legal liability and reputational damage.
- Recommended course of action: The owner must be reinstated as a valid candidate immediately, and the Association and election provider must notify all owners of the correction, address ballots already submitted, and guarantee that no owner’s vote is lost or invalidated as a result of this oversight.
To ensure clarity, I will explain the issue first in technical terms and then in plain language.
If Sudler’s inbound mail server accepted the message, that acceptance will appear in the message’s full raw headers as part of the Received header chain and/or in server side delivery logging. A Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) server indicates acceptance of the transaction when it returns a positive reply (for example 250) to the DATA command and then records the message in its queue. If a remote server rejected the message at SMTP time, the sender would normally receive a bounce or delivery status notification showing a 5xx or other non delivery code. RFC SMTP and delivery status standards define these behaviors.
In SMTP, there are only two possible outcomes once a message is handed off to the receiving server:
- The receiving server rejects the message during the SMTP session (for example with a 550 or similar 5xx error code).
- In this case, the receiving server never adds a Received header, because it has not accepted responsibility for the message.
- The sending server is required by the SMTP standard to generate a Delivery Status Notification (DSN) or bounce message back to the sender, containing the diagnostic code and reason for rejection.
- Therefore, if Sudler’s server truly rejected the message, Sudler should be able to produce the SMTP transaction log showing the rejection event, and the sender’s provider should have generated a bounce.
- If no bounce was returned to the sender, the presumption is that the message was accepted.
- The receiving server accepts the message (returns a 250 acceptance code).
- At that moment, Sudler’s server has taken responsibility for delivery.
- A new Received header is added by Sudler’s mail infrastructure.
- Any failure to deliver after this point (quarantine, misrouting, internal filtering, mailbox errors, etc.) is entirely Sudler’s responsibility.
Because the owner never received a bounce, and because their email headers will contain the original Message-ID and outbound trace, the responsibility is now on Sudler to prove rejection occurred at the SMTP transaction level. That means producing log evidence of a 5xx rejection code at the time of submission. Without that evidence, the only reasonable conclusion is that Sudler accepted the message but mishandled it internally.
There is no way for the owner to perform this task and placing the burden of proof on them, as was the case during the 9/15/2025 board meeting, only puts the Association at increased risk of legal action.
For clarity, here’s a plain-English explanation that explains when you send an email, only two things can happen on the receiving end:
- If the receiving system refuses the message outright:
- The email is never accepted.
- The sender always gets an automatic bounce-back notice telling them the email didn’t go through.
- Since the owner never got such a bounce, this scenario doesn’t apply.
- If the receiving system accepts the message:
- The message is logged as received.
- From that moment on, it’s the receiving system’s responsibility to deliver it properly.
- If the message later gets lost, filtered, or mishandled inside Sudler’s system, that’s an internal failure on their side, not the sender’s fault.
So the claim that the message might have been rejected does not line up with the facts. If rejection had happened, the owner would have seen a bounce-back immediately. Since there was none, it means Sudler’s system accepted the message. That makes it Sudler’s responsibility to show where it went after they took it in.
Based on the information provided at the 9/15/2025 board meeting, there are several points of concern:
- Claiming the application was “not received” despite headers proving server acceptance.
- Suggesting rejection occurred without providing the mandatory bounce evidence.
- Ignoring the reality that internal failures, spam filters, mailbox misrouting, or staff oversight during a period of staff turnover, are far more plausible causes.
- Blaming the applicant rather than acknowledging documented system flaws.
Fairness & Legal Concerns
Excluding a candidate who submitted on time disenfranchises the ownership and jeopardizes the validity of this election. It invites legal challenge, damages credibility in the Board’s governance, risks our D&O insurance coverage, and risks the Association incurring costs to defend an indefensible position. Disqualification under these circumstances is not only unmerited but potentially unlawful.
Restorative Action
The only corrective path is to restore the owner in question to the ballot immediately. Failure to do so leaves the Association open to a direct and foreseeable election challenge.
Moving Forward
To prevent recurrence, the Board should insist on transparent and documented practices: automatic email receipts, verified candidate logs, or an independent submissions portal operated by a dedicated election services provider. Owners deserve election procedures that are reliable, traceable, and unbiased.
Given the time sensitivity of this situation, please confirm in writing, without delay, that Christina Hebding will be placed on the ballot as a valid candidate, and that Sudler will provide the Board with the corresponding server logs or bounce evidence if they continue to assert rejection.
In addition, the Association and Condo CPA must outline how they will communicate this correction to all owners, address ballots already submitted, directly notify affected owners with confirmed receipt, and guarantee that no owner’s vote is lost or invalidated as a result of this oversight.
Scott Timmerman, Sep 16, 2025
Unfortunately, the election rules are clear and if an application is not received in advance of the deadline, the candidate cannot be included. She alleges that she sent it 30 seconds before the deadline, but it was never received. My understanding is that Christina met in-person with Management and they showed her the email accounts and there is no record of any such email, but they did have other emails from her.
Drew McManus, Sep 16, 2025
Dear Scott,
I appreciate your prompt reply and I must address several critical errors in your response.
- Owner fulfilled all requirements: Christina submitted her application on time, in accordance with the published rules, and can provide full raw email headers proving transmission and acceptance by Sudler’s mail server before the deadline. She has done everything required to be a valid candidate.
- Your technical misunderstanding: Acceptance at the server level is what matters—not whether someone can find the message in a mailbox later.
- Onus of proof: If Sudler claims non-receipt or rejection, it is their responsibility to produce server logs or bounce notifications showing this occurred. Without such evidence, the presumption under standard email protocols is that Sudler accepted the message and any failure occurred internally.
- Misplaced focus on mailbox review: Showing Christina the visible email accounts does not prove the message wasn’t received at the server. Messages can be lost, quarantined, misrouted, or mishandled internally. The failure is an internal routing issue, not a missed submission by the applicant.
Your decision to continue excluding Christina based on the absence of a mailbox copy, while ignoring verifiable server-level evidence, is procedurally incorrect and exposes the Association to considerable legal risk.
Immediate corrective action is required:
- Christina Hebding must be reinstated as a valid candidate.
- Sudler must provide server logs or bounce evidence if they continue to claim rejection.
- The Association and election provider must notify all owners of the correction, address ballots already submitted, and guarantee that no owner’s vote is lost or invalidated.
Please confirm in writing that these steps will be implemented. As Board President, you have the sole authority and are responsible for ensuring Sudler provides the server logs or bounce notifications that objectively demonstrate whether the message was accepted by the mail server before the deadline. “Receipt” for purposes of the election is defined solely by server acceptance under standard email protocols, not by mailbox visibility, personal interpretation, or any internal review or routing processes of email accounts. In the end, how can the Association avoid the legal and reputational risks if these verifiable server logs are not requested and provided?
At the time this article was published, Timmerman has yet to reply.
The Problem With “Never Received”
The management company has not produced any server logs, bounce reports, or other technical proof to support its claim that the candidate’s application was rejected. Without that evidence, the only reasonable conclusion is that the management company accepted the message but failed to deliver it internally.
Here is the issue in simple terms:
- If the Receiving System Refuses the Message: The sender is always required to get an automatic bounce back notice telling them the email did not go through. Since the owner never received a bounce, the rejection scenario does not apply.
- If the Receiving System Accepts the Message: The message is logged as received, and Sudler’s system takes full responsibility for delivery. Any failure after that point, like filtering or misrouting, is entirely an internal failure on the management company’s side, not the sender’s fault.
Here’s a plain-English explanation: when you send an email, only two things can happen on the receiving end.
- If the receiving system refuses the message outright:
- The email is never accepted.
- The sender always gets an automatic bounce-back notice telling them the email didn’t go through.
- Since the owner never got such a bounce, this scenario doesn’t apply.
- If the receiving system accepts the message:
- The message is logged as received.
- From that moment on, it’s the receiving system’s responsibility to deliver it properly.
- If the message later gets lost, filtered, or mishandled inside Sudler’s system, that’s an internal failure on their side, not the sender’s fault.
If Sudler’s inbound mail server accepted the message, that acceptance will appear in the message’s full raw headers as part of the Received header chain and/or in server side delivery logging. A Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) server indicates acceptance of the transaction when it returns a positive reply (for example 250) to the DATA command and then records the message in its queue. If a remote server rejected the message at SMTP time, the sender would normally receive a bounce or delivery status notification showing a 5xx or other non delivery code. RFC SMTP and delivery status standards define these behaviors.
In SMTP, there are only two possible outcomes once a message is handed off to the receiving server:
- The receiving server rejects the message during the SMTP session (for example with a 550 or similar 5xx error code).
- In this case, the receiving server never adds a Received header, because it has not accepted responsibility for the message.
- The sending server is required by the SMTP standard to generate a Delivery Status Notification (DSN) or bounce message back to the sender, containing the diagnostic code and reason for rejection.
- Therefore, if Sudler’s server truly rejected the message, Sudler should be able to produce the SMTP transaction log showing the rejection event, and the sender’s provider should have generated a bounce.
- If no bounce was returned to the sender, the presumption is that the message was accepted.
- The receiving server accepts the message (returns a 250 acceptance code).
- At that moment, Sudler’s server has taken responsibility for delivery.
- A new Received header is added by Sudler’s mail infrastructure.
- Any failure to deliver after this point (quarantine, misrouting, internal filtering, mailbox errors, etc.) is entirely Sudler’s responsibility.
Because the owner never received a bounce, and because their email headers will contain the original Message-ID and outbound trace, the responsibility is now on Sudler to prove rejection occurred at the SMTP transaction level. That means producing log evidence of a 5xx rejection code at the time of submission. Without that evidence, the only reasonable conclusion is that Sudler accepted the message but mishandled it internally.
There is no way for the owner to perform this task and placing the burden of proof on them, as was the case during the 9/15/2025 board meeting, only puts the Association at increased risk of legal action.
Timmerman’s position relies on the assertion that the message was “never received”, despite being informed the owner has verifiable proof of server acceptance. In addition to information from the owner and my own emails to him on this topic, acceptance at the server level is what matters, not whether someone can find the message in a mailbox later. Timmerman holds the sole authority and is responsible for ensuring the management company provides the server logs that objectively demonstrate whether the message was accepted.
The Consequences
Legal Risk and Disenfranchisement
The decision to exclude a candidate who submitted their application on time disenfranchises the ownership and jeopardizes the validity of this election. Continuing this position, while ignoring the verifiable server level evidence provided by the owner, invites legal challenge, damages credibility in the Board’s governance, and risks the Association’s D&O insurance coverage. The Association risks incurring costs to defend a position that is procedurally incorrect and potentially unlawful.
The only corrective path is to restore the integrity of the election immediately. Failure to do so leaves the Association open to a direct and foreseeable election challenge.
The following steps must be taken without delay to protect the Association and ensure no owner’s vote is lost:
- Put the Candidate Back on the Ballot: The owner in question must be reinstated as a valid candidate immediately.
- Demand the Technical Proof: The Board President must require Sudler to provide the objective server logs or bounce evidence if they continue to claim rejection.
- Tell the Owners: The Association and election provider must notify all owners of the correction.
- Fix the Ballots: Plans must be outlined to address ballots already submitted.
- Guarantee the Election: The Board must guarantee that no owner’s vote is lost or invalidated as a result of this oversight.
Timmerman’s position relies on the assertion that the message was “never received”, despite being informed the owner has verifiable proof of server acceptance. In addition to information from the owner and my own emails to him on this topic, acceptance at the server level is what matters, not whether someone can find the message in a mailbox later. Timmerman holds the sole authority and is responsible for ensuring the management company provides the server logs that objectively demonstrate whether the message was accepted.
Your Next Move
How Owners Can Guarantee Integrity
You have the right to demand that the Board President fulfill his responsibility to protect the Association from legal risk. The fastest way to demand accountability is to contact Timmerman directly using the following form.
Be respectful, concise, and clear in articulating the negative impact it has had on you and your fellow homeowners. You are welcome to use the example language as-is, but feel free to personalize the example message before you send.
