A former New Canaan man who created wide disruption in town through lawsuits, blogposts and comments lodged at public meetings and community gatherings last week sued a homeowners’ association where he now lives in southern California.
Michael Nowacki, formerly of New Canaan. Contributed
In a civil suit filed Nov. 3 in Riverside County Superior Court, Michael Nowacki alleges conspiratorial meddling and mishandling of ballots cast in what he calls “the Solar Project election vote” at The Oasis Country Club.
The lawsuit lists as defendants the nonprofit Oasis Palm Desert Homeowners’ Association and 50 unnamed individuals.
According to Nowacki’s complaint, the group acted improperly by soliciting votes in favor of a plan to build a $1.5 million “solar carport” near a golf clubhouse at the entrance to the Palm Desert, Calif. development.
The Homeowners’ Association not only misused its email distribution list, but also denied Nowacki ballot access and made misrepresentations to voters, among other offenses listed in the complaint—for example, presenting a misleading rendering of the selected solar panels and failing to disclose that they’ll create unwanted glare and what the net monetary result of the project would be for those paying dues, it said.
Nowacki’s laser focus on the details of the solar project and vote likely will be familiar to locals here. When he lived in New Canaan, Nowacki in a fraught campaign ran unsuccessfully for first selectman, unsuccessfully sued the town and police, and pushed without success for a referendum on municipal spending.
The timing of his lawsuit—filed on Election Day—likely is not coincidental from Nowacki, a former ad executive who while living in New Canaan flexed a certain creativity. He dubbed the 2015-expanded Town Hall “Taj Mallozzi,” for example, a reference to former First Selectman Rob Mallozzi (who beat him by a 10-to-1 ratio in the election that year), and after the Town Council approved tree plantings around the Richmond Hill Parking Lot, located next to councilman John Engel’s house, Nowacki began calling him “Johnny Engelseed.”
Nowacki himself is one of 662 members of the Homeowners’ Association at The Oasis, which is described on its website as “one of the best kept secrets in the desert” where “rest and relaxation” can be found.
Ballots on The Oasis solar project went out Sept. 4 and could be returned by mail, email, fax or hand delivery, the lawsuit said.
“By utilizing these delivery methods, the Board of Directors had the ability to monitor the ballots,” Nowacki’s complaint said.
Nowacki said he was denied use of what effectively was a voter email distribution list to make his own case in opposition to the solar project at The Oasis, and he accuses the Homeowners’ Association Board of Directors of misusing email blasts in order to secure “yes” votes.
“When it appeared there would not be enough votes to support the Solar Project the Oasis HOA [Homeowners’ Association] would send email blasts to the members regarding the vote on the Solar Project,” Nowacki’s complaint said. “Although the Defendants had made a decision to limit the email blasts solely ‘to get out the vote’ they took a partisan position in the content of these email blasts by including what all of those in favor of the Solar Project were saying but not including what those opposed were saying.”
It continued: “Having been denied equal access to the mailing list, the plaintiff was forced to create his own mailing list from an online directory in which he outlined the opposing point of view reflected by a large number of concerned homeowners. Unfortunately, this e-mail did not go out until over 350 members had already cast their ballots. The Defendants had made sure the the votes were set up as irrevocable when cast thereby eliminating the possibility that members could have changed their votes after reading this e-mail information.”
Yet the Homeowners’ Association pushed back on Nowacki’s efforts, he said in the lawsuit.
Nowacki specifically criticizes what he calls a “bizarre” email blast sent Oct. 15 “attempting to again discredit the information being sent to members by the plaintiff by claiming it was untrue.”
Ultimately, the Homeowners’ Association voted 353-187 in favor of the project, with 122 non-votes or “disqualified votes.”
The lawsuit takes aim at the handling of ballots, with Nowacki complaining he was denied access to them.
“The plaintiff specifically asked the Defendants to retain the sealed ballot envelopes which may have contained identifications that would have allowed the staff or board to identify the 50 non-voters who voted between October 2, 2020 and October 17, 2020,” the lawsuit said. “Upon information and belief, those envelopes were not time stamped and the envelopes were knowingly destroyed by the Defendants to prevent someone from determining the date they were mailed.”
Nowacki complains that the Homeowners’ Association Board “did not appoint an independent third party as the inspector of elections, but instead chose to use the general manager of the Defendants for this purpose.”
“Accordingly, the plaintiff, in the week prior to the conclusion of the voting period requesting a secure procedure for receiving the ballots, safeguarding the ballots, chain of custody of the ballots and recording the ballots but those requested procedures were not followed,” the lawsuit said. “Instead, five staff members were identified as having handled the ballots (four staff and one board member), with four staff members including the general manager allowed to open sealed ballots on Oct. 26, 2020 to observe the tabulation of said ballots—yet the plaintiff as a member was not allowed to inspect the ballots as permissible under law.”
The Homeowners’ Association has not yet responded to the suit. The case is scheduled for a conference hearing next May, court documents show.
A Nov. 6 cover letter to the Homeowners’ Association from Nowacki’s lawyer, obtained by NewCanaanite.com, says, in part, “We are amenable to discuss resolution of the matter without extensive litigation. In the meantime, and in light of the fact that we assume Oasis otherwise intends to go forward with the project, we would request Oasis agree to voluntarily refrain from any further action with respect to the project, including entering into any construction contracts, until the matter can be resolved. If Oasis does not voluntarily agree, we will have no alternative but to immediately seek a temporary restraining order from the court.”
[Editor’s: Comments are disabled on this article.]