SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
Purpose
This document summarizes significant events involving the San Diego Rancho La Cresta Homeowners Association during Victoria LaBruzzo's service as a homeowner volunteer, committee member, director, officer, and Board President. It does not represent the entirety of that experience. Much of her service was productive, rewarding, and dedicated to improving the community. Rather, this document focuses on a series of events that, when viewed collectively, reveal a gradual pattern that ultimately resulted in her removal from leadership positions and meaningful participation in Association governance.
The significance of these events extends beyond personal disagreements among Board members. Directors are elected to exercise independent judgment, fulfill fiduciary responsibilities, and participate fully in the governance of the Association. When an elected director is progressively excluded from information, committees, oversight responsibilities, and executive-level participation, the impact extends beyond the individual director to the homeowners who elected that person to represent their interests.
The information presented is derived primarily from approved meeting minutes, Association records, correspondence, governing documents, and other materials available to the membership. Where documentation alone does not fully explain an event, clearly identified opinions are provided based on Victoria LaBruzzo's personal observations, participation in Association matters, attendance at meetings, and review of available records.
This document is not intended to disclose confidential Executive Session discussions. However, where information originating from Executive Session was later publicly disclosed and used to characterize, criticize, or make allegations concerning Victoria LaBruzzo, limited discussion is included to provide context and address factual inaccuracies.
Readers are encouraged to review the underlying documents and reach their own conclusions regarding the events described herein.
PART I
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (2017–MAY 2025)
Many of the events that ultimately culminated in the removal of Victoria LaBruzzo as President in May 2025 did not occur suddenly. Rather, they developed over several years through recurring disagreements concerning governance, transparency, enforcement of governing documents, committee structure, and the proper role of individual directors.
Early Governance Concerns (2017–2022)
Beginning from 2017, Roy Pearson, Navtej Toor, and later Keshav Gopinath served together in Board leadership roles. By the time Victoria LaBruzzo joined the Board in 2021, many governance practices, committee structures, and decision-making processes had been established under their leadership. Several of those practices later became subjects of disagreement and reform efforts.
After joining the Board in January 2021, Victoria LaBruzzo consistently advocated for greater transparency, homeowner communication, enforcement consistency, and compliance with governing documents. She repeatedly sought for a homeowner or herself to be appointed to the Architectural Committee because the Committee operated with fewer members than required by the CC&Rs VI 6.1. Those requests were repeatedly denied. Meeting Minutes July 28, 2021; August 25, 2021; February 23, 2022; March 23, 2022; April 27, 2022; May 25, 2022; June 29, 2022 Roy Pearson Interpretation of CC&Rs
These and other governance issues gradually became recurring sources of disagreement between Victoria LaBruzzo and Directors Roy Pearson, Navtej Toor, and Keshav Gopinath, particularly regarding committee operations, enforcement practices, homeowner communications, and interpretation of governing documents.
Notably, many of the same individuals appeared repeatedly throughout these disputes, including Directors Pearson, Toor and Gopinath, as well as homeowners Jessica Pearson, Michael Doering, and Dorothy Torrescano. Over time, additional directors and committee members became involved in similar governance conflicts, including Dave Settles, Marina Williams, Gary Ritchie, and others. While the specific issues changed from year to year, the participants, alliances, and underlying disagreements often remained remarkably consistent.
Observation/Opinion
In hindsight, these disputes marked the beginning of a broader pattern that would continue over multiple years and across multiple Board compositions. While many of the recurring conflicts involved the same directors and homeowners, the governance concerns being raised were not unique to me. Over time, numerous directors and community members—including Jason Minter, Julia Stojak, Robert Allen, Vikram Gunasekaran, Eric Runyon, and others—expressed similar concerns regarding governance practices, transparency, enforcement consistency, or Board conduct. What initially appeared to be isolated disagreements gradually evolved into recurring conflicts involving many of the same individuals and many of the same governance issues.
Leadership Changes and Governance Reform (2023–2024)
In March 2023, Victoria LaBruzzo was elected President of the Association. During her presidency, the Board undertook a number of governance initiatives, including development of a Board Code of Conduct, Conflict of Interest standards, Meeting Conduct Rules, Architectural Guideline revisions, and improvements to homeowner communications. Many of these efforts were prompted by increasing tension within Board meetings, growing homeowner participation, and concerns regarding decorum, governance practices, and personal attacks that were beginning to interfere with productive discussion and decision-making.
During this period, the Board also addressed numerous long-standing Association matters, including community projects, architectural issues, compliance enforcement concerns, reserve-related infrastructure projects, and wall disputes involving common area encroachments.
Not all Board members agreed on the direction of these efforts. Conflicts persisted regarding governance standards, enforcement consistency, committee authority, and homeowner complaints.
By 2024, homeowner tensions had become increasingly visible. A private Facebook group created and administered by Jessica Pearson became a focal point for homeowner criticism of the Board and management, eventually growing to more than 85 members. Board members generally were not permitted to join the group; however, Director Navtej Toor was allowed to participate and commented within the forum. Discussions frequently focused on actions attributed to Victoria LaBruzzo, often characterizing Association decisions as the result of her individual conduct rather than actions approved or undertaken by the Board as a whole. Criticism of the Board and management was also common, contributing to an increasingly polarized atmosphere within the community.
At the same time, multiple homeowners began appearing regularly at Board meetings to criticize Board actions, challenge Architectural Committee decisions, and raise complaints concerning enforcement practices. Several of these disputes would continue throughout 2026.
Escalating Conflict During Early 2025
The December 2024 election resulted in a Board consisting of Victoria LaBruzzo, Dave Settles, Eric Runyon, Jessica Pearson, and Navtej Toor. Jessica Pearson and Navtej Toor were newly elected directors.
Victoria LaBruzzo was elected to serve as President in January 2025.
The Board meetings immediately became contentious. Director Toor and Director Pearson initiated disputes regarding attorney communications, governance practices, executive authority, homeowner complaints, and the handling of a Homeowner Wall issue, an encroachment matter involving a homeowner/community wall that had been rebuilt into Association common area.
Victoria LaBruzzo and Eric Runyon frequently found themselves advocating for positions that differed from those advanced by Directors Navtej Toor and Jessica Pearson. Importantly, Director Dave Settles was not initially aligned with either side of these disputes and generally maintained a cooperative working relationship with all Board members. He expressed support for Victoria LaBruzzo's leadership, Board decisions, and the direction of the Association, making the events that followed particularly unexpected.
By spring of 2025, significant divisions had emerged within the Board. The same concerns and interpersonal conflict continued to escalate.
Those issues ultimately led Victoria LaBruzzo to request an Executive Session specifically devoted to addressing governance concerns and restoring functional working relationships among Board members.
PART II
THE TURNING POINT – MAY 2025
April–May 2025: Attempt to Address Governance Concerns
On April 25, 2025, Victoria LaBruzzo called for an Executive Session to occur immediately following the May 7 Town Hall meeting. The purpose was to address ongoing governance disputes, Board effectiveness, and escalating tensions among directors.
Two days before the Town Hall, Director Dave Settles confirmed with management that the Executive Session remained scheduled.
When the Town Hall concluded on May 7, management and Board members expected the Executive Session to proceed. Instead, Directors Jessica Pearson and Navtej Toor departed. Although Dave Settles remained present for a moment, he declined to participate, stating, "I'm not going to do this right now” and then departed leaving the board without a quorum.
The meeting never occurred.
One week later, Director Navtej Toor requested that Board reorganization be placed on the agenda.
This sequence would later become significant because the Board never held the governance discussion that had been specifically requested as part of the Executive Session before leadership changes were proposed.
May 28, 2025 – Board Reorganization
At the May 28, 2025 Board meeting, Director Navtej Toor moved to reorganize the officer positions and appoint Dave Settles as President.
Immediately after the motion but before the vote, Director Settles stated that he had no concerns regarding Victoria LaBruzzo's leadership, management of the Association, or prior Board decisions.
Nevertheless, the motion proceeded and Directors Settles, Toor, and Pearson voted in favor of the motion. Directors LaBruzzo and Runyon voted against the action.
Victoria LaBruzzo was removed from the office of President and replaced by Dave Settles.
No Discussion
No Cause
No explanation, justification, performance concern, governance concern, or misconduct allegation was provided during the meeting despite repeated requests from homeowners and Board members.
The meeting became highly emotional. Homeowners sought explanations. Board members requested clarification. None was provided.
Victoria LaBruzzo read a prepared statement that had been drafted before the meeting based upon concerns that a leadership change was being contemplated. Directors Settles and Toor attempted several times to interrupt the statement before Director Eric Runyon interjected that she be allowed to finish. Meeting Minutes May 28, 2025
Aftermath/Opinion/Observation
Reiterating that prior to the vote, Director Dave Settles expressly stated that he had no concerns regarding my leadership, management of the Association, or prior Board decisions. No governance concerns, performance deficiencies, misconduct findings, or other justification were identified before or after the vote. Because of this, I questioned whether the decision reflected the level of reasonable inquiry and deliberation that directors are expected to exercise when making significant leadership changes.
Following the Open Session meeting, Avalon Regional Manager Leanne Beck expressed shock regarding the events that had occurred and stated that she had never witnessed anything similar.
Almost immediately after the reorganization concluded, homeowners began hearing explanations for Victoria LaBruzzo's removal that had never been discussed publicly. Among those explanations were allegations concerning ethics violations and improper use of Association counsel, allegations that had previously been reviewed and rejected by Association counsel. Following the meeting, homeowner Julia Stojak informed me that Roy Pearson had spoken with her and provided explanations concerning the Board's action. Because Board members themselves declined to provide any explanation during the meeting, I found it notable that a non-director was discussing reasons for the Board's decision with homeowners shortly thereafter.
The May 28, 2025 reorganization represents the central turning point in this timeline.
While the governing documents permitted removal of an officer with or without cause, I believed directors still had a fiduciary obligation to exercise reasonable business judgment and act in the best interests of the membership when making significant leadership decisions.
Looking back, I view the events surrounding May 2025 as the beginning of a series of actions that progressively reduced my participation in Association governance. Many of the events that followed—including exclusion from decision-making, repeated ethics allegations, selective enforcement concerns, committee removals, and restrictions on access to information—appeared to flow directly from that reorganization.
The remainder of this document focuses on those recurring patterns and their impact on Association governance.
June–July 2025: Request for Mediation and Ethics Review
Following the May 2025 Board reorganization, Victoria LaBruzzo formally requested a third-party ethics review and mediation process. The request identified concerns regarding conduct, escalating hostility, unequal treatment, and the Board's ability to function collaboratively. Importantly, the request did not seek punishment or removal of any director. Instead, it expressly sought independent review, mediation, and recommendations designed to restore effective governance and working relationships.
On July 25, 2025, the Board formally accepted the request for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and agreed to proceed with mediation pursuant to California Civil Code section 5925 et seq. The Board further agreed to jointly select a third-party investigator and stated that mediation would be scheduled within ninety days. The Board's written acceptance referenced California Civil Code § 5940(a), which establishes time requirements associated with the ADR process.
After learning that a third-party investigator could result in substantial expense to the Association, Victoria LaBruzzo withdrew that portion of her request and communicated that she did not wish Association funds to be spent on an investigation. The investigator had originally been requested because several significant leadership and committee changes appeared to occur without meaningful Board discussion, leaving both Victoria LaBruzzo and Director Eric Runyon surprised by agenda items and immediate votes without discussion. Believing those concerns could instead be addressed through mediation, she requested that the matter proceed through ADR without the additional expense of an investigation. Despite the Board's acceptance of ADR, mediation and related discussions were repeatedly postponed.
Over the following months, significant changes occurred within the Association, including the termination of long-standing legal counsel, retention of new counsel (previously contracted by the Board that Roy Pearson led), and growing restrictions on Victoria LaBruzzo's participation in governance matters.
Mediation ultimately did not occur until May 2026, approximately ten months after the Board accepted the ADR request and well beyond the ninety-day timeframe discussed at the time
Observation/Opinion: The mediation request was one of the most important decisions I made during my service on the Board because it reflected my attempt to resolve growing dysfunction through a neutral process rather than continued conflict. My request expressly stated that its purpose was not punitive but rather principled to restore collaborative Board function, fiduciary integrity, and professional working relationships.
After learning of the potential expense associated with a third-party investigator, I withdrew that request because I did not want Association resources spent unnecessarily. Nevertheless, substantial legal resources were later devoted to reviewing my actions, emails, and conduct as a director while I had no oversight regarding those expenditures.
I cannot know the motivation behind the Board's decisions. However, I found it significant that the governance concerns identified in my original mediation request were never meaningfully addressed, while increasing attention was devoted to investigating, responding to, and defending against concerns raised by me. The attorney who initially supported mediation and collaborative resolution was replaced before mediation occurred, and the approach taken by new counsel differed dramatically from that of prior counsel.
Looking back, I often wonder whether the request for mediation itself marked the point at which certain directors stopped viewing me as a fellow Board member seeking solutions and instead began viewing me as an adversary. Whether intentional or not, many of the actions that followed—including increasing isolation, exclusion from governance discussions, removal from committees, exclusion from Executive Session oversight, and public attribution of legal expenses—occurred after the mediation request was made.
PART III
RECURRING PATTERNS FOLLOWING THE MAY 2025 REORGANIZATION
Following the May 28, 2025 Board reorganization, several recurring patterns began to emerge. While each individual event may appear isolated when viewed independently, collectively they reveal a significant shift in the Board's treatment of governance concerns, enforcement practices, committee operations, and the role of dissenting directors.
The following sections summarize those recurring patterns.
Pattern 1 – Public Accusations and Unequal Enforcement of Meeting Rules
One of the most visible changes following the May 2025 reorganization was the Board's handling of homeowner comments during Open Forum.
Beginning in July 2025 and continuing for months thereafter, homeowners were repeatedly permitted to use Open Forum to make accusations against Victoria LaBruzzo. These accusations included allegations of harassment, intimidation, conflicts of interest, unethical conduct, misuse of authority, legal expenses, and other claims relating to disputes occurring both inside and outside of Board meetings.
One example is a dispute involving a neighborhood park interaction that became a recurring topic in homeowner discussions and Board-related controversy. Although the incident had previously been reviewed and no finding of harassment or misconduct was made, it continued to be referenced by certain homeowners as evidence of alleged misconduct by Victoria LaBruzzo. The incident later appeared in Board communications and homeowner commentary and became part of the broader narrative used to criticize her conduct and leadership.
The park incident also resulted in Victoria LaBruzzo retaining legal counsel for the first time during the dispute. The decision was prompted by concerns arising from the incident itself, including the recording and circulation of video involving Victoria LaBruzzo and her husband without their knowledge and the subsequent allegations being made within the community. Counsel was initially retained to assist in addressing those concerns and to prepare correspondence requesting that the conduct cease. As additional disputes, accusations, and governance-related issues later developed, legal representation continued to be utilized in connection with those broader matters.
When Victoria LaBruzzo objected that such comments violated the Association's Meeting Conduct Rules and Ethics Policy, the Board majority consistently declined to intervene. On multiple occasions, management specifically asked the Board whether they should intervene and stop the commentaries by requiring the board to vote, yet the majority chose to allow the comments to continue.
Particularly notable were the July, August, September, and October 2025 Board meetings, where multiple homeowners used their allotted speaking time to criticize or accuse Victoria LaBruzzo while Board leadership declined to enforce the same meeting standards that had previously been adopted to maintain decorum and professionalism.
At the same time, attempts by Victoria LaBruzzo to respond to accusations were frequently interrupted, limited, or challenged by Board leadership.
Observartion/Opinion
In my opinion, the selective enforcement/application of the Meeting Conduct Rules created an environment in which accusations against me were permitted while meaningful responses were discouraged. This contributed to a public narrative that portrayed allegations as established facts while limiting opportunities for correction or context.
Pattern 2 – Continuing Ethics Allegations and Targeted Investigation
A second recurring theme involved repeated efforts to investigate, review, or question Victoria LaBruzzo's communications with Association legal counsel.
Beginning in early 2025, Director Navtej Toor, in open session and elsewhere repeatedly requested attorney invoices, billing records, correspondence descriptions, and legal communications associated with Victoria LaBruzzo's service as President. These requests continued over many months despite multiple reviews producing no finding of misconduct.
At the same time, allegations concerning "improper use of the HOA attorney" and unspecified ethics violations began circulating among homeowners. Those allegations persisted despite having previously been reviewed by the Board and later rejected by Association counsel.
The allegations gained additional visibility immediately following the May 2025 reorganization, when homeowners were informed that Victoria LaBruzzo's removal involved ethics concerns despite no such explanation being provided publicly by the Board.
Observation/Opinion
I viewed the continued requests for attorney records, combined with the repeated circulation of previously reviewed allegations, as evidence that certain directors were searching for justification to support actions already taken rather than objectively evaluating the facts. In my opinion, these efforts constituted a prolonged attempt to create a narrative of misconduct where none had been established.
Pattern 3 – Selective Enforcement and Governance Inconsistency
Another recurring concern involved inconsistent enforcement of governing documents and Board policies.
Examples included the Board's refusal to enforce Meeting Conduct Rules against certain homeowners while simultaneously attempting to limit responses from Director LaBruzo. Similar concerns arose regarding enforcement decisions affecting compliance matters, homeowner violations, and Board conduct.
One particularly notable example occurred when the Board approved a moratorium on notices concerning dead and dying lawns during the summer months. The decision was initially made in Executive Session rather than Open Session and was later challenged as improper use of Executive Session authority. Although the issue was eventually brought back for ratification, the Board majority maintained the decision despite objections that this constituted selective enforcement.
Questions regarding selective enforcement also arose within Architectural Committee matters, homeowner compliance issues, and Board disciplinary actions. On several occasions, conduct that appeared to violate adopted policies or governing documents was not addressed when committed by individuals aligned with the Board majority.
Observation Opinion
In my opinion, consistency is one of the most important responsibilities of any Board. Homeowners cannot be expected to respect rules that are applied differently depending on who is involved. I became increasingly concerned that policies and standards were being enforced selectively rather than uniformly.
The patterns described above eventually extended beyond meeting conduct, public accusations, and governance disputes. By late 2025, they began affecting committee leadership, governance oversight, and access to information.
December 2025–January 2026: Treasurer Removal
Following the December 2025 annual election and during the Board Office Organization, Victoria LaBruzzo was elected Treasurer by her fellow directors.
Only weeks later, on December 16, 2025, the Board voted in Executive Session to remove Victoria LaBruzzo and Alan Ayres from the Architectural Committee. The following month, during the same January Board meeting in which the Board ratified the Architectural Committee removals in Open Session, Victoria LaBruzzo was also removed from the office of Treasurer.
No performance deficiencies, misconduct findings, financial concerns, governance concerns, or other explanation for the Treasurer removal were provided to the membership. The timing of the action was notable because the same Board had elected Victoria LaBruzzo to the Treasurer position only a month earlier.
Opinion: I found it difficult to reconcile the Board's decision to elect me Treasurer in December 2025 with its subsequent decision to remove me from that position and later exclude me from governance oversight. No concerns regarding my handling of Association finances, integrity, or ability to fulfill officer responsibilities were ever identified to the membership.
I also found it significant that, months later, the Board publicly characterized my mediation request as legal action against the Association by stating, “The Association is currently responding to claims asserted by Director LaBruzzo in pending legal proceedings.” My original request sought Alternative Dispute Resolution/Mediation concerning governance concerns and expressly sought a collaborative resolution rather than litigation. At no time had I filed a lawsuit against the Association, which could be mischaracterized by the board’s communication. In my opinion, describing the matter as legal action created a misleading impression regarding both the nature of the dispute and my intentions.
PART IV
THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE REMOVALS AND CONSOLIDATION OF CONTROL
(NOVEMBER 2025 – JANUARY 2026)
If the May 2025 Board reorganization marked the beginning of a shift in Board leadership, the events surrounding the Architectural Committee in late 2025 represented a second significant turning point.
Throughout 2024 and 2025, the Architectural Committee played an important role in Association governance. The Committee was responsible for implementing newly adopted Architectural Guidelines, reviewing homeowner applications, and ensuring consistency in architectural decisions affecting the community.
As several applications and enforcement matters came before the Committee, disagreements began to emerge among existing committee members and newly appointed committee members regarding interpretation of governing documents, homeowner communications, and the handling of applications involving politically active homeowners.
Particularly contentious were application matters involving homeowners Michael Doering and ongoing disputes concerning communications between newly appointed committee members and homeowner applicants. Questions arose regarding undisclosed communications, potential favoritism, and whether certain committee members were advocating for specific homeowners rather than evaluating applications solely on their merits.
Throughout November and December 2025, disagreements intensified between Architectural Committee members. Committee Chair Victoria LaBruzzo and long-time committee member Alan Ayres, along with Avalon Management, consistently advocated for adherence to governing documents, disclosure requirements, and consistent treatment of applicants. Gary Ritchie and the other committee members expressed frustration with those positions and increasingly challenged the Committee's direction. (Email can be provided after redaction of names is completed).
At the same time, homeowner Michael Doering continued advocating for Victoria LaBruzzo's removal from the Architectural Committee despite the absence of any identified conflict of interest. Similar requests by Doering had been raised repeatedly at Open Forum throughout 2024 & 2025.
December 16, 2025 – Removal of Architectural Committee Members
On December 11, 2025, President Dave Settles called a Special Executive Meeting at the request of an ARC Committee member to discuss Architectural Committee personnel changes. On December 16, 2025, a Special Executive Session meeting was convened. During that meeting, the Board voted to immediately remove Victoria LaBruzzo and Alan Ayres from the Architectural Committee. No performance deficiencies, misconduct findings, failure to perform committee responsibilities, or other governance concerns were identified during the meeting. Neither committee member had been notified beforehand that concerns existed, nor had either individual been contacted to discuss potential corrective actions or alternatives. Director Settles provided the reason as “to increase volunteer participation and allow others to serve”. However, no evidence was presented demonstrating that the Committee was understaffed, unable to perform its responsibilities, or experiencing a shortage of opportunities for volunteers. Both Victoria LaBruzzo and Alan Ayres wished to continue serving, and the Association had not historically removed active committee members solely to create opportunities for others.
Victoria LaBruzzo formally objected to the proposed action and requested that her objection be preserved in the Association's records. Her objection noted that the Association had not historically engaged in routine rotation of Architectural Committee members, that no performance concerns had been identified, and that the removals occurred during ongoing architectural disputes involving enforcement and governance matters between members. Despite those objections, the motion passed and the Board refused her objection to be included in the Association records. (December 9, 2025 Example ARC Dispute).
Following the meeting, Victoria LaBruzzo objected that the removal of Architectural Committee members should have occurred in Open Session rather than Executive Session. Concerns were raised that committee appointments and removals are addressed under Davis-Stirling Law Open Session Open Session requirements and that committee membership did not fall within the categories typically considered in Executive Session. The Board subsequently revisited the matter and ratified the decision during a later Open Session meeting. At the January 28, 2026 meeting, during that public discussion, no justification, misconduct findings, performance deficiencies, or governance concerns were identified as the basis for the removals, and the Board again voted to remove Victoria LaBruzzo and Alan Ayres from the Architectural Committee.
Observation/Opinion
I found it significant that the Board initially attempted to remove Alan Ayres and me during Executive Session rather than in an Open Session where homeowners could observe the discussion and reasoning behind the action. When the matter was later brought to Open Session for ratification, the same explanation regarding increased member participation was offered as the basis for the action. In my opinion, the absence of any identified performance concerns, misconduct findings, governance deficiencies, or demonstrated need to replace active committee members reinforced my belief that the removals were not based on committee performance or the best interests of the Association. Instead, I concluded that the action was retaliatory in nature and inconsistent with good faith exercise of business judgment that directors are expected to apply when making significant governance decisions.
Events Following the Removal
Following the removals, questions persisted regarding the circumstances that led to the action and the communications that preceded it. At the time, Victoria LaBruzzo was also serving as the Association's Treasurer and had been reviewing legal expenditures that contained limited descriptions, making meaningful financial oversight difficult. Victoria LaBruzzo repeatedly requested access to legal communications and other information that appeared connected to the Committee removals and related governance disputes. Those requests went unanswered.
The timing of the removals was particularly significant because they followed months of disagreements concerning governance, enforcement consistency, homeowner influence, and committee independence. Although increased volunteer participation was cited as the basis for the action, the vacancies were not immediately filled. Several months later, one of the appointments made to the Architectural Committee was Roy Pearson, a homeowner who was also on the Landscape Committee and had been actively involved in many of the same disputes and controversies described throughout this timeline.
January 2026 – Continuing Governance Disputes
In the weeks following the removals, Victoria LaBruzzo continued requesting clarification regarding both the Committee action and legal communications related to governance matters.
Additional requests were made to address concerns involving committee operations and committee member conduct. Those requests received no support from the Board majority.
At the same time, efforts to move forward with mediation and third-party review remained unresolved.
By January 2026, the pattern that had begun following the May 2025 reorganization had expanded beyond officer positions and public communications. It now directly affected committee leadership, governance oversight, and access to information.
Observation/Opinion
I viewed the December 2025/January 2026 removals as one of the clearest examples of the broader pattern described throughout this document.
Unlike a routine committee reorganization, no performance concerns, misconduct findings, or governance deficiencies were identified before the action was taken. To the contrary, the removals occurred while the Committee was actively carrying out its responsibilities and addressing applications that required careful review.
The action does not appear to be motivated by performance. Rather, it was the culmination of disagreements regarding governance, enforcement, and oversight. By removing both Alan Ayres and me simultaneously, the Board eliminated two committee members who had consistently challenged decisions, required adherence to governing documents, and resisted pressure from homeowners seeking special treatment.
I believe the practical purpose and effect of the removals was to consolidate control of the Architectural Committee. The Board majority removed two independent voices who frequently disagreed with their preferred direction and later replaced those positions with individuals who were more aligned with Board leadership. In my view, this was not a committee reorganization. It was a restructuring of the Committee to reduce opposition and increase control over architectural decision-making.
For that reason, I consider the Architectural Committee removals to be the second major turning point in the events described in this timeline. Unlike my removal as President, this action extended beyond an officer position and directly removed me from an area of governance oversight where I had actively served for years.
PART V
THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, MEDIATION, AND RECALL EFFORT
(JANUARY 2026 – MAY 2026)
By early 2026, nearly nine months had passed since Victoria LaBruzzo first sought a dedicated governance discussion and later requested mediation to address escalating Board dysfunction. Despite those efforts, communication among directors had largely broken down, mediation remained unresolved, and significant governance decisions were increasingly occurring without her participation.
For the first time during Victoria LaBruzzo's service as a Director, an Executive Committee structure was created that effectively excluded her, an elected director, from participation in Executive Session oversight and decision-making.
Creation of the Executive Committee
Following ongoing governance disputes and attorney involvement, Board leadership began conducting Executive Session matters through an Executive Committee consisting of the remaining directors.
As a result, Victoria LaBruzzo was excluded from access to attorney invoices, legal discussions, executive deliberations, member violations, contracts with third-party vendors and other matters typically reviewed by the full Board in Executive Session.
The stated rationale was that allegations made by Victoria LaBruzzo against the Association created a conflict that justified limiting her access to privileged information. However, no lawsuit had been filed, and Victoria LaBruzzo consistently maintained that her objective was mediation and governance reform rather than litigation.
The practical effect on the Executive Committee structure was that significant legal expenditures and executive-level decisions occurred without oversight from the Association's full-elected Board, specifically excluding Director LaBruzzo.
Escalating Legal Costs and Public Attribution of Responsibility
Throughout early 2026, Association legal expenses increased substantially to over $30,000.00.
At public Board meetings, homeowners increasingly questioned the growing legal expenditures and blamed Director LaBruzzo for those expenses. During those discussions, Board President, Dave Settles, publicly stated that legal costs were attributable to Victoria LaBruzzo's actions and the ongoing dispute involving her allegations against the Association.
Victoria LaBruzzo disputed those characterizations, noting that she had requested mediation as an alternative to litigation and that decisions concerning legal strategy, attorney retention, investigations, and expenditures were controlled by the Executive Committee from which she had been excluded.
By spring 2026, legal expenses had become a significant source of controversy within the community.
May 5, 2026 – Community-Wide E-Blast Before Mediation
After months of delay, mediation was finally scheduled for May 5, 2026.
Immediately before mediation began, the Board directed management to distribute a community-wide email addressing the dispute and legal expenses. The communication informed homeowners that the Association was responding to claims made by Victoria LaBruzzo and asserted that a substantial portion of the Association's legal expenses had been incurred because of those claims.
The communication further referenced numerous disagreements between Victoria LaBruzzo and the Board, discussed insurance-related matters, and identified additional homeowner complaints.
Because the email was distributed immediately before mediation commenced, Victoria LaBruzzo viewed the communication as a significant escalation of the dispute.
A week following receipt of the email, Victoria LaBruzzo publicly responded, disputing the Board's characterizations, denying that any lawsuit existed, and asserting that the legal expenditures being attributed to her had been approved and controlled by the Executive Committee itself without any involvement of hers.
Mediation and Its Aftermath
The mediation ultimately failed to resolve the underlying governance dispute.
No meaningful framework was established for rebuilding working relationships among directors, restoring governance transparency, or reintegrating Victoria LaBruzzo into Executive Session oversight.
Following mediation, Victoria LaBruzzo requested that she be allowed to resume participation in Executive Session matters consistent with statements made, that if matters invovled business of the board, contracts, violations, executive deliberations, etc., did not have anything to do with past mediation, she would be allowed to serve in her fiduciary role.
The request was subsequently denied, unless…
Instead, the Executive Committee informed Victoria LaBruzzo that exclusionary procedures would remain in place unless she withdrew her allegations, released the Association from any claims, and agreed not to file suit against the Association in the future. Executive Committee Email.
As a result, the governance structure that had excluded her, a member elected Director from executive oversight has remained unchanged.
Homeowner Recall Effort
After the Association-wide email that accused a sitting Director and homeowner was received by the membership, a group of homeowners began discussing whether the existing Board leadership should remain in office.
Those discussions ultimately resulted in a member-driven recall petition seeking the removal of the Board. Victoria LaBruzzo helped administer the recall petition.
Supporters of the recall argued that the Association had experienced increasing division, escalating legal expenses, diminished transparency, and repeated governance controversies under the existing Board majority.
Following submission of the recall petition, concerns arose regarding whether the identities of petition signers would be disclosed to the membership. Several homeowners expressed concern that publication of their names could expose them to retaliation or unwanted attention within the community.
The recall process ultimately became another source of controversy and further reflected the deep divisions that had developed within the Association.
Observation/Opinion
The creation of the Executive Committee represented the final stage of a process that began with my removal as President in May 2025.
What started as disagreements concerning governance and policy evolved into exclusion from executive oversight, denial of access to information, public attribution of legal expenses, repeated allegations of misconduct, and ultimately the creation of a governance structure that operated without the participation of one of the elected directors.
I found it particularly significant that mediation—which had been requested as a means of restoring functional governance—did not result in any meaningful effort to rebuild trust or improve Board operations. Instead, the conditions imposed after mediation required that I abandon my concerns and relinquish any future claims before I could resume participation in Executive Session matters.
Viewed collectively, the events described throughout this document reveal more than a series of isolated disagreements. They reflect a continuing pattern of exclusion, retaliation, selective enforcement, and concentration of decision-making authority that fundamentally altered the manner in which the Association was governed.
The subsequent homeowner recall effort did not arise in a vacuum. It arose because a growing number of homeowners independently reached the conclusion that the governance issues affecting the Board had become too significant to ignore.
The disappointing results of the Board’s decisions and actions regarding the recall can be found on this website – for further information see: Recall Petition Intimidation?