regarding the Board majority actions

This page does not disclose confidential mediation communications or settlement discussions. Instead, it relies on evidence drawn from open Board meetings, public statements by board members, homeowners, Association records, correspondence, and other non-confidential sources.

Why I Am Publishing This Information

Simply put - President Dave Settles unilaterally and inappropriately directed management to use Homeowner funded communication channels (Eblast) to criticize and make false accusations against me, a homeowner and elected volunteer board member. 

I believe homeowners deserve to understand what concerns I actually raised, how those concerns evolved over time, and how the Board majority responded.

This page is intended to provide transparency regarding that process and provide context.

How the Dispute Began

My request for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) did not arise from a single disagreement. It followed more than a year of increasing division within the Association, growing personal attacks, and escalating conflict that carried from social media into Board meetings and eventually into the Board itself. (Most of you are aware of the issues as fliers were posted on mailboxes, emails were sent out, etc.) Developing into, what I believed to be harassment.

After the 2024 election, with the addition of two Board members who had previously authored the Facebook page and some of the personal attacks against me and Director Eric Runyon, the atmosphere became increasingly adversarial. Rather than working collaboratively to address governance issues, Board meetings became dominated by accusations, personal conflict, and repeated disagreements over the Board's direction. It was obvious that the Board's ability to conduct Association business professionally had deteriorated. Homeowners were shouting during meetings, Board members were arguing with one another, and even Executive Session discussions became highly contentious. Despite my repeated efforts to encourage a more professional and collaborative approach by following the Association's Meeting Rules and maintaining proper decorum, the situation continued to worsen and the harassment continued. 

Following my unexplained removal as Board President on May 28, 2025, it became clear to me that the Board and management were clearly not capable of resolving these conflicts internally. On June 25, 2025, after another unsuccessful Executive Session in which the Board was unable to maintain professional decorum and appropriate governance, I submitted a formal request for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), seeking a neutral third-party mediator to help resolve the ongoing governance issues and concerns regarding the conduct of certain directors.

My request was not about money, removing directors, or filing a lawsuit. It was an effort to restore professionalism, improve the Board's ability to govern effectively, and resolve serious governance concerns without litigation. You can read my actual request here:

ADR Request

How the Issues Expanded after the board hired a new attorney

These events included:

• Removal from Architectural Committee without cause and no investigation;

• Removal of fellow Architectural Committee member Alan Ayres without cause and no investigation;

• Removal as Treasurer - 1 month after same board unanimously voted me in as Treasurer;

• Exclusion from ALL Executive Session participation (Contracts/Legal/Homeowner Violations, etc.) and related communications; 

• Creation of procedures that prevented me from receiving information routinely available to other directors;

• Public accusations made against me by President Dave Settles and a few homeowners during Board meetings, community communications, and other forums.

As these events accumulated, my concerns expanded beyond my original ADR request and came to include issues involving governance procedures, fiduciary duties, enforcement consistency, Open Meeting Act compliance, questions of retaliation, and defamation.

additional concerns - made in open meetings throughout the year (not mediation)

Because over 10 months passed between my request for mediation and the mediation itself, additional concerns arose during that period. The principal issues I raised to the board during those months included:

• Alleged Breach of the Governing Documents

• Alleged Breach of fiduciary duty by directors; 

• Selective enforcement; 

• Violations of the Davis-Stirling Open Meeting Act; 

• Concerns regarding retaliation and defamation;

• Negligence in the discharge of governance responsibilities.

The remedies I sought from the Board through emails & during open meetings included:

• Consistent enforcement of Board ethics and meeting conduct standard by enforcing Meeting Rules;

• Enforcing Bylaws - No unilateral decisions by Board President;

• Enforcing CC&Rs - No selective enforcement;

• Transparency on Attorney Invoices to the Treasurer;

• Restoration of Alan Ayres & myself to the ARC Committee;

• Restoration of my participation in Executive Session matters;

• Restoration of communications involving Association counsel and Board business;

• Governance reforms designed to improve transparency and accountability;

• A corrective communication to the membership acknowledging that no findings of misconduct had been made against me.

The Insurance Issue

At one point, I was advised that the Board majority/Association was asserting potential claims against me arising from my governance activities as a director.

As a result, the matter was tendered to the Association's applicable insurance carrier for review.

The insurance carrier investigated the matter. During that process, I was informed that the Association was not planning to file a suit against me so there was nothing for the insurance carrier to provide coverage for.  However, I also learned that individual board members are NOT covered by the insurance carrier under D&O coverage, should the Board majority/Association file suit against a single Director.  Having learned that, I now caution every homeowner considering serving on this HOA Board about the lack of individual coverage in a situation such as this - especially given the current majority Board's public accusations against me. 

The Board's Response

Following unsuccessful mediation, I requested that I be restored to participation in Executive Session matters involving Association business.

The Executive Committee declined that request.

Instead, I was advised that I would remain excluded unless I withdrew my claims, released the Association from those claims, and agreed in writing not to pursue litigation.

A copy of the Executive Committee's written response is available below.

Executive Committee Response

 The Executive Committee's Condition

One aspect of the Executive Committee's response deserves particular attention.

The Committee advised that I would not be restored to participation in Executive Session matters unless I withdrew my claims, released the Association and the individual directors from liability, and agreed not to file suit.

My ADR request was never about litigation. It sought mediation and resolution. However, I could not responsibly agree to permanently surrender legal rights based on unknown future events. No director can reasonably promise that no future governance dispute will ever arise or that they will never need to seek legal remedies. No one can predict future actions by a Board majority, future governance decisions, or future violations of the governing documents.

Ironically, the concerns I raised throughout the past year involved what I believed to be breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of the governing documents. The Executive Committee's condition therefore required me to promise that I would never pursue legal remedies if those same concerns—or similar ones—arose again. I could not responsibly make such a promise.

The practical effect of that condition was straightforward: by refusing to relinquish my future legal rights, I remained excluded from Executive Session matters for the remainder of my term. As an elected Director, I was prevented from independently reviewing, questioning, or participating in many significant legal and governance matters handled by the Board majority and Association counsel. I believe this was an improper use of the Executive Committee structure because it effectively denied one elected Director meaningful oversight of significant Association business.