Throughout the past year, homeowners have heard references to my "claims" against the Association and statements suggesting that those claims are the reason I remain excluded from Executive Session participation and certain Board communications.
Because those statements have been made publicly, I believe homeowners deserve to understand what concerns I actually raised, how those concerns evolved over time, and how the Board responded.
This page is intended to provide transparency regarding that process. It is not intended to disclose confidential mediation communications, settlement discussions (there were none), or private negotiations. Rather, it is intended to provide context and allow homeowners to review the underlying documents and draw their own conclusions.
Following my removal as Board President on May 28, 2025, and amid ongoing governance disputes and increasing conflict during Board meetings, I submitted a formal request for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) on June 25, 2025. The request sought third-party mediation and an independent ethics review concerning the conduct of certain directors.
At that time, my request was focused on restoring professional board operations, addressing what I believed to be ongoing governance concerns, and improving the Board's ability to function effectively. My request did not seek monetary damages, removal of directors, or litigation.
A copy of that request is available below.
Over the following year, additional events occurred that substantially changed the nature of the dispute.
These events included:
My removal from the Architectural Committee;
The removal of fellow Architectural Committee member Alan Ayres;
My removal as Treasurer;
My exclusion from Executive Session participation and related communications;
The creation of procedures that prevented me from receiving information routinely available to other directors;
Public accusations made against me 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, retaliation, and defamation.
Because several months passed between my request for mediation and the mediation itself, additional concerns arose during that period. The principal issues I raised included:
Alleged Breach of the Governing Documents;
Alleged Breach of fiduciary duty by certain 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 included:
Restoration of my participation in Executive Session matters;
Restoration of communications involving Association counsel and Board business;
A corrective communication to the membership acknowledging that no findings of misconduct had been made against me;
Consistent enforcement of Board ethics and meeting conduct standards;
Governance reforms designed to improve transparency and accountability;
Reimbursement of legal and mediation expenses I incurred defending myself.
At one point, I was advised that the 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 carriers for review.
The carriers investigated the matter. During that process, I was informed that the Association was not seeking monetary damages against me.
I leave it to homeowners to determine whether that sequence of events was consistent with the Board's public characterization of the dispute.
Following 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.
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 agreed not to file suit.
Homeowners can review the email and decide for themselves whether that condition is appropriate.
As a practical matter, I do not believe any director can reasonably promise that no future dispute will ever arise or that they will never seek legal remedies under any future circumstances. No one can predict future actions by the Board, future governance decisions, or future events affecting the Association.
The issue is not whether litigation is desirable. It is not. My ADR request sought mediation and resolution, not litigation.
The issue is whether an elected director's ability to fully participate in governance should be conditioned upon surrendering legal rights that every homeowner and every director ordinarily retain.
I believe homeowners should understand that the condition imposed was not merely a request to resolve a current dispute. It required me to relinquish rights that could apply to future events that have not yet occurred and cannot be known today.
For that reason, I am unable to agree to the condition.
Beginning in early 2026, the Board increasingly justified actions taken against me by publicly citing fiduciary duties, governance concerns, legal risk, and the need to protect the Association. However, I did not observe the same level of public scrutiny, discussion, or corrective action when conduct involving other directors raised similar concerns.
After the Association changed legal counsel in late 2025 and I was subsequently excluded from Executive Session participation and attorney communications and documentation, the Board began publicly characterizing actions taken against me as necessary to protect the Association.
One example involved public discussion concerning my attorney's contact with the Association's insurance carrier after I was advised that claims were being asserted against me and the matter was tendered for insurance review. The discussion referenced provisions restricting directors from independently contacting Association vendors. However, the purpose of the insurance tender was not to conduct Association business, direct a vendor, or act on behalf of the corporation. It was to determine whether insurance coverage existed for an individual director facing potential claims.
During the same general period, concerns regarding a director acting independently on matters involving Association vendors did not appear to result in the same level of scrutiny, public discussion, or corrective action.
The issue is not whether one event was more significant than the other. The issue is whether the same standards were applied consistently.
When conduct involving me is publicly highlighted while similar conduct involving others is not disclosed, homeowners are not provided with the full context necessary to evaluate the Board's actions. Transparency requires more than selective disclosure. It requires consistent disclosure and consistent application of standards, regardless of who is involved.
My purpose in publishing these documents and information is not to ask homeowners to accept my conclusions. Rather, it is to provide the underlying information so that homeowners can review the facts, understand the issues for themselves, and reach their own conclusions.