Recall Petition Intimidation?

Transparency or Intimidation?

The homeowners who initiated this recall effort believed they understood the process.

Under California law and the Association's governing documents, a recall petition requires a minimum number of signatures before the membership may vote on whether current directors should remain in office. The organizers gathered those signatures in only a few days and exceeded the required threshold of 5% or 19 signatures for SDRLC.

The homeowners believed their signatures would be used for one purpose: Verification.

It is important to understand that the request for anonymity did not originate with the petition organizers. It came from homeowners themselves.

Several homeowners who signed the petition expressed concern that their names could become public and specifically asked whether their identities would remain private. Some stated that they feared criticism, social pressure, or being singled out for supporting a recall effort.

Those concerns did not arise in a vacuum. Just weeks earlier, the Board had used Association resources to distribute a community-wide eblast accusing a homeowner and fellow director of misconduct and assigning responsibility for significant legal expenses. Regardless of whether one agreed with the contents of that communication, it demonstrated the extent to which disagreements within the Association had become public and personal.

For that reason, many petition signers believed their signatures would be used solely to verify that the petition met the required threshold and that the matter would then be presented to the membership for a vote.

What happened next surprised many of the homeowners who signed the petition.

Rather than simply validating the signatures and allowing the recall election to proceed, the Board decided that the identities of petition signers would be disclosed and that homeowners would be given an opportunity to withdraw their signatures before the election could move forward.

That decision became the defining issue of the entire recall effort.

Many homeowners had signed the petition believing the process would be handled with the same discretion traditionally associated with Association elections. Ballots are not published. Voting records are not distributed to neighbors. Homeowners generally are not required to publicly identify themselves in order to participate in Association elections.

The recall petition signers expected a similar level of privacy.

Instead, they were informed that their identities would be disclosed and that they could withdraw their support before disclosure occurred.

The result was predictable.

Some homeowners withdrew their signatures.

Twenty-two homeowners signed the petition, exceeding the required threshold. Following the disclosure notices, five homeowners requested that their signatures be removed. That was enough to reduce the petition below the minimum number required to proceed.

The recall election was cancelled before the membership was given an opportunity to vote.

Facts

• A petition was submitted.

• Signatures were verified.

• The Board approved a recall election date.

• The Board approved an Inspector of Elections.

• Then, a discretionary Board decision was made to notify petition signers that their identities would be disclosed to the membership and that they could withdraw their names. This step was not required to verify the petition, as the signatures had already been reviewed and the recall process had already been scheduled to proceed.

• Five signatures were withdrawn.

• The petition fell below the required threshold.

• The recall election was cancelled before the membership could vote.

The Question

The Board and its attorney characterized the disclosure process as "transparency."

However, transparency did not require disclosure of homeowner identities.

The Board already possessed a copy of the petition and knew exactly what was being requested. The signatures existed to verify that the petition met the required threshold. That verification could have been performed by management or the Inspector of Elections without publicly identifying the homeowners involved.

The question is not whether the petition itself should have been disclosed.

The question is whether homeowners should be required to publicly identify themselves in order to exercise their right to seek a recall election.

Homeowners can review the petition, the disclosure notice, and the Board's final announcement and decide for themselves whether disclosure of petition signer identities was necessary to verify the petition or whether it simply became an obstacle that prevented the membership from ever voting on the recall. 

Lastly, the June 8, 2026 email from management to the membership informed homeowners that several petition signers had withdrawn their names but did not provide any context regarding why those withdrawals occurred. As a result, readers were left to wonder why homeowners would sign a recall petition and later choose to remove their names.

The same communication also advised homeowners that canceling the recall would save the Association "thousands of dollars in Inspector of Election and Legal Fees."

As a current Board member who has participated in multiple Association elections, I am familiar with the typical costs associated with the election process. Prior elections have generally cost approximately $2,400 for Inspector of Election services.

The reference to legal fees was also left unexplained. No estimate, budget, or description of anticipated legal work was provided to homeowners. As a result, members were presented with a warning regarding potentially significant costs without being provided the underlying information necessary to independently evaluate those claims.

Readers can decide for themselves whether the information provided to the membership presented a complete picture of the circumstances surrounding the petition withdrawals and the projected costs of the recall process.