Briefing on the Dispute Between Senol Pekin and the Artesian Ranch Community Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key arguments, evidence, and outcomes from a consolidated administrative hearing concerning five allegations brought by homeowner and board member Senol Pekin against the Artesian Ranch Community Association (HOA). The dispute centers on alleged violations of the association’s bylaws and Arizona state statutes regarding the scheduling and conduct of board meetings.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the HOA in violation on two of the five issues: failing to hold its 2022 annual meeting on the date prescribed by the bylaws and improperly prohibiting the recording of an open board meeting in October 2022. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fees of $1,000 for these violations.

The ALJ found in favor of the HOA on the remaining three issues. It concluded that the organizational meeting process was compliant with the bylaws, that a September 2022 board meeting was properly called by the HOA manager acting as an agent of the board, and that the petitioner failed to prove he was denied the opportunity to speak during the October 2022 meeting despite being muted at times. No civil penalties were deemed appropriate.

——————————————————————————–

I. Allegation 1: Improper Annual Meeting Date

Outcome: Violation Found

The petitioner prevailed on the allegation that the HOA violated its bylaws by holding the 2022 annual meeting in May, rather than on the mandated date.

Aspect

Details

Petitioner’s Allegation

The HOA violated Bylaws Article II, Paragraph 2.3, which requires the annual meeting to be held on the second Wednesday of April each year.

Respondent’s Defense

The Community Manager, Mandy Rogers, testified that upon taking over the account in January 2022, she presented a draft calendar to the prior board. The board chose the May date, following a “cadence” established in previous years. She noted the 2021 meeting was moved to August due to COVID-19, and the 2019 meeting was also not in April.

Supporting Testimony

– Mandy Rogers: Acknowledged awareness that the annual meeting is supposed to be in April. She stated, “Your annual meeting for the past 3 years was on the wrong date per the bylaw.” She confirmed the 2023 meeting was correctly scheduled for April.
– Mandy Rogers: Explained her process for the 2022 calendar: “I looked at when their last annual meeting was and it was in August of 2021. So on that draft calendar, I said, ‘Do you want your meeting in August of 2022?’ And they said, ‘No, we traditionally have it in May.’ And I said, ‘Okay, you guys choose a date and a time that works for you.'”

ALJ Conclusion

The evidence showed the HOA failed to hold its meeting on the required date. The ALJ noted that while A.R.S. § 10-3701(e) states that failure to hold a timely meeting does not invalidate corporate action, it “does not provide an exception to the adherence to Bylaws that require a set time for an annual meeting.”

II. Allegation 2: Improper Organizational Meeting

Outcome: Violation Not Found

The petitioner failed to prove that the HOA violated bylaws regarding the scheduling and format of the organizational meeting.

Aspect

Details

Petitioner’s Allegation

The HOA did not elect officers in an “exclusively and timely scheduled Organizational Meeting” as required by its bylaws (Article III, Section 3.5 and 3.7). The petitioner argued the meeting should be a standalone event held shortly after directors take office on January 1st.

Respondent’s Defense

The organizational meeting was held during the August 2022 board meeting, which was the next scheduled open session after the May election. This delay was to allow for new board member training to be completed, as required by the bylaws. The bylaws mandate a meeting “within a reasonable time” and do not require it to be “exclusive.”

Supporting Testimony

– Mandy Rogers: “Your organizational meeting was specifically scheduled for the next open session board meeting which was in August. That was also to satisfy that your bylaws say that all board training should be done prior to that meeting.” She confirmed that the new director (Pekin) received training via Zoom and was provided a board book and access to the online platform.
– Susanne Roskens (Board President): Confirmed that officer positions were discussed and voted on by the three present directors during the August meeting.

ALJ Conclusion

The bylaws do not require the organizational meeting to be held separately from a regular board meeting. The ALJ also noted that the Community Manager may act as an agent of the board.

Sub-Issue: Director Term Start Date

A significant point of contention was a bylaw provision (Section 3.5) stating that elected directors take office on January 1st of the following year.

• Mandy Rogers’ Testimony: She described this provision as highly unusual and professionally unheard of. “I’ve never seen governing documents that call out that you have an election in April and don’t take office until January. That’s unheard of.” She stated the association attorney was reviewing the provision.

• Association Practice: Board President Susanne Roskens testified that the association has never had directors wait until January to take office.

III. Allegation 3: Improperly Called September 2022 Board Meeting

Outcome: Violation Not Found

The petitioner failed to prove that the September 22, 2022 board meeting was improperly called by the HOA Manager.

Aspect

Details

Petitioner’s Allegation

The HOA Manager, Mandy Rogers, who is not a board member, was not authorized to call a board meeting. An email from her stated, “I’m scheduling a board meeting.”

Respondent’s Defense

The meeting was necessary to approve a time-sensitive landscaping and overseeding contract, as unanimous email approval could not be achieved. Board President Susanne Roskens verbally directed Mandy Rogers to schedule the meeting. The petitioner himself had requested a meeting on the topic in prior emails, and the third director, Dennis Burger, confirmed his support for the meeting in writing.

Supporting Testimony

– Mandy Rogers: “I spoke to your board president and at your request to schedule a meeting… I was given the directive to schedule it.”
– Susanne Roskens: “I discussed it with Mandy via a phone call and asked if we could have a meeting to get clarification so that we could move forward.”
– Exhibit I (Email Chain): This exhibit shows the petitioner requesting a meeting to discuss the topic, Mandy Rogers subsequently scheduling the meeting, the petitioner objecting to her authority, and Dennis Burger responding, “I’m confused meaning [Susanne] wants the meeting and ask her to set it up.”

ALJ Conclusion

The meeting was properly initiated. Ms. Rogers, as an employee of the Community Manager, may act as an agent of the Board.

IV. Allegation 4: Prohibition of Recording (October 24, 2022)

Outcome: Violation Found

The petitioner prevailed on the allegation that the HOA violated Arizona statute by prohibiting the recording of an open session meeting.

Aspect

Details

Petitioner’s Allegation

The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by prohibiting the recording of the open session meeting on October 24, 2022.

Respondent’s Defense

Mandy Rogers stated she made the announcement based on advice from the association attorney following a contentious executive session that preceded the open meeting. She also testified that the board requires advance notice of recording. The defense also argued the issue was moot because the petitioner recorded the meeting regardless.

Supporting Testimony

– Mandy Rogers: “A statement was made at the beginning of the session so the board could handle board business.” When asked who gave the direction to prohibit recording, she stated it was the attorney.
– Shelly Nelson (Witness): Confirmed she remembered the association prohibiting recording of the open meeting.
– Sherry Swanson (Witness): Confirmed, “The meeting started that way that she said you should not record.”

ALJ Conclusion

The preponderance of evidence shows that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 when it informed homeowners they were not allowed to record the board meeting.

V. Allegation 5: Muting and Silencing Opposition (October 24, 2022)

Outcome: Violation Not Found

The petitioner failed to prove that he was prevented from speaking for the opposing side during the October 24, 2022 meeting.

Aspect

Details

Petitioner’s Allegation

During the Zoom meeting, the HOA muted the petitioner, preventing him from voicing opposition on issues, in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Respondent’s Defense

Mandy Rogers admitted to muting the petitioner but justified it on several grounds: he was being “combative,” speaking over others, and bringing up confidential executive session topics in an open forum. His camera was off and he was self-muted at times, creating confusion about his presence and participation.

Witness Testimony

– Shelly Nelson: Did not perceive the petitioner’s behavior as combative. She described the overall tone of the meeting as “antagonistic” and felt “decisions were foregone conclusions.”
– Sherry Swanson: Perceived both the petitioner and Mandy Rogers as “very argumentative.” She stated the petitioner “did come across very argumented from the beginning of the meeting” and came in “hotheaded.”

ALJ Conclusion

Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ noted, “the evidence shows that Petitioner had several times to speak during the board meeting.”