**Case Summary: *Edmund R. Knight v. Springfield Community Association***
**Case No.** 12F-H1213008-BFS

**Procedural History**
This matter was heard before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer on January 15, 2013, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona,. The Petitioner, Edmund R. Knight, appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent, Springfield Community Association, was represented by legal counsel.

**Facts and Main Issues**
The dispute arose from a records request made by the Petitioner on May 14, 2012, seeking a copy of the employment contract for the Respondent's property manager. The Respondent provided a copy of the contract but redacted the sections detailing the manager’s compensation,.

The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition alleging that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the complete, unredacted contract,. The Petitioner argued that as a homeowner, he was entitled to "all financial" records to understand the association's financial standing.

The central legal issue was whether the association was statutorily authorized to withhold specific compensation details regarding an employee under the exceptions provided in A.R.S. § 33-1805.

**Key Legal Arguments and Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) analyzed the relevant statute, A.R.S. § 33-1805. While subsection (A) generally mandates that financial and other records be made reasonably available to members, subsection (B) lists specific exceptions.

The ALJ highlighted A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5), which explicitly states that records may be withheld if they relate to the "compensation of… an individual employee of the association". The Judge found that the property manager was an employee of the association. Consequently, the Respondent was legally entitled to redact the compensation information from the document provided to the Petitioner.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the statute,. The Judge recommended that the petition be dismissed, ruling that no action was required of the Respondent.

On March 13, 2013, the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the ALJ's decision as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, as the Department had taken no action to reject or modify the decision within the statutory review period.