Tag Archives: Open Meetings

The administrative hearing (Docket No. 23F-H038-REL) involved Petitioner Clifford S. Burnes and Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association (HOA). The hearing was conducted virtually on March 31, 2023, before Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The core dispute concerned an HOA meeting held on or about May 31, 2022. The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804, which governs open meetings for planned communities, on two specific points: that the meeting was not noticed and that it was not open to association members.

The meeting involved two of the three HOA board members (Esmeralda Sarina-Ayala Martinez and Dave Madill) meeting with an attorney to obtain legal advice regarding the potential dissolution of the HOA and the disposition of the subdivision's 18-acre common area. Both parties stipulated during the hearing that the meeting was neither noticed nor open to the general membership.

Key Legal Arguments

1. Respondent's Argument (HOA): The HOA contended that they had not violated the statute because the meeting's purpose fell under the exception allowing a closed session for receiving legal advice from an attorney pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1). Counsel argued that the closed nature of the meeting exempted them from the typical notice requirements. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that because only two of the three board members were present, and no votes or formal actions were taken, it did not constitute an official "meeting of the board of directors" requiring statutory notice.
2. Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that even if the meeting was closed for legal advice, the law still requires notice to be given. He asserted that the HOA failed to comply with requirements, such as identifying the statutory authority for closing the meeting before proceeding, as outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1804(C). Mr. Burns contended that because the meeting involved two board members (which could constitute a quorum depending on the definition) discussing critical HOA business (dissolution), it should have adhered to open meeting and notice provisions.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on April 20, 2023. The ALJ’s conclusion was split, with both parties deemed prevailing on one issue.

1. Openness Issue (HOA Wins): The ALJ concluded that the HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804 by closing the meeting, as the only information discussed and obtained was legal advice from an attorney, which is an allowable exception.
2. Notice Issue (Petitioner Wins): The ALJ concluded that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 when it failed to provide notice to its members of the board meeting, even though the content was privileged. The ALJ concluded that the statute requires notice even for meetings held to consider legal advice.

Orders and Remedies:

• The Respondent HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
• The Respondent was directed to comply with the notice requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.
• The Petitioner’s request for a civil penalty was denied.

This summary concerns the administrative hearing held on September 16, 2022, regarding the matter of Kathy J. Green (Petitioner) versus Cross Creek Ranch Community Association (Respondent), Docket No. 22F-H2222064-REL.

Key Facts and Legal Issue

The dispute centered on whether the Respondent Homeowners Association (HOA) violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1804 by holding a closed executive session on June 9, 2022. A.R.S. § 33-1804 establishes the state policy that all meetings of a planned community association's board of directors must be conducted openly and that any provisions of the statute must be construed in favor of open meetings. A meeting may only be closed if the portion is strictly limited to specific exceptions, such as legal advice (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)) or pending or contemplated litigation (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)).

The meeting was held to discuss 72 comments solicited from homeowners regarding proposed revisions to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) Design Guidelines.

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Position:

The Petitioner, Kathy Green, alleged that the closed session was improper because it was noticed under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) (legal advice), yet the Board stipulated that no legal advice was given during the session. Evidence showed the Board President had emailed management prior to the meeting asking, "I don't want this to be an open meeting. Can we classify it under ARC Legal Review and keep it closed?". Petitioner argued that the meeting unlawfully conducted association business, noting that minutes showed a review of owner comments, non-board ARC members were present, and the minutes did not show discussion of legal advice or pending litigation. Furthermore, emails demonstrated that the Board later attempted to retroactively justify the meeting under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2) (contemplated litigation).

Respondent's Position:

The Respondent, Cross Creek Ranch Community Association, argued that the closure was justified under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2) because certain owner comments, including those from the Petitioner and her husband, were perceived as threats of litigation concerning the design guidelines. The Board testified that it met to holistically consider the risk of litigation, gauge membership sentiment, and conduct a cost-benefit analysis regarding the threatened lawsuits.

Final Decision and Outcome

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella found that the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.

1. Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1): The stipulation that no legal advice was given established that the meeting did not meet the requirement for closure under the section for which it was noticed.
2. Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2): The ALJ found the argument for "pending or contemplated litigation" to be "tenuous at best". The discussion primarily involved 72 homeowner comments, and the ALJ concluded that none of the comments could be "reasonably construed as contemplating litigation".
3. ALJ Finding: The ALJ noted that the Board acknowledged it could have held a separate executive session to discuss the one comment that copied an attorney while holding an open meeting for the majority of the solicited comments. The issue discussed did not fall under the statutory exceptions.

The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's petition and ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee. The Respondent was also directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 moving forward. No civil penalty was found appropriate.

This summary details the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Ronald Borruso, Petitioner, vs. Sunland Village East Association, Respondent (No. 21F-H2121062-REL), heard on September 3, 2021. The Petitioner, Ronald Borruso, alleged that the Association violated its Bylaws and specific provisions of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804.

Key Facts and Legal Standard

The Department of Real Estate had jurisdiction over the matter. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving the alleged violations occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. Borruso refined his allegations to two main issues, both centering on the violation of association meeting requirements under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A) and (C).

Main Issues and Arguments

Issue 1: Member Participation at the May 27, 2021 Special Meeting

• Petitioner's Claim: Borruso alleged that during a special meeting concerning a recall petition, the Board denied members the right to speak at an appropriate time during proceedings, violating § 33-1804(A). He argued the meeting was improperly divided into a "closed" session where members could not offer substantive comments, followed by an "Open Session Q & A" after adjournment.
• Association's Argument: The Association maintained there was only one meeting, and it was not a violation to restrict members’ comments until after the Board provided its statements. They argued they used the term "closed" inartfully, noting that members were allowed to attend the entire 3-hour meeting, and ample opportunity was provided for comments during the Q & A session (lasting about 90 minutes).
• Legal Point: ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(A) permits members to attend and speak at an appropriate time during deliberations, and mandates they speak once after the Board discusses an agenda item but before formal action. The ALJ noted that legally, a "closed" meeting refers to an executive session, which the Board did not conduct.

Issue 2: Unnoticed Meeting to Approve Operations Manager Qualifications

• Petitioner's Claim: Borruso alleged the Board held un-noticed meetings to write and approve job qualifications for an Operations Manager, violating sections 33-1804(A) and (C). His primary evidence was a former Board President, Ms. Haynie, confirming in a May 6, 2021 meeting that the Board had written and approved the job description.
• Association's Argument: Current Board members testified credibly that Ms. Haynie was wrong and that the Board had never met or voted on the job description. The description posted was similar to a previous one, and Ms. Haynie had allegedly prepared and posted it without Board approval.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Mr. Borruso failed to meet the required standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on both issues.

1. Regarding the May 27th Meeting: The Petitioner did not prove a violation of § 33-1804(A). Although the Board was not precise in its terminology, members were allowed to attend the entire meeting, and the evidence showed it was a single meeting where members spoke after the Board's presentation.
2. Regarding the Job Qualifications: The Petitioner failed to prove that an un-noticed meeting occurred, as the credible testimony indicated that the former President had been mistaken about the Board’s approval. Therefore, there was no violation of sections 33-1804(A) and (C).

The petition was dismissed.

Briefing Document: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Final Decision

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Clifford and Maria Burnes (“Petitioners”) versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association (“Respondent”), case number 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG. The dispute centered on a four-issue petition alleging violations by the Association related to new construction on a neighboring property (Lot 7), an unnoticed Board meeting, and the fulfillment of a records request.

Following an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) largely affirmed the original decision. The Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on three of the four issues, with the judge finding no violations by the Association regarding architectural controls, the waiver of a construction deposit, or the conduct of a Board meeting.

However, the Petitioners successfully proved that the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 by failing to timely and completely fulfill a comprehensive records request. The final order requires the Association to reimburse the Petitioners for a portion of their filing fee ($500), comply with the records statute moving forward, and provide the specific missing documents (email attachments) from the original request. The rehearing was granted on the basis of “newly discovered evidence,” but the Petitioners conceded during the proceeding that they possessed no new evidence, leading the ALJ to rely solely on the record from the first hearing.

I. Background and Procedural History

The case involves a dispute between property owners Clifford and Maria Burnes and their homeowners’ association, Saguaro Crest, located in Tucson, Arizona. The Association is governed by Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) recorded in 2006 and Architectural Design Guidelines adopted in 2018.

Procedural Timeline

July 17, 2020

Petitioners file a 4-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

August 11, 2020

Respondent (HOA) denies all claims in its answer.

Dec 11, 2020 & Mar 1-2, 2021

An evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

March 22, 2021

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues the initial decision.

April 28, 2021

Petitioners file a dispute rehearing request, alleging newly discovered evidence.

May 21, 2021

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.

July 20, 2021

The rehearing is held. Petitioners concede they have no “new” evidence.

August 09, 2021

The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued, affirming the initial ruling.

Key Parties

Name / Entity

Clifford & Maria Burnes

Petitioners; owners of Lot 6.

Cynthia F. Burnes, Esq.

Counsel for Petitioners.

Saguaro Crest HOA, Inc.

Respondent.

John Crotty, Esq.

Counsel for Respondent.

Norm Burnes

Petitioner; appointed to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) in 2017.

Raul & Ramona Martinez

Owners of Lot 7, the property under construction.

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

II. Analysis of Allegations and Findings

The petition presented four distinct issues for adjudication. The Petitioners bore the burden of proving each violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Issue 1: Alleged Violation of CC&Rs Section 5 (Architectural Control)

• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association improperly allowed construction on Lot 7 to proceed without required documents being submitted to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for approval.

• Factual Record:

◦ The ARC, which included Petitioner Norm Burnes, unanimously approved construction plans for Lot 7 on January 3, 2018.

◦ Construction began sometime in 2018. Pima County approved the plans on May 4, 2018.

◦ On April 14, 2020, Petitioner Burnes sent a formal letter of concern to the Board, stating the placement of the home on Lot 7 was not per the approved plan and had destroyed their view and privacy. The letter included the following statement:

• Conclusion of Law: No violation found. The ALJ determined that while the construction on Lot 7 was not per the plans the ARC approved on January 3, 2018, no subsequent or modified plans were ever submitted to the ARC for review. The decision states, “The ARC cannot approve or deny proposed plans unless they are submitted for review.” Furthermore, the record shows the construction complies with the local government’s building authority.

Issue 2: Alleged Violation of Design Guidelines Section 4.0 (Construction Deposit)

• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association allowed construction on Lot 7 without collecting the required $5,000.00 Construction Compliance Deposit.

• Factual Record:

◦ On May 3, 2020, the Board of Directors decided to honor a Construction Compliance Deposit waiver that had been previously granted to the Martinez family.

◦ This discretionary waiver was reportedly granted during an economic downturn to incentivize property purchases.

◦ Critically, the Association “does not possess a corporate record that any such Construction Compliance Deposit Waiver was previously granted to the Martinez family.”

• Conclusion of Law: No violation found. The ALJ concluded it was “clear that Lot 7 was granted a construction compliance deposit waiver.” The lack of a documented record was noted, but the inquiry was deemed moot as it was not a noticed issue in the petition.

Issue 3: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Unnoticed Meeting)

• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Board of Directors conducted an unnoticed meeting on or about May 20, 2020, to consider matters relevant to Petitioner Norm Burnes.

• Factual Record:

◦ On April 18, 2020, Petitioner requested an urgent meeting with the Board, which was held the next day.

◦ On May 20, 2020, the Board acted with unanimous consent (obtained via individual signatures) to restrict Petitioner Burnes’s participation as an ARC member “regarding all issued related to the construction of Lot 7.”

◦ The Board’s notes state: “[T]he Board of Directors hereby unanimously agree that [Petitioner] be removed as an ARC Member for all ARC related matters concerning Lot 7.”

• Conclusion of Law: No violation found. The judge ruled that the Board’s failure to notice the April 19 meeting was excused as an exception because the Petitioner himself had requested it on an urgent basis. Regarding the May 20 action, the record shows Mr. Burnes was not removed from the ARC entirely, but only recused from matters concerning the Lot 7 dispute in which he had a direct conflict of interest.

Issue 4: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Request)

• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association failed to properly fulfill a records request.

• Factual Record:

◦ On June 4, 2020, Petitioners submitted a comprehensive, 17-point records request and demanded fulfillment within the statutory 10-day period.

◦ On June 16, 2020, the Association made 342 pages of documents available for in-person review but prohibited Petitioners from using their own scanning equipment.

◦ The statutory deadline for compliance was June 18, 2020.

◦ On June 24, 2020, after Petitioners paid a $51.30 fee, the Association provided copies of the documents.

◦ Later that day, Petitioners notified the Association that the document package was incomplete, as “attachments for some emails are not included.”

• Conclusion of Law: Violation established. The ALJ found that the Association failed to comply with the statute. The documents were made available for review within the 10-day window, but the copies were not provided until June 24, after the deadline. More importantly, the copies provided were incomplete. The judge rejected the Association’s argument that a clarification from the Petitioner reset the statutory clock.

III. Final Order and Directives

The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision, issued after the rehearing, affirmed the conclusions of the initial March 22, 2021 decision.

• Petition Status: The petition was granted in part (on Issue 4) and denied in part (on Issues 1, 2, and 3).

• Financial Reimbursement: The Respondent (Saguaro Crest HOA) is ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for one-quarter of their filing fee, amounting to $500.00.

• Statutory Compliance: The Respondent is ordered to henceforth comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding records requests.

• Document Production: The Respondent is ordered to provide the Petitioners with the missing email attachments related to the June 4, 2020 records request within 10 business days of the final order’s effective date.

Administrative Law Decision Briefing: Morin vs. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the findings and rulings from an administrative law case involving a homeowner, Debra K. Morin, and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (HOA). The central issue was whether the HOA Board of Directors violated Arizona’s open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) by conducting association business and making decisions without open meetings accessible to its members.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioner on her primary complaint. The investigation and subsequent hearings revealed that the HOA Board, citing the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, utilized a process of “unanimous written consent” to approve numerous actions. This process, facilitated through individual emails to board members, was found to be an improper substitute for the open meetings required by law. The ALJ concluded that the specific transparency requirements for homeowners’ associations in A.R.S. § 33-1804 supersede the more general provisions for non-profit corporations in A.R.S. § 10-3821, which the HOA had cited as justification.

While the violation was established, no civil penalty was assessed due to the “unprecedented global pandemic.” The HOA was ordered to comply with the open meeting law moving forward and to reimburse the petitioner’s $500 filing fee. A second complaint from the petitioner, alleging the improper use of emergency executive sessions, was not proven and was therefore denied. A rehearing clarified the precise method of the violation—email voting rather than conference calls—but did not alter the final judgment.

Case Background and Allegations

This matter was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed on July 10, 2020. The case centered on the actions of the Solera Chandler HOA’s Board of Directors between March and August 2020.

• Petitioner: Debra K. Morin

• Respondent: Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

• Case Number: 21F-H2120001-REL

• Key Dates:

◦ Initial Hearing: October 29, 2020

◦ Initial Decision: November 18, 2020

◦ Rehearing: February 25, 2021

◦ Final Decision After Rehearing: March 17, 2021

Petitioner’s Formal Complaints

After being ordered to clarify her initial filing, the petitioner proceeded with two specific alleged violations of A.R.S. § 33-1804:

1. Complaint #1: Non-Privileged Business in Closed Sessions: The petitioner alleged that the HOA Board conducted non-privileged association business in closed sessions by using unanimous written consent. This practice circumvented statutory requirements for providing members with agendas, giving 48-hour notice, and allowing them an opportunity to speak on key issues before the Board took action.

2. Complaint #2: Improper Emergency Executive Sessions: The petitioner alleged that the HOA Board conducted privileged business under the guise of “emergency executive sessions.” This was done without properly identifying the legal exception to the open meeting law, providing an agenda or 48-hour notice, or submitting minutes at the next board meeting that stated the reason for the emergency.

Key Evidence and Factual Findings

The evidence presented centered on the HOA’s governance practices during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Respondent’s Justification

The HOA’s defense rested on two main arguments:

• The COVID-19 pandemic made it impossible for the Board to meet in person, necessitating alternative methods to conduct business while protecting the health of directors and members.

• The use of unanimous written consents was authorized under A.R.S. § 10-3821, a statute that permits non-profit corporations to take action without a formal meeting if all directors consent in writing. The HOA acknowledged it had not used this method before the pandemic and did not intend to continue its use.

Unanimous Written Consents

At an open Board of Directors meeting on August 5, 2020, the Board formally ratified a series of actions taken via unanimous written consent during the “Covid 19 Shutdown.” A rehearing clarified the precise mechanism: a community management company would email each board member individually to solicit a “yes” or “no” vote on a proposal. If all votes were “yes,” the Board President would sign the written consent on behalf of the Board.

The actions taken through this process included:

Action Taken by Unanimous Written Consent

March 30, 2020

Approve repair and replacement of the sidewalk and community center entrance.

March 30, 2020

Approve repair and replacement of cool decking surrounding both pools.

April 30, 2020

Approve Kirk Sandquist as a member of the Architectural Review Committee.

April 30, 2020

Approve Tom Dusbabek as a member of the Architectural Review Committee.

May 5, 2020

Approve the Gilbert Road retention basin project, related irrigation replacement, and the addition of 420 tons of granite.

May 8, 2020

Approve replacement of a Carrier 6-ton heat pump.

May 8, 2020

Approve replacement of two Carrier 5-ton heat pumps.

May 27, 2020

Approve hiring Ken Eller to draft architectural drawings.

June 4, 2020

Approve a change to the Design Guidelines at the request of the Architectural Review Committee.

July 1, 2020

Approve the 2020 summer hardwood pruning and removal of trees.

Executive Sessions

The Board held numerous executive (closed) sessions during this period, including on March 13, March 16, March 19, March 24, April 6, April 10, May 4, May 15, May 27, June 24, and August 5, 2020. An “emergency executive session” was held on May 12, 2020. The agendas for these meetings cited specific legal exceptions under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) as justification for the closure.

Legal Analysis and Rulings

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the interpretation and primacy of two competing Arizona statutes.

The Core Statutory Conflict

• A.R.S. § 33-1804 (HOA Open Meeting Law): This statute establishes a strong state policy that all HOA board and member meetings “be conducted openly.” It mandates that members receive at least 48-hours’ notice, be provided with agendas, and be permitted to “attend and speak at an appropriate time.” The statute explicitly directs that any interpretation of its provisions must be construed “in favor of open meetings.”

• A.R.S. § 10-3821 (Action Without Meeting for Non-Profits): This statute, which applies more broadly to non-profit corporations, allows a board of directors to take action without a meeting if the action is approved by one or more written consents signed by all directors.

Ruling on Complaint #1 (Violation Established)

The ALJ concluded that the petitioner had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the open meeting law. The core of the ruling is that the specific requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 for homeowners’ associations must be followed, even if A.R.S. § 10-3821 provides a different mechanism for general non-profits.

The final decision states: “Respondent improperly conducted association business in closed sessions via email rather than in meetings open to the members.” The use of email voting to achieve unanimous consent was deemed a violation because it denied members the notice, agenda, and opportunity to speak that are guaranteed by the HOA open meeting law.

However, the ALJ gave “consideration to the fact that Respondent was faced with an unprecedented global pandemic” and found that “no civil penalty is appropriate given the circumstances.”

Ruling on Complaint #2 (Violation Not Established)

The ALJ found that the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board conducted improper emergency executive sessions. The decision notes that there was “nothing in the record” to suggest the Board discussed topics outside the legally permitted exceptions for closed sessions, nor was there evidence to suggest the May 12, 2020, meeting was not a genuine emergency.

Final Order and Disposition

The final judgment, issued after the rehearing, is binding on both parties.

• Outcome: The petitioner’s petition was affirmed in part (regarding Complaint #1) and denied in part (regarding Complaint #2).

• Directives to Respondent (HOA):

1. The HOA is ordered to reimburse the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

2. The HOA is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.

• Appeal: Any appeal of the final order must be filed for judicial review with the superior court within 35 days from the date of service.

Briefing Document: Glover v. Foothills Community Association (Case No. 19F-H1919046-REL)

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Vicky Glover versus the Foothills Community Association (FCA), where the petitioner’s claims were denied. The petitioner alleged that the FCA’s Design Review Committee (DRC) violated Arizona’s open meeting laws (A.R.S. § 33-1804) on two fronts: first, by conducting unannounced “email meetings” to vote on non-emergency matters, and second, by preventing members from speaking at appropriate times during regularly scheduled DRC meetings.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Tammy L. Eigenheer, concluded that the petitioner failed to prove any statutory violation. The decision rested on a strict textual interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804. Regarding speaking rights, the ALJ determined that while members have a right to speak at an “appropriate time” in committee meetings, the more specific right to speak on an agenda item before a formal vote applies exclusively to Board of Directors meetings, not committee meetings. The judge found it was reasonable for the DRC to rule that a member speaking on another member’s application was not an “appropriate time.”

Concerning the email communications, the ALJ ruled that they do not constitute “regularly scheduled committee meetings” as defined by the statute. Because the email discussions and decisions did not occur at a set weekly, monthly, or quarterly time, they are not subject to the open meeting requirements. The general state policy favoring open meetings was found to be subordinate to the specific statutory language. The petition was therefore denied in its entirety.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

This case involved a dispute between a homeowner and a homeowners association regarding the application of Arizona’s open meeting laws to a committee of the association.

Name / Entity

Representation / Title

Petitioner

Vicky Glover

Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent

Foothills Community Association (FCA)

B. Austin Baillio (Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.)

Adjudicator

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings

Phoenix, Arizona

Case Timeline

• December 13, 2018 & January 9, 2019: Petitioner attends and records DRC meetings where the alleged violations occurred.

• January 23, 2019: Vicky Glover files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• January 28, 2019: The Department issues a notice to the FCA regarding the petition.

• May 10, 2019: An administrative hearing is held.

• May 30, 2019: The Administrative Law Judge issues the final decision.

——————————————————————————–

Petitioner’s Allegations

The petitioner, Vicky Glover, alleged that the Foothills Community Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804 in two specific ways:

1. Improper Email Meetings: The FCA’s Design Review Committee (DRC) held unannounced meetings via email to vote on non-emergency matters, which should have been handled in open, public meetings.

2. Denial of Speaking Rights: The DRC refused to allow community members, including the petitioner, to speak at an appropriate time during its regularly scheduled meetings, specifically when she wished to speak on other members’ pending requests.

Key Factual Findings

The facts underlying the petition were not in dispute by the parties during the hearing. The key findings of fact established were:

• Organizational Structure:

◦ The FCA Board of Directors is comprised of seven members and meets on the fourth Wednesday of the month at 6:00 p.m.

◦ The Design Review Committee (DRC) is appointed by the Board, is comprised of five members (two of whom are also on the Board), and meets on the second Wednesday of the month at 2:00 p.m.

• Events at DRC Meetings:

◦ On December 13, 2018, and January 9, 2019, Vicky Glover attended and recorded DRC meetings.

◦ During these meetings, she was not permitted to speak on issues being discussed related to other members’ pending requests.

• Use of Email by the DRC:

◦ During meetings, DRC members mentioned that additional information for certain requests would be shared via email after the meeting.

◦ Based on this emailed information, DRC members would approve or deny the request.

◦ Decisions made via email between meetings were formally “ratified” at the subsequent DRC meeting.

◦ FCA Manager Pat Wontor testified, denying that the DRC took initial action via email, asserting instead that emails were only used to gather additional information on matters that had already been discussed in an open meeting.

• DRC Policies: A request submitted to the DRC is deemed approved if it is not denied within 60 days.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Analysis and Judge’s Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision centered on a strict interpretation of the plain language of A.R.S. § 33-1804. The petitioner bore the burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence and failed to do so on both counts.

I. Member Speaking Rights at Committee Meetings

The judge analyzed the petitioner’s claim that she was wrongfully denied the right to speak at DRC meetings.

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) states that at “any regularly scheduled committee meetings… all members… shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time during the deliberations and proceedings.”

• ALJ’s Interpretation: The judge found a critical distinction within the statute’s text. A later clause specifies that “the board… shall permit a member… to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item.”

• Conclusion: The judge ruled that this specific right to speak on an item before a vote applies only to meetings of the Board of Directors, not to committee meetings. For committee meetings, the standard is the more general “appropriate time.” The ALJ concluded it was reasonable for the DRC to determine that having one member speak on another member’s private application was not an “appropriate time.” Therefore, the DRC’s refusal to allow the petitioner to speak did not violate the statute.

II. Email Deliberations and “Meetings”

The judge next addressed the claim that email communications constituted illegal, non-public meetings.

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) mandates that open meeting rules apply to “regularly scheduled committee meetings.”

• ALJ’s Interpretation: The judge concluded that the email discussions, deliberations, and decisions among DRC members did not meet the definition of “regularly scheduled.” These communications did not occur at a set time on a recurring basis (e.g., weekly, monthly, quarterly). While they could be considered a form of meeting, they were not regularly scheduled ones.

• Effect of State Policy: The judge acknowledged the policy statement in A.R.S. § 33-1804(F), which expresses a legislative preference for open meetings. However, the judge ruled that this general policy “does not override the specific provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) that only ‘regularly scheduled’ committee meetings must be open to the members.”

• Conclusion: Because the email communications were not regularly scheduled, they did not fall under the open meeting requirements of the statute, and no violation occurred.

Final Order and Implications

Based on the legal analysis, the Administrative Law Judge found that the petitioner did not establish any violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

• Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.”

• Next Steps: The decision is binding on the parties. A party may file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04 and § 41-1092.09.

Administrative Law Judge Decision Briefing: Smith vs. Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal dispute between Petitioner Lewis Smith and Respondent Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. The core of the case revolves around allegations that the HOA’s Board of Directors violated Arizona’s open meeting laws.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Desert Isle HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(F). The decision established that the Board failed to provide its members with agendas containing information “reasonably necessary to inform the members” about discussions concerning a proposed amendment to the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that would prohibit short-term rentals. This failure occurred during Board of Directors meetings held on November 8 and November 20, 2017.

As a result of this finding, the Petitioner’s petition was granted, and the Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee. The ruling underscores the state’s policy that planned community meetings must be conducted with transparency, and agendas must provide sufficient detail for members to understand the matters to be discussed or decided.

Case Overview

Case Number

18F-H1817020-REL

Tribunal

Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)

Petitioner

Lewis Smith

Respondent

Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.

Administrative Law Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson

Hearing Date

April 16, 2018

Decision Date

May 29, 2018

Central Allegation

On or about December 5, 2017, Petitioner Lewis Smith filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging that the Desert Isle HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804. The petition contended that the Board of Directors discussed and advanced a significant CC&R amendment without proper notification to the association members.

The petition states, in part:

“All Board members have been meeting to discuss and add an amendment to the CC&R’s [sic] Prohibiting short term renters. These meetings have not been conducted openly and no notice or agenda were provided containing information necessary to inform members of the association of the matters to be discussed… At no time was the issue to add an amendment for short term rentals properly noticed or on an agenda for discussion before it became a ballot vote.”

Chronology of Events

October 23, 2017:

• Lewis Smith, William H. Winn, Kevin Barnett, and Chester Jay submit a formal request to the Board for a special members’ meeting.

• The stated purposes of the meeting were to:

1. Select and fund an attorney to update the HOA’s bylaws and CC&Rs to comply with current Arizona law.

2. Discuss obtaining a reserve study for the association’s capital needs.

3. Discuss a separate attorney letter regarding HOA governance.

October 24, 2017:

• Board President Doug Robinson responds to the request, expressing support for a meeting but stating that more than 30 days would be needed to gather supporting documentation.

October 31, 2017:

• A second group of homeowners, including Board members Greg Yacoubian, Doug Robinson, Curt Carlson, and Mike Andrews, submits a request to add an item to the agenda of the forthcoming special meeting.

• Their request was to “amend the CC&Rs by adding a section prohibiting ‘Short Term Rentals’ and defining minimum time allowed for Rentals.”

November 5, 2017:

• The Board provides an agenda for a Board of Directors meeting scheduled for November 8, 2017. The agenda did not include any item related to the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals.

November 8, 2017:

• The Board of Directors meeting is held.

• The Board votes to call a special members’ meeting before November 23, 2017, to address the two petitions.

• During the “BOARD INPUT” section, member Curt Carlson “spoke of past issues about short term renting,” but this was not a formal agenda item for discussion or action.

November 10, 2017:

• The Board emails Lewis Smith, acknowledging his petition and requesting a “narrative explanation from you on each of your subjects” by November 17, 2017, to prepare the meeting information package for all homeowners.

November 18, 2017:

• The Board sends an agenda for another Board of Directors meeting scheduled for November 20, 2017.

• The agenda lists “Review/approval of special meeting mailing package” as a topic but provides no specific details regarding the proposed amendment on short-term rentals.

December 1, 2017:

• Board President Doug Robinson emails all homeowners to explain the upcoming special meeting on December 16, 2017.

• The email states: “To avoid cost and time we put both petitions together and are having one meeting that will required [sic] all owners to vote for or against these two petitions.”

• The agenda for the December 16 meeting is attached, which explicitly lists a vote on prohibiting short-term rentals.

December 16, 2017:

• The special members’ meeting is held. A vote is taken on the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals.

• Vote Result: 9 homeowners in favor, 6 homeowners against.

Legal Framework and Analysis

The case centered on the interpretation and application of Arizona Revised Statutes related to planned communities.

Key Statute: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

This statute governs meetings and notices for planned communities. The judge’s decision rested heavily on the policy outlined in subsection (F).

• § 33-1804(B): Requires that notice for any special meeting of members must state the purpose, including “the general nature of any proposed amendment to the declaration or bylaws.”

• § 33-1804(E)(1): Requires that the agenda for a Board of Directors meeting be made available to all members in attendance.

• § 33-1804(F): This subsection contains the state’s declaration of policy, which was central to the judge’s conclusion. It states:

Burden of Proof

The Petitioner, Lewis Smith, bore the burden of proving that the Respondent violated the statute by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as evidence that is sufficient “to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Findings and Conclusion of the Court

The Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner successfully met the burden of proof. The decision concludes that the agendas for the November 8 and November 20 Board of Directors meetings were legally insufficient.

Conclusion of Law #4:

“Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F) when it failed to provide notice or an agenda to all of its members of information that was reasonably necessary to inform the members that an amendment to the CC&Rs to prohibit short term members would be discussed at its special board of directors meetings held on November 8, 2017 and November 20, 2017.”

Final Order

• The Petitioner’s petition in the matter was granted.

• Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), the Respondent (Desert Isle HOA) was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee.

• The Order is legally binding unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.

Parties and Legal Representation

Address

Legal Counsel

Petitioner

Lewis Smith
5459 E. Sorrento Dr.
Long Beach, CA 90803

Mark J. Bainbridge, Esq.
The Bainbridge Law Firm LLC
2122 E. Highland Ave. Ste. 250
Phoenix, AZ 85016-4779

Respondent

Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
411 Riverfront Dr. #7
Bullhead City, AZ 86442

William D. Condray, Esq.
2031 Highway 95 Ste. 2
Bullhead City, AZ 86442-6004

Briefing Document: DeBoer vs. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the findings and outcome of the legal dispute between homeowner Richard A. DeBoer and the Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association (HOA). The central issue was the HOA Board of Directors’ practice of conducting votes on non-emergency matters via email, which the petitioner alleged violated Arizona’s open meeting laws.

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the State of Arizona concluded that the HOA Board did violate state law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) by using email to approve the purchase of new street lights and the removal of existing fixtures, thereby circumventing requirements for open meetings accessible to all members. The Board’s defense, that it had relied on poor advice from its management company, was not sufficient to overcome the violation.

Consequently, Mr. DeBoer was declared the prevailing party. The HOA was ordered to cease this practice, pay a $1,000 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, and reimburse Mr. DeBoer for his $500 filing fee. The ALJ’s decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, making it a final administrative order.

Case Background

• Case Name: Richard A. DeBoer vs. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association

• Case Numbers: 17F-H1616006-REL (Office of Administrative Hearings), HO17-16/006 (Department of Real Estate)

• Jurisdiction: The dispute was filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate and heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Petitioner: Richard A. DeBoer, a homeowner.

• Respondent: Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association, located in Phoenix, Arizona.

Key Dates

August 23, 2016

Petition filed by Richard A. DeBoer.

December 19, 2016

Hearing held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

January 9, 2017

Administrative Law Judge Decision issued.

January 12, 2017

Final Order issued by the Department of Real Estate Commissioner.

January 13, 2017

Compliance letter sent to the HOA by the Department of Real Estate.

February 11, 2017

Deadline for HOA to show proof of payment for petitioner’s filing fee.

March 13, 2017

Deadline for HOA to pay the civil penalty.

Petitioner’s Allegations

Richard A. DeBoer’s petition, filed on August 23, 2016, alleged that the Turtle Rock III HOA Board of Directors had a “common practice” of conducting unnoticed email meetings to vote on non-emergency matters. This practice was alleged to be in violation of both Arizona state law and the HOA’s own bylaws.

• March 2016: The Board conducted an email vote to approve the purchase and installation of four high-mast street lights in the common area.

• April 2016: The Board conducted an email vote to approve the removal and sale or disposal of fourteen large, iconic, architectural light fixtures from the common areas.

• The email meetings were not open to all association members.

• Members were denied the opportunity to attend and speak before the Board took formal action.

• The subject matter did not meet the criteria for a closed meeting.

• The Board failed to provide members with at least 48 hours’ advance notice.

• The meetings did not qualify as emergency meetings.

• Proper notices and agendas containing information “reasonably necessary to inform the members” were not provided.

• The petitioner alleged the actions were contrary to Turtle Rock III Bylaws, Division VI, Item 2.i, which incorporates Robert’s Rules of Order.

• Specifically, the email meetings were conducted without authorization in the bylaws and failed to provide for “a single official gathering in one room or area.”

• The format lacked the required “conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among participating members.”

Respondent’s Defense and Testimony

The Turtle Rock III HOA initially filed an answer denying all allegations made in the petition.

During the hearing on December 19, 2016, the following testimony was provided on behalf of the HOA:

• Verl Curtiss (Board President) and Steve Pilcher (Board Treasurer) both acknowledged that the email votes regarding the lighting had occurred.

• Their defense centered on the claim that they had been advised by their management company and manager that their actions were not in violation of Arizona statutes or the HOA’s bylaws.

• Mr. Pilcher testified that they believed they had received “good advice.”

Legal Findings and Conclusion

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Tammy L. Eigenheer, determined that the petitioner bore the burden of proving the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

The decision focused on A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), which states:

“Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors… are open to all members of the association… and all members or designated representatives so desiring shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time during the deliberations and proceedings.”

Based on the evidence and testimony, including the Board’s admission that email votes took place, the ALJ issued a clear conclusion:

“This Tribunal concludes that the Board’s prior practice of taking action in the absence of a meeting by obtaining unanimous written consent of the Board’s members via email violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).”

Final Order and Penalties

The ALJ’s Recommended Order was officially accepted and adopted as a Final Order by Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, on January 12, 2017. The HOA was ordered to undertake the following actions:

1. Cease and Desist: The Respondent must comply with all applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) in the future.

2. Fee Reimbursement: The Respondent must pay the Petitioner, Richard A. DeBoer, his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the Order.

3. Civil Penalty: The Respondent must pay a civil penalty of $1,000.00 to the Department of Real Estate within sixty (60) days of the Order.

The Final Order constituted a final administrative action, subject to appeal or a motion for rehearing within 30 days.

Key Parties and Officials

Name/Entity

Richard A. DeBoer

Petitioner / Homeowner

Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association

Respondent

Verl Curtiss

President, Respondent’s Board of Directors

Steve Pilcher

Treasurer, Respondent’s Board of Directors

Goodman Law Group

Respondent’s Representative

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Office of Administrative Hearings

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Regulatory Agency / Jurisdiction for HOA Disputes

Judy Lowe

Commissioner, Department of Real Estate

Abby Hansen

HOA Dispute Coordinator, Department of Real Estate