This summary pertains to the hearing in the matter of Samuel T. Paparazzo versus Coronado Ranch Community Association (Docket No. 24F-H011-REL), held on November 13, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Samuel T. Paparazzo, alleged that the Coronado Ranch Community Association (Respondent) violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) § 33-1804(A)—the planned community open meetings statute—by "entering into a contract with a new Community Association Management Company". Specifically, the Petitioner argued that the Board failed to allow for open discussion and member comment, and did not properly put forth a motion and vote, both when obtaining requests for proposals (RFPs) and when entering into the new contract with Haywood Realty & Investment, Inc. on August 10, 2023. The Petitioner testified that the approved meeting minutes did not reflect a motion and vote for either action.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that the burden of proof rested upon the Petitioner to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner, who attended all board meetings, asserted that there was no formal discussion, motion, or vote recorded for the key steps (RFPs and contract execution) required under ARS § 33-1804(A). He conceded that he was given an opportunity to speak at the crucial August 2023 meeting, but claimed that the only motion put forward and voted upon was to terminate the previous manager (RCP), not to hire Haywood.

Respondent's Argument: Ashley Turner, counsel for the Association, argued that the Association did not violate the statute. Kim Jackson, Board Treasurer, testified that management issues arose due to financial errors (including a $23,000 double payment). She testified that RFPs were obtained by individual board members, discussed, and made available to the community at the open November 2022 meeting and subsequent meetings.

Ms. Jackson credibly testified that the final decision occurred at the August 2023 open meeting after a "lengthy" discussion. At this meeting, both the termination of the old management company and the hiring of Haywood were discussed. The Petitioner was given 10 minutes to speak virtually. Ms. Jackson testified that a unanimous vote was taken to terminate the previous contract and hire Haywood, and that the termination notice detailing the new hiring was read aloud to attendees. She clarified that the lack of reference to the hiring motion in the August minutes was due to the secretary's inadvertent omission.

Legal Points and Outcome

The core legal contention revolved around whether the Association adhered to the requirement that formal action be taken only after discussion and member comment during an open meeting. The ALJ found the testimony of Ms. Jackson regarding the open discussion, member comments (including the Petitioner’s 10 minutes), and the unanimous vote at the August 2023 meeting to be credible.

The ALJ concluded that the credible evidence established that the issues regarding termination, RFPs, and entering into the new contract were discussed and voted on after a motion and member comment.

The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARS § 33-1804(A). Consequently, the Petition was dismissed.