Chronicles
From the MyRSF.net archives of the Email Chronicles
Art Jury
Author: Phil Trubey
Date: January 6, 2026
Hello, Phil Trubey here, sending an occasional email about RSF.
Strap in, this is going to be a wild email. Davis-Stirling Open Meeting Act violations, abrogating the Protective Covenant, exposing the Association to derivative lawsuits, even Board corruption if you’re inclined to call it that.
The mentioned proposed resolutions can be accessed via the Association website here, which will ask for your RSF Association login.
Davis-Stirling Open Meeting Act Violations
HOA Boards are supposed to conduct all policy deliberations in open forums so that homeowners can hear deliberations and have time to provide feedback before positions are set in stone.
The Association just published two proposed Board resolutions on topics that the Board has never discussed in open session before. They both deal with the Art Jury. One imposes new procedures onto the Art Jury by the Board (which is prohibited by the Covenant, see below), the other gives the Association a de facto exemption from Art Jury oversight for Association projects (also a Covenant violation, see below).
Neither of these rather sweeping policy changes has ever been debated in open session, or even discussed as something the Board is working on. However, according to a Board member, somehow the Board has “had lengthy discussions” on these resolutions and “Our Board of Directors voted to adopt [these] new procedures”.
Huh. None of that happened in open session.
Let me refresh everyone’s memory. Civil Code §4935 lets the Board adjourn to or meet solely in executive session for litigation, contract formation, member discipline, personnel matters, and assessment‑payment plans.
Policy changes like this don’t fall into any of these categories. Now, I’m no neophyte on this. Our Association routinely uses the pretext of a possible lawsuit as a reason for discussing sensitive topics (like abrogating the Covenant!) in executive session with the Association’s lawyer present.
The irony is thick. To get around the Open Meeting Act, the Association alleges their own policy discussions are so legally fraught that they must deliberate in secret with a lawyer present. As I have heard our Association Manager say, “the Association can be sued for anything”, and while this is true, using the pretext of a possible lawsuit to discuss anything and everything in executive session is one heck of a loophole.
It gets worse. I am writing this sentence in the dark on Tuesday, January 6th. Two hours from now at 8am, the Board will hold yet another executive session, this time with the new Art Jury (three out of the five Art Jurors are new) to go over these sweeping policy changes. Again, we members aren’t invited. Again, it would be an Open Meeting Act violation to discuss these Board resolutions in that executive session, but that is exactly what they will do.
How do I know? The staff reports describing the new resolutions are forward-dated to Thursday, January 8th and state that the Art Jury has reviewed the new Art Jury operating instructions. According to the Association Manager, this refers to the new Art Jury, reconstituted in January. So I called one of the new Art Jurors yesterday and was informed that they hadn’t been consulted about these resolutions. That consultation will apparently take place in the aforementioned executive Board meeting today.
So, what is to be done about repeated Open Meeting Act violations? Other than shaming and naming as I’m doing here, not much unfortunately. Civil Code §4955 allows any member to file a civil action to enforce Open Meeting Act rights (Civil Code §§4900–4955), seeking injunctive or declaratory relief (e.g., orders to redo meetings or comply going forward). If the member prevails, the court may impose a civil penalty of up to $500 for each violation.
Big whoop. I doubt anyone is about to go through the expense of mounting such a lawsuit. So we're left with naming and shaming - I’m going to start calling our Board the “Lawless Amigos” from now on.
Association Exempting Itself From Art Jury Review
Three resolutions will be rammed through, I mean voted on, this Thursday at the Lawless Amigos' open Board meeting.
“Art Jury Review Process For Association-Sponsored Projects” gives the Board the power to ignore the Art Jury for Association-submitted projects. You and I must go through the process, but the Board wants to give itself a free ride. This is a bad resolution for many reasons, not the least of which is that, in my opinion, it is contrary to the Protective Covenant, which could lead to a legal challenge that the Association could lose, costing us significant money.
But it’s also bad because the Art Jury’s advice is worthwhile and useful and results in better projects. If any project should go through an architectural review board, it should be the most visible ones, like common area projects. It is also the height of arrogance and unfairness for the Board to excuse its own projects from the Art Jury while still requiring the rest of us to adhere to it.
This resolution, as drafted by the Board (no Art Jury consultation was noted), was drafted ostensibly to resolve something that isn’t even a problem. To wit: If the Art Jury denies a project, the applicant can appeal the denial to the Board. But in an Association-sponsored project, like the Restaurant remodel, the Board would hear its own appeal, deciding whether or not to uphold or deny its own project.
So? I fail to see the problem.
The memo even knows this isn’t a problem since the best they can muster for justification of this attempt to rewrite the Protective Covenant, is that this appeal process “is less appropriate when the applicant is the Association”. Less appropriate? First, I don’t even think that’s true, second, that’s a pretty slim rationale for usurping the PC.
And finally, has ANY Association project EVER gone to mediation and then to appeal? No, it hasn’t. According to my research, while there have been Art Jury denials of Association projects (an ugly looking cheap cover for the golf maintenance yard, and an unadorned glass wind wall for the snack bar, where the Art Jury even told the Golf Club how to fix, but the Golf Club didn't want to spend the extra money), none went to mediation, let alone appeal. This is a non-existent problem.
The thing the Association wants to divorce itself from is the actual appeal process which says that to overturn a negative Art Jury finding (par. 67 of the PC):
1) 4/5 of the Board must vote to overturn (on a 7 member Board, that means 6 Board members must vote to overturn).
2) AND one of the following must be true (or deemed true by the Board):
a) Denial would cause undue hardship to applicant
b) Overturning the decision wouldn’t degrade attractiveness standards
c) There was Art Jury bias.
Since (2)(b) allows the Board to overturn any Art Jury finding by basically saying “we don’t agree with your judgement”, the real obstacle is that at least six Board members must vote to overturn.
This resolution negates this requirement. It provides a very streamlined approval process where every Association project is deemed approved within three Art Jury meetings regardless of any and all Art Jury objections. Under the new resolution, Association projects are automatically approved after three or fewer Art Jury meetings, with zero requirement to have six Board members agree.
This is an awful resolution. Hopefully a more sane Board in the future will remove it.
The irony is that this particular Board doesn’t need this resolution. It easily has six votes to overturn any negative Art Jury determination.
So why is the Board doing this?
I think sour grapes mostly. This came to a head last year when the Art Jury asked the Association for an architectural design study of window muntins on the restaurant remodel. The new restaurant remodel plans had no muntins, just clear windows, which contrasted with the existing building windows (and the adjacent Player’s Clubhouse) which have muntins.
So the Art Jury asked that the Association’s architect spend a couple of hours drawing up what the elevations would look like with and without muntins. For reasons still unknown, the Association didn’t want to do the drawings (Cost? Laziness? Architect unable to do it?), even though homeowners are occasionally requested to do this sort of thing.
So the restaurant remodel project dragged on, with the Art Jury asking every meeting for this to inform their decision-making and the Association not providing it. Finally, after getting the muntin study, the Art Jury approved the plans without muntins.
Under the new proposed resolution, the Association could simply stonewall the Art Jury and not accept any of their advice and the Association’s project could sail through with zero changes.
Is this, in fact, a Protective Covenant violation? In my opinion, it appears to be since it abrogates the clearly outlined Art Jury process allowing the Art Jury to deny a project and forcing the Board to overturn them. You could make an argument that IF the Art Jury itself were to adopt the procedures outlined in this resolution, then it would pass legal muster. And maybe that’s what the Board wants to do this morning, in executive session, browbeat the new Art Jurors into voting for this new procedure.
Can a lawsuit be mounted to challenge this resolution? Probably, but it would be a very tricky lawsuit, outcome uncertain, and courts generally side with HOAs on things so technical. The more likely remedy is for membership to vote in Art Juror friendly Board members and overturn this resolution in a few years.
In the meanwhile, we can only hope that the Association doesn’t uglify our common areas too much in their haste for development.
Operating Instructions To Art Jury Members
Even the title of this resolution is demeaning. It is the Board imposing instructions to the Art Jury.
Our Protective Covenant already outlines Art Jury procedures. Paragraphs 46 through 69 of the PC detail how the Art Jury functions. And in particular says:
Par. 58. (d) (As amended 1973) The members of the Art Jury shall elect from its own number a President and a Vice-President and shall adopt Rules of Procedure and prescribe regulations for submission of all matters within its jurisdiction. Three members shall constitute a quorum and shall have full power to act as the Art Jury during a period of any vacancy in the membership thereof. The members of the Art Jury shall also appoint a Secretary and such other officers as it may find necessary.
Seems pretty clear-cut to me that the Art Jury gets to decide their own regulations. The PC was written to give Art Jurors freedom from political interference from a political Board. Otherwise, politically connected people within Rancho would call up favors from Board members to go easy on their house remodel.
The Board can overrule any Art Jury decision (if 6 out of 7 Board members agree), and that’s a lot of power, but the Lawless Amigos aren’t satisfied with just that. They also want to constrain the Art Jury’s processes.
The proposed resolution is a very poorly worded document with non sequiturs, sentences that aren’t actually sentences, tons of ambiguity, and really bad policy. Let me attempt to work through the lowlights by quoting pieces of it.
Staff members are the gatekeepers on all applications, projects, fines, etc. They review the applications for completeness and for compliance with RSF Governing Documents…
Our governing documents have intentionally subjective criteria. For example, they charge the Art Jury to determine if a project’s bulk and mass is compliant, and whether the project uses Latin-inspired architecture. These have NO objective criteria and are adjudicated by the five Art Jurors (in open session!). Staff are not qualified, nor should they be put in a position to determine if a project meets such subjective criteria (more on staff later).
This resolution implies that staff can flag ALL defective submissions, but given subjective criteria in the PC, this is simply not true.
The staff will promptly report any unresolved issue to the Art Jury with an action recommendation. The Art Jury will vote on each action, which will constitute a formal ruling of the Art Jury, after which the applicant can move forward.
This implies that the Art Jury will only vote on staff-flagged problems. Art Jurors routinely, like almost every meeting, see problems with submissions that staff has not flagged. This would emasculate the Art Jury and let all sorts of mistakes be built.
This also ignores how the Art Jury actually functions. The Art Jury tries to help applicants. If the only options are approve or deny, that’s pretty brutal. Often the Art Jury will ask the applicant to modify their submission, and thus they will “defer” the submission until the next meeting. This wording on the resolution is at the very least ambiguous as to what the Art Jury is allowed to do. And if it’s ambiguous, you know Boards will pick the interpretation they want.
Also, it ignores a huge value add that Art Juries provide to protect the community and neighbors from poorly designed homes. For example, a recent submittal had garages face a riding/walking trail for all to see. Art Jury suggestions changed this plan to a beautiful courtyard by placing the garage elsewhere out of view. Most of Art Jury time is spent on such suggestions, suggestions that would save your own house's view, for instance, by moving your neighbors' construction over by ten feet. And do you really want a neighbor's pickleball court built near your backyard?
This poorly worded resolution could negate such protection all of us enjoy whether we build or not.
The staff will periodically report to the Association Board on the efficiency of the approval process, and whether these instructions are being observed and practiced.
Not only is this rude and disrespectful of Art Jurors, but it puts staff in the untenable position of having to rat out community members (Art Jurors) to the Board, community members who could one day become Board members themselves and have hiring and firing authority over them.
This isn’t a theoretical worry. Many staff members have been fired over the years due to Board members taking a dislike to them. Staff are keenly aware that our members are deranged, I mean, have long memories and can hold vendettas, especially if a staff member says anything negative about their wonderful house that is perfect.
Heck, I've heard a rumor that a current Board member yelled at a planning staff member over their own submittal, so such issues are very fresh in people’s minds.
The overarching problem with these instructions to the Art Jury is that it takes the position that staff will be able to follow our design guidelines and PC restrictions faithfully, but since their jobs are dependent on not pissing off community members, this is literally impossible. Staff will constantly err on the side of being lenient and allowing flagrant PC violations to slide. The only bulwark against uppity members who want to build pink pagodas is other community members who don’t give two craps about being “fired” from their thankless Art Jury jobs.
These “Art Jury Instructions” probably makes this intentional mistake because the current Board is so very anti-Art Jury. A very lenient Art Jury process is what they want.
Out of town developers, either professional or build-and-flip owners, are going to LOVE this resolution. Developers want to build the biggest projects they can because it maximizes their profits. Only an independent Art Jury can temper this.
The goal is for fast turnaround and unbiased decisions.
Yes, and this document will ensure that one of the goals is NOT to have correct decisions. Pink pagodas for the win! And quickly too.
Failure to follow these operating instructions may lead to remedial actions by the Board, up to proceedings for removal of that member by the Board for malfeasance in performing duties as prescribed.
Ooooh. This is the Board warning Art Jurors that if you cross them, they’ll simply consider it malfeasance and remove Art Jurors from the Art Jury (which is one of the few ways the Board can remove Art Jurors). Throwing around charges of malfeasance should not be done lightly. It exposes the Board to charges of defamation if there was no real basis for the charge.
The good news is I doubt Art Jurors will be cowed by this sentence. I mean, really! Pre-emptive threats? That's just classless.
One of the reasons I went onto the Board was to prevent the Board from doing stupid things. Like grading without a permit (resulting in a lawsuit) or improperly applying for a federal COVID loan (resulting in a DOJ investigation and $500K fine). As I said, stupid things.
So I am well aware that writing emails and articles like the one I’m writing now have little effect on the Board. The Board is likely to pass a couple of bad resolutions on Thursday since apparently they've already voted so in some secret session. The only consolation is that politics being what it is, the stink from these resolutions will resonate in the upcoming Board election and some pro-Art Jury Board members might get elected.
My personal irony is that I supported every single one of the Lawless Amigos in elections. I did so because they were aligned with me on the need for enhancing Association amenities. I judged that they would push for appropriate development.
But you can do development even with the hassle of having to adhere to permitting and regulations.
By neutering the Art Jury, the Lawless Amigos will cause real and permanent damage to our community. These resolutions will make it open season to submit anything you want through the Art Jury and chances are, it'll sail through. I can only hope the resulting eyesores aren't too bad, and your neighborhood peace isn't disrupted too much before a new Board can reverse these resolutions in a few years.
See you Thursday.
Previous emails, Rancho information, poll results, and the old RSF Post archives available at myrsf.net. If you aren't on my email list and want to receive my occasional scribblings, go to this web page and click on the "click here to subscribe" link after the preamble. To unsubscribe, click the link below.