RSFA Board After Action Report January 2026

Author: Phil Trubey

Date: January 9, 2026

Hello, Phil Trubey here, sending an occasional email about RSF.

---

The RSFA Board meeting yesterday January 8th ended up being anti climactic. The Board pulled the 2 controversial resolutions about the Art Jury and also pulled the (I thought) non-controversial revision to chapter 42 of the Regulations. 

After speaking with many people, it appears that the Board is now engaging with the Art Jury to reformulate the "Operating Instructions To Art Jury Members" resolution, which is what they should have done in the first place. 

That resolution and this next one are linked in the email that the Association sent today summarizing the Board meeting.

Abrogating the Covenant to Save Some Bucks?

On the resolution exempting the Association from Art Jury review, that will be brought up again in February, I talked with a few Board members to try to understand why they were so hot to trot to abrogate a part of the Protective Covenant. 

One reason I heard again and again was "Fiduciary Duty". As you know, one of the core functions of the Art Jury is to ensure high quality (which usually means more expensive) building materials. So they generally reject crappy keystone walls, fake spray painted boulders and cheap external light fixtures (which the restaurant remodel initially proposed). 

Apparently the minor delay in getting restaurant remodel approval through the Art Jury (never mind that the Association caused it by not getting that mutin study done expeditiously) caused some Board members to think it increased project costs. 

Well, it certainly did insofar as the Art Jury mandated high quality materials and architecture.

Which for a common area project, I would hope our standards would include that.

Slippery Slope

This resolution sets a dangerous precedent. It changes operating rules as set in the Protective Covenant, which is illegal. Boards cannot overturn provisions in the PC without a majority of all Members voting for it. I have heard our lawyer's sophistry saying the Board has ultimate authority, but that's BS. Both our Bylaws and the Protective Covenant limit Board power in many ways. California law which includes contract law, which is what the Protective Covenant is, is the ultimate authority. 

If this resolution passes, it'll embolden future Boards to gather even more power for themselves. 

What Is To Be Done?

In digging around Davis-Stirling (a fun activity for the whole family!), I came across § 4365 which provides a mechanism for Members to undo any rule change through a simply majority vote of voters. After a rule change is passed, Members have 30 days to gather a petition of 100 Members to ask for a special vote of members to reverse it. 

We'll see what actually happens at the next Board meeting, but it's nice to know Members do have a final say in things like this.

---

Is The Board Getting Appropriate Advice?

The Board is really being sloppy these days with regard to following the law. I already talked about their Open Meeting Act violations, but I recently realized that if they had voted on those two Art Jury resolutions yesterday, they would have violated the 28 day comment period provision in Davis-Stirling. 

Whenever a Board makes changes to operating rules for Members, they generally must go through a process of bringing up the proposed changes at a Board meeting and voting to post it for a 28 day comment period. Then at the next meeting, they can vote on it after listening to comments from Members.

This isn't only for Regulation changes, it is for anything that changes rules for Members, so Board resolutions that do that are also required to undergo a 28 day comment period.

When I was a Board member, we had a rather important Board resolution that changed how the Association and Golf Club were going to work together, how to split finances, etc. It wasn't a Regulation, it was "just" a resolution, but it got the 28 day comment period treatment.

The Board appears completely unaware of this since while they didn't vote on the two Art Jury resolutions, they also didn't vote to publish them for a 28 day comment period. However, the Association Manager did send an email today saying they would be voting on the resolutions next Board meeting, along with a link to them, so I guess that's close enough for government work. 

Having back to back Davis Stirling violations like this makes me wonder what advice the Board is getting from the Association Manager and lawyer. No one appears to be telling the Board how things are required to be done.

Here are the relevant Davis-Stirling code sections talking about this:

Civil Code § 4355. Application of Rulemaking Procedures

(a) Sections 4360 and 4365 only apply to an operating rule that relates to one or more of the following subjects:

(1) Use of the common area or of an exclusive use common area.(2) Use of a separate interest, including any aesthetic or architectural standards that govern alteration of a separate interest.(3) Member discipline, including any schedule of monetary penalties for violation of the governing documents and any procedure for the imposition of penalties.(4) Any standards for delinquent assessment payment plans.(5) Any procedures adopted by the association for resolution of disputes.(6) Any procedures for reviewing and approving or disapproving a proposed physical change to a member’s separate interest or to the common area.(7) Procedures for elections.

So a Board resolution changing the procedure for reviewing or approving a common area (which is what an Association sponsored submission would be) must adhere to § 4360 which is the 28 day comment period rule.

And note, if they change the text of the resolutions, they must post again for a 28 day comment period.

---

The Exciting Parts of the January Board Meeting

Seven of us gave member input at the Board meeting, and there were some very thoughtful and interesting speeches, in my opinion. 

To watch, go to this page and click on the Livestream link beside January 8, 2026.

---

Following is a list of email, texted and voice called reactions to my previous email about the Board's Art Jury resolutions for which I received permission to share, along with my replies if they asked a question. Some Members wanted to remain anonymous. 

From Dean Patterson:

25 or so years ago, when I owned my old house in the Covenant, I had to amend plans for my remodel, because of a very specific AJ recommendation . Of course, I grudgingly did so, and then, after the dust settled, and the home was nearly finished, and it was SOLD (divorce), I realized that the recommendation was spot on.. Still, something in my old Scottish nature, drove me to feel a bit angry about the whole process. But now, 25+ years down the road, I realize that the home just looks a lot better than it would have, had my original plans been approved. That “suggestion“ is exactly what you were talking about here. Sometimes, the passage of time provides a very clear filter!

----

Text from Anonymous:

Awesome article. You're a big dog, I'll run with you.

----

Voice call: Positive sentiments about the article, puzzled why the Board is doing this.

----

From Lale White:

Thank you for your thoughtful and knowledgeable summary of current Board actions. We never seem to have enough information on those running for the Board to elect them with full knowledge of their positions. In fact, in the last election, most of the profiles of the candidates were ones where they would not take a position on anything, indicating that they would come into each process with an open mind. A clear red flag in my mind as it is impossible to not have a position on the Osuna Ranch, or the Surf Cup lease of the Polo fields, or Silvergate.

Since we cannot seem to obtain enough information to assess Board candidates properly before an election, it appears that we need recourse to eliminate them when they do not do their jobs judiciously. I'm reaching out to inquire about the protocol for recalling Board Members. Could you please provide some insight into the steps involved in this process?

My reply:

It actually isn't that onerous a process. According to our Bylaws, Section III(2) Special Meetings:

Special meetings of the Members for any lawful purpose may be called at any time by the Board of Directors, or the President of the Association, and shall be called by the Board upon written request of not less than one hundred (100) Members entitled to cast votes. At its option, the Board may cause the vote on the issue raised by the request for such special meeting to be taken by means of a mail-in ballot as opposed to a meeting as provided in Section 5(b) of this Article.

A Board member recall is a lawful purpose, (Corp. Code § 7222(a)). The recall is effective if a majority of those voting, vote to remove. The Board would most likely opt to have mail in ballots, rather than a special meeting, so it would be like a Yes/No vote on any or all directors. Each director would have their own yes/no vote recorded against them.

I can't recall RSF ever having a Board member recall election.

----

From Anonymous:

You write exceptionally well, and are VERY persuasive. RSF is very fortunate to have such a concerned, knowledgeable, and articulate neighbor.

----

From Philip Larsen:

Very thoughtful. Thanks for all your good work.

----

From Anonymous:

Mark Twain famously said, "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead."

Just kidding. I enjoy your messages and detailed research…. Best regards and hope you are well.

----

From Anonymous:

Well said. Encore.👏🏼

----

From Anonymous:

Didn't California AB 130 already "neuter" the art jury ?

My Reply:

AB 130 has capped HOA fines to $100 per violation. I think that's the only substantive thing it changed. Whether or not that ends up neutering the Art Jury remains to be seen.

----

From Anonymous:

When I first saw this resolution I thought wow that’s pretty brazen of the Association Board...the Association doesn't want to be held to the same standard as the members it serves!! Thanks for the deeper dive on this issue.

----

From Anonymous:

Thanks for the article, Phil. Great work - you nailed all of the important points.

---

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.

---