Conflicts of Interest and Correcting Some Errors

Author: Phil Trubey

Date: May 29, 2026

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

---

Error Corrections

The RSF Post (which I am not affiliated with) recently wrote two articles that contained inaccuracies.

Gateway Project

Regarding the Gateway Project (conversion of the gas station into apartments), it is true that the Association, by request of the property owner, started formal proceedings September 2023 to change the zoning to class D (which would have prohibited apartments). 

But the article writer missed this later January 2024 staff memo educating all of us (I was on the Board at the time), that the Court had granted the property both a class F and a class G designation (the court worded it as F or G, but the result is the same, the owners can chose which zoning they wish). So the change to zone D was dropped as unnecessary. And class F does allow apartments, so no zoning is required now for the currently proposed use of the property contrary to what the RSF Post article says.

Silvergate

And then in another article the Post insinuated that the Silvergate developer is not an Association member. However, he is an Association member, so sending Board campaign material to members is completely within his rights.

Reach Out

I reached out to the Post via email and text about these matters Thursday morning and have not received a reply.

---

Please Comment On Conflict of Interest Resolution

At the last meeting, the Board voted to publish for Member comment this proposed resolution which prohibits a couple, like a husband and wife, from concurrently serving on the Board of Directors and a committee like the Art Jury, golf board, infrastructure, etc.

First, this resolution wasn't easy to find. For the first time in RSFA history, they hid the resolution behind an extra email step to actually see the document. When you went to the Association website and clicked on the link to view it, you got this:

All previous proposed Board resolutions have always been simply posted on the web site. Update: The Association now links the proposed resolution directly from the website after I questioned this practice.

So what's the proposed resolution? This:

Now therefore, be it resolved, effective the adoption date of this resolution, a Member is not eligible to serve on an Association committee, club Board or committee, if the Member, if appointed, would be serving at the same time as another Member who is serving on the Board of Directors and who holds a joint ownership interest in the same Separate Interest parcel as the Association Director. To be considered for appointment to the Art Jury, a Member must agree, as a condition of appointment, to resign from the Art Jury if a joint owner of that Member’s Separate Interest is elected to the Board of Directors.

Interestingly there is currently a husband and wife serving on the Board (Joanne Marks) and golf committee (Mick Marks). When I asked a Board member what the genesis of this resolution was, I was assured it had nothing to do with the Marks, and that it was a reaction to when I was on the Board and my wife was on the Art Jury.

Nice. Love those drive by retroactive anonymous smears.

Since I too have heard the rumors, I'd like to categorically state that at no time did my wife and I engage in any conduct that could have been called a conflict of interest, nor did we collude on any vote, nor take any vote that wasn't, in our own personal belief, in the best interests of the Association.

Any rumor mongering to the contrary is slander. I will refrain from actually naming the Board Member(s) who have trafficked in such accusations, you know who you are.

ANYWAY, with that out of the way, please take a moment to think about this proposed resolution and give your thoughts to the Board at memberinput@rsfassociation.org. Personally I think the resolution is completely unnecessary and faintly insulting, but I might be biased. 

Both the Board and committees are composed of many members, so even in a collusion situation, one vote wouldn't matter. But, really, what other government or quasi government organization has this level of restriction for spouses? I asked AI about this and it could not find a single case of such a prohibition at the federal, state or local level in government.

Again, I might be biased, but this strikes me as retaliatory sour grapes and/or yet another misguided side swipe at the Art Jury. We have enough trouble finding good volunteers for the Association, we don't need to make it harder.

Reach Out

Thursday morning, I asked the Association Board President about why they added an extra email step to request a copy of the resolution and was told he'd get back to me, after saying he didn't know about it. I have yet to hear why this was done this way.

---

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.

---