Even if the Board’s infractions don’t amount to a catastrophic failure, the rules have been broken

Let’s start with a basic truth: HOA Board members receive no formal training, no licensing, and no certification before they assume control over the operations of our community. And yet, they’re entrusted with decisions about how money is spent, how rules are enforced, and how homeowners are treated.

That lack of oversight doesn't mean they get to operate without limits. In fact, their conduct is governed by California state law—specifically the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act. This law outlines not just the mechanics of HOA governance, but also the ethical expectations of Board members. Directors are required to act in the best interest of the entire Association—not themselves, not their friends, and not just the people they agree with.

At Willow Glen Creek, our Board does not voluntarily participate in any formal ethics training. Think about that: we are entrusting thousands of dollars, enforcement power, and decision-making authority to a group of volunteers who are expected to “just know” how to do the right thing. And too often, what's considered “right” seems to depend on which way the wind is blowing.

And so, this begs the question: Who holds the Board accountable?

Who holds the Board accountable?

At present, there is no mechanism ensuring that all Board members are acting ethically—and not all of them are.

Shane Patrick Connolly has previously leased, and may still be leasing, less than 100% of his unit—a clear violation of the CC&Rs.

Ron Rickard is currently leasing less than 100% of his unit—also a violation of the CC&Rs.

These concerns have been submitted to the Board formally in writing on multiple occasions. And yet:

• Has an investigation been launched? No.
• Have these Directors been held to the same standard as other Owners facing minor violations? Absolutely not.

This is precisely the kind of selective enforcement and self-protective behavior that erodes community trust and undermines ethical governance. If the Board won’t hold itself accountable, then we must.

And one of the main reasons why the Board is not held accountable is because the Membership continues to vote for them.

Does the Board have a Uniform Compliant Policy and Procedure? And if it does, are those documents published to the Membership?

While the law may not explicitly say that selective enforcement of the CC&Rs is unethical, many would agree that Directors in an HOA protecting themselves from scrutiny and avoiding accountability is dangerously close. The spirit of ethical governance is being broken, even if the letter of the law is being tiptoed around.

So, when the Board (either collectively or individually) acts in a way that is opposite to basic ethical tenants, it is up to the Membership to hold them accountable and when the Membership is not able to hold the Board accountable, that's where courts step in.

And there is a plethora of examples of case law affecting HOAs in California.

In summary:

• We deserve better.
• We deserve Board members who are willing to be held accountable.
• We deserve transparency.
• We deserve neutrality.

Even if the Board’s infractions don’t amount to a catastrophic failure, the rules have still been broken. And if the Board wants to assert authority over the Membership, it must also remember this: Board members are not above the Membership—they are part of it. Nothing, absolutely nothing, excuses them from the same accountability expected of every homeowner.