Gary W. Moselle, Petitioner vs. Desert Mountain Master Association, Respondent - 18F-H1817005-REL-RH

Описание: This summary pertains to Case No. 18F-H1817005-REL-RHG, an administrative action concerning Arizona's planned community open meeting laws, which includes a rehearing (RHG) of the original decision.

***

Key Facts and Initial Proceedings

The Petitioner, Gary W. Moselle, filed a petition against the Respondent, Desert Mountain Master Association (DMMA), a homeowners association in Scottsdale, Arizona. Petitioner, who was the Chair of the DMMA Communications Committee, alleged that DMMA violated A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16 (specifically § 33-1804), when the Communications Committee held a closed meeting on September 6, 2017, which he was not permitted to attend.

Main Legal Issue

The central legal issue in both the original hearing and the rehearing was the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), which mandates that "all meetings of the members' association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members". The dispute hinged on whether the DMMA Communications committee met the standard of being "regularly scheduled".

Original Hearing and Decision (November 17, 2017)

Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner argued that the meeting was "regularly scheduled" because it was scheduled in a normal manner, citing the statute's policy statement (§ 33-1804(F)) that favors open meetings.

Respondent's Argument: DMMA argued that "regularly scheduled" meant meetings that occurred at regular, established intervals (e.g., monthly or quarterly). DMMA presented testimony that the Communications committee met infrequently—only four times in 2016 and 2017—and therefore did not meet the definition.

Outcome of Original Decision (December 7, 2017): The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sided with the Respondent, concluding that the DMMA Communication committee did not hold "regularly scheduled meetings" and was thus not subject to the open meetings law. The petition was denied.

Rehearing Proceedings (April 20, 2018)

Request for Rehearing: Petitioner requested a rehearing on or about January 4, 2018, citing newly discovered material evidence (an email sent after the original hearing) and arguing that the original decision was contrary to law. The request for rehearing was granted on January 26, 2018.

Rehearing Arguments: At the rehearing, Petitioner again argued that "regularly scheduled" should be interpreted broadly to mean scheduled in a normal fashion, noting that other committees met only "at the request of the chair". DMMA maintained its original position that the phrase requires meetings to occur at regular, established intervals.

Final Legal Points and Decision: The ALJ conducted a statutory construction analysis. The ALJ concluded that the plain language of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) applies to meetings that occur at regular intervals. Furthermore, the general policy favoring open meetings in § 33-1804(F) does not override the specific requirement in § 33-1804(A) that only "regularly scheduled" committee meetings must be open.

Outcome of Rehearing Decision (May 10, 2018): The ALJ affirmed the original conclusion, finding that the DMMA Communication committee did not hold "regularly scheduled" meetings at the time of the September 6, 2017, incident, and therefore DMMA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804. The petition was again denied, and this rehearing order was binding on the parties.

Case Details:
Case ID: 18F-H1817005-REL-RHG
Docket: 18F-H1817005-REL-RHG

For more AZ HOA transparency resources visit https://yourazhoaattorney.com

Legal & Accuracy Notice - yourazhoaattorney.com is operated by Hound LLC, a homeowner-run project, not a law firm. Nothing in this video is legal advice or creates an attorney-client relationship. We analyze public ADRE/OAH records and may express opinions. Not affiliated with ADRE or the OAH. Read the full Legal & Terms: https://yourazhoaattorney.com/legal