Vicky Glover, vs. Foothills Community Association - 19F-H1919046-REL

Описание: This summary details the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the matter of Vicky Glover v. Foothills Community Association (No. 19F-H1919046-REL). The hearing occurred on May 10, 2019.

Key Facts and Allegations

Vicky Glover (Petitioner), a property owner, filed a petition alleging that Foothills Community Association (FCA or Respondent), a homeowners association, violated Arizona state statutes (A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, specifically A.R.S. § 33-1804). The violations alleged were twofold:
Email Meetings: FCA held unannounced email meetings where the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted on non-emergency open-meeting subject matters. These decisions were often "ratified" at the next scheduled DRC meeting.
Right to Speak: FCA did not permit Petitioner to speak at "an appropriate time" during DRC meetings, specifically when she wished to speak on other members’ pending requests during the December 2018 and January 2019 meetings.

Main Legal Issues and Arguments

The dispute hinged on the interpretation and application of A.R.S. § 33-1804, which mandates that all meetings of the board of directors and any regularly scheduled committee meetings must be open to members, who must be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time.

#### 1. Speaking Rights at Committee Meetings

Petitioner argued that A.R.S. § 33-1804 required her to be allowed to speak after a specific agenda item was discussed but before formal action was taken.
Legal Point: The ALJ found that while the statute requires open meetings for regularly scheduled committees (like the DRC) and allows speaking at an "appropriate time," the provision mandating the opportunity to speak after discussion but before a vote applies only to Board meetings, not committee meetings, based on the plain language of the statute.
Conclusion on Speaking Rights: The ALJ concluded it was reasonable for the DRC to determine that deliberation regarding a different member’s request was not an appropriate time for the Petitioner to speak during the committee meeting. Thus, the DRC did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804 by restricting her speech during those portions of the meetings.

#### 2. Email Discussions as Meetings

Petitioner argued that the use of email for discussions and decisions violated open meeting requirements.
Legal Point: The ALJ found that deliberations, discussions, and decisions made via email do not constitute "regularly scheduled committee meetings" under A.R.S. § 33-1804. Because these communications did not occur at a set time (e.g., weekly, monthly), they do not fall under the statutory requirement for open meetings.
Policy Consideration: The general state policy favoring open meetings (A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)) does not override the specific provision in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) requiring committee meetings to be regularly scheduled to be open.

Final Outcome

The Petitioner bore the burden of proving a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 by a preponderance of the evidence. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner did not establish any violation of the statute. Therefore, Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Case Details:
Case ID: 19F-H1919046-REL
Docket: 19F-H1919046-REL

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