RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - The ongoing rift between former Director Danny Carrillo and the other Rancho Murieta Association directors surfaced again at the board meeting on Aug. 19.

The dispute reignited when Carrillo, who resigned on Aug. 8, addressed the board during public comments. He offered to serve as an ombudsman for residents with concerns about the RMA Board and staff, saying his role would help ensure accountability. Carrillo also urged the board to place General Manager Rod Hart on leave, citing what he described as Hart’s lack of responsiveness to another resident who spoke at the meeting.

At the close of public comments, Director John Haviland and Board President Patrick O’Hern read statements responding to remarks Carrillo made at earlier meetings and in a full-page advertisement published in the Aug. 8 issue of the River Valley Times. Carrillo is proposing new leadership training for the board.

Background

The rift involving Carrillo and other directors first became public during a contentious board meeting on April 15.

(See "RMA Board Rift Emerges at Contentious Meeting")

Speaking during public comments, Carrillo said his fellow board members had quietly formed a committee to discuss matters requiring a closed session and excluded him from its meetings. He said he had been accused of disclosing confidential information, a charge he categorically denied.

Director Scott Adams defended the board’s actions, confirming that the executive session committee excluding Carrillo was formed with the advice of legal counsel.

Carrillo also proposed forming a Leadership & Community Improvement Committee to help the association recommit to transparency and open dialogue, though he did not request that it be placed on a future agenda.

Carrillo didn’t attend the May board meeting. However, speaking during public comments at the June 17 Board meeting, he stated that his efforts to get his committee proposal on the board agenda had been in vain.

(See "RMA Board Member Rift Continues")

Carrillo didn’t attend the July board meeting and submitted his resignation on Aug. 8.  

(See "Carrillo Resigns from RMA Board")

Carrillo also announced his resignation in a full-page advertisement that was published on Page 7 of the River Valley Times on Aug. 8.

In the advertisement, Carrillo announced he was stepping down due to his growing concern that certain board practices don’t align with the fiduciary standards set out in the Davis-Stirling act and the RMA Bylaws.  He also urged the formation of the leadership committee to ensure that RMA governance aligns with best practices already adopted by more than 1,500 HOAs. The petition was signed by 46 residents. He also called for action in the November election when three board seats will be vacant.

Danny Carrillo

Carrillo began his public comment at the August meeting by commending the previous speaker, Setareh Benasso. She criticized the  RMA for failing to address her concerns about a non-resident dog walker. 

Carrillo commended Benasso for putting her concerns in writing to avoid a “he said/she said” situation. He criticized General Manager Rod Hart’s handling of her complaints and the board’s lack of response to her email, and he recommended that the board consider placing Hart on a leave of absence pending further investigation.

Carrillo concluded by offering to serve as an ombudsman for residents with concerns about board members or staff, encouraging them to contact him for help in preparing written complaints to ensure accountability.

At the end of public comments, Board President Patrick O’Hern asked if any board member wished to make a statement.

John Haviland

Haviland said he was making a statement for Carrillo “because I think he deserves an explanation.” He thanked Carrillo for his efforts in researching the formation of a leadership committee.

“I must respectfully disagree with your assessment that this board is not functioning in the best interest of our community, or that the community is in need of someone like your committee to vet vendors to provide training for us,” he said.

Haviland defended the board’s qualifications: “I’m confident that you realize our board is a professional governing body comprised of conscientious and experienced members fully capable of managing and directing this association effectively.”

Haviland criticized the proposed training materials, calling them “a generic one-size-fits-all all, consultant-based training.” He added, “While they claim to have rescued other homeowner associations, I’m not convinced that such training would provide a tangible benefit to this organization.”

Haviland concluded by rejecting Carrillo’s proposal: “Therefore, I see no reason for spending the homeowners’ funds on leadership training for board members,” he said. “I consider the proposal that you’ve identified as an unnecessary waste of both time and resources, and I cannot support your proposal at this time.”

Dispute

When Carrillo asked to respond, Board President Patrick O’Hern told him he had already used his three minutes.

Carrillo then asked if he could use another resident’s time, as had been done in the past, but O’Hern said he could not.

At that point, Director Scott Adams intervened, noting that Carrillo had previously accused O’Hern of changing the rules on using another person’s time five months earlier.

Carrillo responded that a case in point was when John Merchant used someone else’s time.

“That’s right. That was a CSD town hall meeting at the country club about two and a half years ago,” Adams replied. “We operate under the rules for Davis-Sterling. We are not CSD.”

As Carrillo continued to object, Adams overrode him, saying that under RMA rules and past practices at board meetings, no one was allowed to use another person’s time to make a public comment.

“It’s not even reasonable under the Davis-Sterling Act,” he said. (The Davis-Stirling Act is the law governing homeowners’ associations.)

Patrick O’Hern

O’Hern opened his statement by emphasizing the board’s adherence to association rules and California law.

“The board endeavors to protect the lawful rights of its members, its employees and the board itself,” he said. “We are very careful adhering to the fiduciary duty, and if we have any concerns, we act after advice of our legal counsel.”

O’Hern then addressed the claim in Carrillo’s advertisement that 1,500 HOAs had been helped by the leadership education provider he was suggesting.

“If you take these numbers and calculate the percentages, assuming all 1,500 of the contracts were for California HOAs, the following comes to light: only 0.03, or 3% of California homeowners associations have associated themselves with these practices, meaning 97% of California HOAs have not.”

O’Hern said a similar calculation applied to HOAs across the United States, showing that only 0.41% had associated themselves with such practices, while 99.59% had not.

“So it is a very small number, and we don’t know the type of association: could have been anything from a brochure to a pamphlet,” he said.

O’Hern said the board “absolutely supports education” and emphasized that the current directors have an “unprecedented” level of education and experience.

O’Hern concluded by expressing frustration that an individual could accuse the board of transparency while knowing the board adheres to rules and regulations, “and will not divulge the confidential information which could fully clarify and justify everything they are required to do to protect the members and our employees.”

After O’Hern asked if anyone else had anything to say, Carrillo said he had a clarification. O’Hern told him “no” and hit his gavel.

“I humbly disagree with O’Hern and Haviland, for the record,” Carrillo said.

Later in the meeting, O’Hern allowed Carrillo to ask a couple of questions about an agenda item.