Reasons for FIRE's
Recall of Michael Williams
Reason #1. Williams sees himself as “above the law.” He owes over $6000 in fines because he does not follow regulations and policies governing all Greenhills homeowners.
Community members have the reasonable expectation that a board member adheres to policies and regulations that govern all members, including meeting regulations regarding Architectural Review, paying fines, and otherwise obeying regulations that apply to all members. Williams, by his own admission at a public board meeting, currently owes the association over $6000 in fines for unapproved alterations to the exterior of his home that began in 2022. His unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations like other homeowners suggests he sees himself “above the law,” an untenable position for the board and the association.
​
His allegation that he has been selectively targeted for these fines is an allegation that, in a lawsuit concluded in February 2023, was demonstrated to be false. What is more, in his 2023 candidate statement he claimed he would work to review all fines on homeowners with the possibility of forgiveness without disclosing to the voters at the time that he had already accumulated fines for the violations described above. In so doing, he demonstrates action on his own behalf and not on that of the HOA.
​
Reason #2. Williams regularly costs the HOA legal fees because of his actions, and those actions represent real and potential liabilities for the HOA.
Williams’ presence on the board has cost and will continue to cost the association thousands of dollars in legal fees and possibly even litigation involving homeowners. This situation not only impacts our financial status but also threatens our insurance coverage. First, President Stocker, with advice from legal counsel, has had to publicly refute Williams’ false allegations at board meetings. The reason for this action is that, if unchecked, Williams’ false allegations and misinformation are treated as “accepted” when they are patently not true. Second, HOA legal counsel has had to intervene with a cease-and-desist letter to Williams, a letter that Williams himself announced and discussed in a publication on April 15, 2024. This cease-and-desist letter was prompted by his rogue intervention in a neighbor-on-neighbor dispute, which could have resulted in a legal action filed against the HOA because Williams violated those neighbors’ confidentiality. In addition, the cease-and-desist letter delineates additional violations of policy and procedure by Williams that interfere with the wellbeing and functioning of the HOA. Since his election to the HOA board, Williams has cost the association thousands of dollars in legal fees to protect the HOA from his rogue actions. The cost of a recall will be returned within several months once our legal fees from his actions are decreased.
​
Reason #3. Williams has not met the standard expectations of duties performed by the CFO/Treasurer of the HOA.
As CFO/treasurer, Williams has failed to perform duties expected of such a position. Regular reports from the CFO are lacking. In addition, analyses of current financial status, projected status, and plans for the financial wellbeing have not been forthcoming. Although such financial matters ultimately fall to the entire board, it is reasonable that the CFO take the lead and demonstrate some knowledge of our accounts, how they work, and projections for the future. What is more, Williams does not provide appropriate reports at monthly board meetings regarding the financial health and future of the HOA. More generally, Williams is underprepared for board meetings and for the discussion of financial and other matters on the agenda. On more than one occasion, he has shown ignorance of financial statements and what they mean. He has made no suggestions or motions of merit regarding the HOA’s finances, and instead has made false allegations about spending and who signs checks, all of which have been refuted at Board meetings. All board members must act with due diligence in matters that affect the financial wellbeing of an HOA, and it is reasonable to expect the CFO to adhere to this standard.
​
Reason #4. Williams is in violation of well-known legal and ethical standards in the state of California regarding the Board of Directors of HOAs.
Williams has repeatedly violated what is known in California legal circles as the “One Voice Rule.” The One Voice Rule says that board members may disagree and debate a matter during board business, but that once a decision is taken, the board should act as one voice, without any individual board member publicly denouncing a decision or undermining the authority of the board or calling out board members for how they voted. On multiple occasions, Williams has railed against the board and its members in his so called “independent newsletter” as well as on social media. He has negatively commented on decisions taken and, in some cases, has singled out other board members often in a derogatory and name-calling manner that include false allegations and speculative statements. Even after having received a cease-and-desist letter from the HOA attorney, he continues in such negative and unethical behavior. In so doing, he demonstrates action on his own behalf and not on that of the HOA, failing to meet the standards of fiduciary duties of a board member, and clearly violating the One Voice Rule.
​
Reason #5. Williams demonstrates voting behaviors and actions suggestive of motives that are self-serving or driven by personal vendetta.
As a board member, Williams has engaged in what can be called “grievance politics.” Although board members need not vote in unison on every matter, reasons for voting for or against a particular motion or board business must be based on what is best for the association. Voting should not be based on how a particular board member “feels” about other board members or personal animosity toward a vendor, a contractor, or any other entity. Williams has repeatedly demonstrated voting behavior that is based on grievances he has had with board members, vendors, and individuals. In so doing, he demonstrates action on his own behalf and not on that of the HOA.
​
Reason #6. Williams is in violation of Greenhills policies that govern the conduct of the Board of Directors.
Williams engages in behavior that violates the social media policy enacted in 2019. This policy prohibits directors from using social media such as Nextdoor and Facebook to engage in board business, to denounce board actions, to demean or ridicule community members or board members, among other actions. Williams has a documented record of using Nextdoor to engage in such prohibited behaviors. As stated above, such behavior violates the well-known One Voice Rule that governs Boards of Directors in California. In so doing, Williams demonstrates action on his own behalf and not on that of the HOA. As detailed in other points laid out here, such violations are compounded by the content and intent of his posts, namely, to spread misinformation if not disinformation and to make derogatory comments about board members and community members.
​
Reason #7. Williams regularly engages in the spreading of misinformation and disinformation that is harmful to the HOA.
On multiple occasions, Williams has engaged in misinformation if not disinformation and borderline defamatory comments such that, under counsel from the association’s attorney, the board has had to formally refute his claims, resulting ultimately in five formal censures of Williams. Censures should not be shrugged off. They represent serious if not legal concerns about the actions and behaviors of a board member. What is more, Williams has used his so-called newsletter to rail against community members and in one such newsletter referred to those community members in attendance at a monthly board meeting as “rats.” His continued use of the term “the three amigos” to refer to board members is both culturally insensitive and derogatory in its use. Combined with other items presented in these email messages, Williams’ actions contribute to a toxic environment detrimental to the wellbeing and functioning of the HOA and the efforts of the board to conduct the business of the association. In so doing, he demonstrates action on his own behalf and not on that of the HOA.
(A censure is a formal reprimand that is recorded in order to document behavior. It should not be confused with “censor.”)
​
