REBUTTAL TO CANDIDATE STATEMENT OF BRIAN KEATING
Submitted as factual rebuttal under Election Guidelines. Must be included in the election mailing and made available to all owners upon request, together with my candidate statement.
The Real Cost of Brian Keating’s “Fiscal Responsibility”
Mr. Keating promises efficient spending and fiscal transparency. Here is what transparency actually looks like on his watch:
The Board is spending your dues money to litigate whether the Davis-Stirling Act — the consumer protection law that has governed this Association for 40 years and under which every one of us purchased our property — still applies to R-Wild Horse Ranch. If they succeed, the Civil Code protections you rely on as an owner are at stake. Secret ballots, independent election oversight, your right to inspect financial records, open meeting requirements, Internal Dispute Resolution — many would no longer apply. The directors would answer only to whatever is written in the 1985 Bylaws, with no state law backstop protecting you.
This decision to change how you are governed was never put to a membership vote. The Board’s own Treasurer has repeatedly requested itemized invoices for legal expenses and has not received them. Legal costs have never been reported in open session with a stated amount or explanation — not to the Treasurer, not to the owners. Based on my direct involvement as the only defendant in litigation that affects ALL OF US, I estimate legal fees during Mr. Keating’s presidency have likely reached $90,000–$130,000 of YOUR DUES money. That is my estimate — offered only because the Board refuses to disclose the actual figure, its purpose, or put a stop to it.
To be precise about what this litigation is: Case No. 25CI-000260 was filed against me personally — one owner out of 2,890 — because I filed a small claims action under Davis-Stirling after 3 consecutive years of documented election failures and irregularities. The complaint also named “Does 1 - 50,” but no other owner has ever been served or notified. They filed in Superior Court. The outcome will determine every owner’s civil code rights. None of you were told any of this was happening.
As reflected in board minutes, Mr. Keating described eliminating your 40-year-old Davis-Stirling rights as a matter of Board “convenience” — at his first meeting as President in February 2025.
These are not the practices of a board that listens. They are the practices of a board that has decided it knows best — and is using your money to make that permanent.
On “Collaborative Governance”
Mr. Keating promises “data-informed decisions that reflect the priorities of our entire community.” Yet the cell tower lease was executed without the owner vote that the Board’s own committee chair requested on the record — in approved minutes. During Mr. Keating’s tenure, most executive sessions have violated not only Civil Code but the Board’s own 1985 Bylaws which require that “all meetings of the Board of Directors shall be open to all members” and that executive session business “shall first be announced in open session” (Art. VI, §10). The very Bylaws this Board is spending your dues to make supreme are the ones it refuses to follow. My requests that this practice stop date back to mid-2023. I have requested Internal Dispute Resolution for several years and received one 40-minute session in response — all while $90,000 to $130,000 of your dues funded lawyers instead.
Mr. Keating calls this collaborative governance. Ask yourself: when did he collaborate with you?
Talk to your neighbors. Share this. Every vote counts — and this one counts more than most.
— Denise Flores (Breese), Owner #2357