Should I recuse myself?

From your posts here my bet is that you can be objective and in fact will take more care to get the decision right. If I were you, I would not recuse. And yes, I tend to think the fiduciary duty here for you personally is not to recuse.

Let Owner LameBrain take any Board rejection of the ARC application to court.

It should be established that most of the time the President does not cast the deciding vote. It does not necessarily work that way. Majority rules are at play here. If you are out voted then so be it the decision. You can obtain from voting and have that recorded. That way when they demand the vote count it shows you obtained. You did not make the final decision. Just delivered and enforcing it.

I would recuse myself. Even if you might not cast a vote unless there was a tie-breaker, as Melissa noted, the appearance of favoritism (or retaliation in this case) can be just as bad as the reality. This homeowner would probably find a way to claim you influenced the vote if he loses, so skip it. He may still try to criticize you, but how can he respond if you say chose to recuse yourself because of past conflicts and want to ensure fairness - especially if everyone's heard him barking about you and your family?

Just for shits and grins, I sort of hope one of your board colleagues asked him point-blank about his behavior over the past two years. Is he filing this appeal because he KNOWS he's wrong, but wants to find something else to use against you? That would be fun to listen to (but if you recuse yourself, don't go to the hearing - you'll hear about it sooner or later).

I think it is the best option for the circumstances. The president is often looked upon as the decision maker. They tend to be reflected that the HOA decision is the President not board or owners. It is perception.

I would just obstain my vote. That neither denies or approves. A president really does not have 'dictator' powers. They may have tie breaking at most.

It will almost certainly be 5-0 against as his request (a shed) is clearly not allowed and has been turned down 100% of the time over the years. I just joined the board in August, but from what people on the ARC have told me he often makes requests that are clearly not allowed, as if for the sport of it.

Of course not, but you know people are messy and will say and do all sorts of stupid stuff. These days, I put nothing past the idiocy of the public and this owner has already expressed his dislike for the OP. I can see the hearing getting disrupted by the guy going on and on about something he thinks the president did/didn't/should/shouldn't do, bringing up ish that happened two years ago, which has nothing to do with the ARC denial or appeal. Pretty soon, nothing gets done and people still go home mad.

If the OP isn't there, the homeowner may still squawk and show his ass, but that sort of thing isn't as fun when the object of your dislike isn't there to hear it. Instead, the story gets out about him showing his behind vs. the president having the grace to step away precisely so this owner can focus on his ARC instead of a personal beef. It'll even be more fun if the guy loses anyway - he won't be able to blame the OP if he wasn't even there.

That is a pretty good summary of my thoughts. He seems to be an unstable guy, and potentially violent. I think if I'm not there it would remove fuel for his fire, and I can't imagine it would change the vote. But I'm not sure if any of this is a good enough reason to abstain. I came here hoping people would 100% support my recusal, but that isn't the case so now I believe I might need to suck it up.

If I abruptly stop posting you will know why!

I am 100% for you not voting and abstaining your vote. That is an option. It is not just yeah or nah. You can say I obstain. You have to preside over the meeting. Make sure it goes in the notes. How many votes yeah or nah or abstained. That is official HOA document that can be used in court if need be.

David and Others,
Typically, the way an appeal is handled in most cases, and I see no reason why this should be different. The person making the appeal goes into an Executive session with the board behind closed doors. He is given time to state his/her reasons for the objection and at that point if the board has any questions regarding the specifics of the remarks, they are asked at that point and answered. You then thank them for coming to the meeting and let them know that they will be informed the result of the appeal by email with 14 days.

The board meets to discuss directly after the owner leaves the room and takes the vote. The PMC then mails the letter, and the case is closed.

Thinking out loud here. I see arguments on both sides of this.

Do Not Recuse

* A board member's duty to vote on all matter put before the board.

* If you do not benefit financially from the outcome of the decision, you are not obligated to recuse yourself.

* Precedent: You don't want to allow any homeowner to bully the board into a favorable decision or to harm the community's ability to elect board members because nobody wants to get on Mr. Bully's bad side.

Do Recuse

* If you believe that this person is a danger to you or your family, you shouldn't put yourself in harm's way.

* It sounds like the appeal will not be granted in any case. so your vote will not affect the outcome of the decision.

I think this issue is bigger than the usual ARC decision and should also be addressed outside of the appeal process. Is the person a danger to the community? Will he simmer down if you do not vote, or will be pick a different target? At what point should attorneys or even law enforcement get involved (cease and desist letter, legal complaint for harassment, etc.)?

The bottom line is that won't matter what you do in this particular case, but there are bigger picture issues.

I am saying how I would respond, based on observing boards for over two decades; observing HOA litigation for about 15 years now; experience as a director (two years). The litigation included a restraining order against a hostile and aggressive owner.

For liability reasons at this point I would motion to have the attorney review the situation and advise. I happen to think a cease and desist letter to stop this man from communicating directly with the board is appropriate. All communications must go through the manager. The attorney should warn the owner that harassment of the manager, any director, or any other agent of the HOA will result in legal action.

This benefits the owners, the current board, the current manager, and future boards and managers.

I would also ask the attorney if holding the ARC meeting by telecom or zoom would be acceptable.

Another reason I do not like your recusing yourself is because this may set up the other directors for this owner's wrath.

Good to read you have mastered the art of staying cool and totally get the value of doing so.

If anyone raises disability concerns: Wait until this owner raises them. Do not think for one second that a disabled person has the right to harass, assault or disrupt meetings.

As so often is the case, I agree with Mark here because he, like I, has many, many years of experience involved on HOA Boards IN executive session hearings. Mark describes how hearings also are held in Calif. per statutes and my HOA's CC&Rs and Rules & Regs. I assume DE is the same or very similar, and David needs to double check that the invitation to the hearing and the hearing itself are done exactly right per the HOA's docs & DE statute.

Exec. sess. is completely private. Except for the Board and PM, if present. No one else, including Mr. Shed-head knows who voted or how they voted. It is a director's duty to vote, so he should. That’s a non-issue. It's whether David should attend. And if so, should he leave(recuse himself) the hearing during the discussion of Shed-head's case. I think he should stay, but not preside or say a word during the hearing with Mr. SH.

My reason for thinking David should stay is it shows leadership and the willingness to stick by his board colleagues in a tough situation. I believe it builds trust of David among the Board given David's only been president & on the Board for a few months. He should just sit still and show without expression that he's paying attention to the chair and to SH. In advance, the Board can decide the best spot where David should sit.

The written invitation to the hearing should state that the SOLE topic for discussion is the shed. The ARC's denial report should be a part of this correspondence, which every director must read and be satisfied that the decision was correct given your ARC guidelines & gov. docs.

SH is called in; the meeting chair & invites him to sit down and introduces those present to him The chair states something like: "I'll summarize your request, which we’ve all read, and when I am finished, you may explain to us in three minute why we ought to reconsider the ARC's decision. Remember, that is our sole and ONLY topic. You may now address the Board to explain why we should violate our xx & xx documents, and ignore our ARC’s recommendation. The Board will then ask you to leave and will deliberate & vote on a decision. You'll receive our decision in xx days.”

Prior to calling SH into the hearing room, The Board can agree among directors how to proceed. The Board, imo, should agree to motion & vote to appoint some other director as meeting chair. (Perhaps the PM presides at meetings, as in some HOAs; might be a good thing.) No reason needs to be in the minutes.
Directors might also agree that if Mr. SH exceeds his allotted time, goes off-topic or, certainly, if he becomes abusive, the meeting chair will immediately interrupt him and instruct him to correct his conduct. Directors also can agree that if SH persists, any director may also tell him to, stop or the Board will ask him to leave the meeting. If he persists, any other director, and I did this once and it worked, may rise and walking towards SH, ask him to leave the meeting. If he refuses, the meeting chair may ask for a motion & board vote to adjourn and reconvene in private (don’t reveal the place to SH) to make their decision.

If David & his Board can pull this off, the entire meeting should take no more than about 10-15 minutes.

If everyone is concerned about violence, then a Zoom meeting may be the only option OR even postponement.

Shelia's idea to have an off-duty cop or your own security staffer, if you have them, in attendance, makes a lot of sense. make sure the officer is tannin at the door way when SH enters. But, since the whole matter should be done in executive (closed) session, this officer should be stationed outside the room with her/his # on speed dial.