As a Covenant member and former Art Jury member, I believe deeply in the Protective Covenant (PC) and its unambiguity in one essential respect: it establishes a separation of authority between the RSFA Board and the Art Jury. Not as a suggestion. Not as a courtesy. But as a safeguard – to ensure fair, independent, and unbiased design review.
Two Board resolutions being proposed (to be voted upon at the upcoming Board meeting at 10 am, Thursday, February 5) don’t “modernize” that structure. It methodically takes it apart. It attempts to bypass the PC by collapsing the separation of powers between the Board and the Art Jury. The PC is clear: the Art Jury exists to provide fair, independent design review.
That independence is not accidental. It is foundational.
Under the proposals, much of the Art Jury’s authority would be transferred to paid staff, who then report to the Board and, in some cases, monitor the “compliance” of Art Jury. That is not independence. That is control at a safe distance. Oversight by proxy, with plausible deniability built in. That should concern every homeowner in this community.
First, this puts staff in an impossible position. They have mortgages, children, and careers to protect. Expecting them to exercise the same independence as volunteers is not just unrealistic – it’s a very tidy way to ensure compliance without ever having to ask for it.
When a controversial decision sparks community backlash, and it does, it is not the Board directors who lose their jobs. It is staff. History is quite clear on this. When pressure rises, the Association staff become the sacrificial lamb, while directors walk away unscathed.
Some Board members have claimed the Art Jury holds “too much power.” But this resolution doesn’t rebalance power – it transfers it to the Board. Requiring staff to report to the Board rather than committee presidents ensures outcomes rather than deliberation. It silences dissent.
It also neatly explains why my request last Fall to present to the Board a year-end report as Art Jury president – something done every year – was denied. Each Art Juror volunteers hundreds of hours over a three-year term. And yet, we were denied even an audience. The implication is unmistakable: participation is welcome, so long as it is silent.
For a Board that speaks often about litigation risk, this course is remarkably confident. Community goodwill is not infinite. To newer board members especially: choose carefully where you hitch your wagon. Individually, most directors are perfectly reasonable people. Collectively, however, something fascinating happens – it’s a boldness that edges uncomfortably close to hubris.
The Protective Covenant is not an obstacle. It is a restraint. And for now, it appears to be working exactly as intended.
Kelli Hillard, a Covenant resident and former Art Jury member, submitted the member input at the January Board of Directors meeting.