Art Jury Board Opinion

When Board Conflicts Drive Policy, the Only Answer Is “No”

02/01/2026
Editorial Board

The RSFA Board’s recent attempt to rush through new “Operating Instructions to Art Jury Members” at the January Board meeting raised immediate red flags – not least because current Art Jury members learned of the proposal just 48 hours before a planned Board vote, during a closed-session meeting. Only after objections from a sitting juror, including three members who had just begun their terms, was the item tabled until the next meeting which is at 10 am, Thursday, February 5.

This lack of transparency is troubling. Despite claims of openness in Director David Gamboa’s January President’s Message, the proposal was neither shared in advance with experienced outgoing jurors nor meaningfully vetted with those charged with carrying out the work. Members are left to wonder why a policy that had clearly been in development for months was introduced in such a hurried and opaque manner – potentially running afoul of Davis-Stirling open meeting principles.

Why It Matters

Why does this matter? Because the Art Jury’s independence is not optional. As articulated by longtime Rancho Santa Fe real estate professional Heather Manion Gallagher in her recent Rancho Santa Fe Review Letter to the Editor, the Art Jury plays a central role in protecting property values, community character, and homeowner investment by providing independent, experience-based design review – precisely the function these new protocols threaten to weaken.

Art Jury independence is mandated by the Protective Covenant. The Covenant establishes a clear separation of powers: the Board governs, while the Art Jury independently reviews design to protect the long-term character of Rancho Santa Fe. The Board cannot sidestep that framework by inventing “guidelines” that effectively rewrite the Covenant without a member vote.

Although the proposal has since been rebranded as “Guideline Protocols for the Art Jury and Building Department,” changing the name doesn’t change the impact. Several provisions materially alter how the Art Jury functions – and who ultimately controls it.

Staff Control vs. Independent Oversight

First, staff would be tasked with identifying “clashes” between applications and the Covenant and forwarding action recommendations to the Art Jury. This framing improperly narrows the Art Jury’s discretion and omits the Residential Design Guidelines and art juror judgment based on decades of collective experience. Art jurors routinely identify significant violations missed by staff. Limiting their authority to staff-defined issues undermines the very purpose of independent review.

Second, the protocols require the Building Commissioner to report on Art Jury “efficiency” directly to the Board and to meet periodically with Board leadership. This places paid staff in the untenable position of monitoring and reporting on volunteer art jurors – individuals meant to be insulated from political pressure. It also signals micromanagement and discourages qualified volunteers from serving.

Third, the protocols attempt to restrict the Art Jury’s review to staff recommendations, preventing the Art Jury from addressing unrelated but known compliance issues on a property. This is particularly troubling given that Director Mark Simpson, one of the strongest proponents of these changes was himself found to have unapproved structures on his property – issues uncovered only because the Art Jury exercised independent oversight. Policy driven by personal grievance is not good governance.

The document also emphasizes that Art Jurors must avoid conflicts of interest – an accurate but redundant reminder, given that Board and committee members already sign annual the RSFA Standard of Conduct and Ethics Code. What is conspicuously absent is the same rigor applied to the Board itself.

When Grievance Becomes Governance

Directors LeBeau and Simpson, who are spearheading these changes, have long records of hostility toward the Art Jury. At some point during a closed-session Board meeting, they became a subcommittee to make changes to Art Jury policy. Director LeBeau intervened on behalf of applicants during her presidency, undermining the Art Jury’s independence. Director Simpson has publicly disparaged jurors and reportedly pressured staff after his own violations were discovered. These circumstances create, at minimum, the appearance of bias.

Finally, the protocols assert that Art Jurors are subject to the same standard for removal as Board members. This directly contradicts the Protective Covenant, which specifies how and when art jurors may be removed. The Board cannot redefine Covenant terms by resolution; changes to the Protective Covenant require a member vote.

In sum, this proposal represents a veiled attempt to weaken a century-old, member-approved system without member consent. It should be rejected outright. Failing that, Directors LeBeau, and Simpson must recuse themselves from voting on BOTH the proposed Guideline Protocols and the related resolution exempting RSFA projects from Art Jury review.

Members deserve governance rooted in fairness, independence, and respect for the Covenant. Not expedience or personal retribution. Submit member input urging the Board to vote “NO.”

Board of Directors email addresses:

Leave a Reply