Governance Alert: Director Patrick Szeto Characterizes Civil Rights Compliance as "Forced," Refuses to Substantiate Claims & Exposes HOA to Liability

Date: Dec 5, 2025 Category: Civil Rights / Association Governance

Summary Compliance with Fair Housing laws is a mandatory duty of the Association, not an optional burden. However, during the Open Board Meeting on November 10, 2025, Director Patrick Szeto publicly stated that the Board was "forced" to grant a previous landscaping improvement—a project the homeowner paid for entirely out-of-pocket and which was consistent with the CC&Rs as admitted by the Board in writing. This comment reveals a troubling mindset regarding civil rights.

When viewed in the context of the hostility Director Patrick Szeto displayed during the original interactive process and subsequent to it regarding this accommodation, his recent public comments raise concerns about a pattern of discriminatory conduct.

Furthermore, Director Patrick Szeto was given a formal deadline to provide a written response to the Board. He has failed to respond. This refusal to engage with formal governance inquiries raises serious legal concerns regarding his fiduciary duties.

1. The Incident: "Forced" Compliance & Hostility During the Open Session of the November 10 meeting, Director Patrick Szeto distinguished between the current HOA-funded project and a previous individual project by stating the Board was "forced" to approve the earlier one.

• The Contradiction: This characterization is factually false based on the Association’s own records. The official approval letter for that project explicitly stated that the work outlined was approved by the board and "consistent with the requirements of the Association's CC&Rs."

• The Question: If the work was consistent with the CC&Rs (as the Board admitted in writing), how could the Board be "forced" to approve it? Approving a compliant request is a duty, not a coercion.

  The Reality: Forced to follow CC&Rs vs Duty to follow CC&Rs? For example, the Board cannot claim they are being "forced" to maintain landscaping on private lots or common areas as if it were a concession. The community's governing documents explicitly mandate this work as a permanent obligation for all "Association Maintenance Areas" (CC&R § 2.7 and CC&R § 5.3.1). Performing a mandatory duty is not "force"—it is governance.

• Corroboration of Hostility: This verbal characterization of disability rights as "force" aligns with a broader pattern of hostility documented in the community. For example, written correspondence from the Director's allies has similarly characterized this same disability accommodation as being "coerced via disability argument". This suggests that the Director's comment is a reflection of a discriminatory mindset that views the exercise of civil rights as an act of aggression against the HOA.

• Creating Hostility: By making this statement in an Open Meeting, the Director’s comment effectively attempts to isolate specific homeowners and incite hostility against them for exercising their civil rights.

2. The Legal Concern: Discussing Confidential Matters in Open Session Beyond the tone, the act of discussing the nature or motivations of a Disability Accommodation in an Open Meeting raises serious legal concerns.

• Regulatory Standards (2 CCR § 12176): California regulations mandate that "All information concerning an individual’s disability... shall be kept confidential and shall not be shared with other persons who are not directly involved in the interactive process."

• Constitutional Privacy Concerns: Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution guarantees all residents an inalienable Right to Privacy. By publicly identifying a specific home's improvement as a "forced" accommodation, Director Patrick Szeto implicated the resident's private medical necessity to the community. Furthermore, this misleading characterization effectively compelled this public disclosure. Had Director Patrick Szeto not stigmatized the project as an act of "force," this post would not have been required to publicly address these private matters to protect the resident from community hostility.

3. The Ethical Failure: A Comparative Example To understand why this conduct is unacceptable, consider a parallel scenario in a school setting:

Would it be acceptable for a School Principal to stand up at a public PTA meeting and announce that the school was "forced" to provide extra time on an exam for a student with limited hand dexterity, even though it meant a teacher had to be paid for extra hours to proctor it?

The answer is clearly no. Such a statement would likely violate federal laws (like FERPA and Section 504) and would be immediately recognized as unprofessional retaliation against a student for exercising their civil rights.

4. The Refusal to Respond (Dereliction of Duty) Following the meeting, a formal written request was sent to Director Patrick Szeto. This request explicitly required him to provide a written substantiation of his claims.

The Unanswered Inquiries: Director Patrick Szeto has failed to provide any response, evidence, or correction regarding any of the specific governance failures raised in the formal inquiry:

• The "Forced" Comment: He has refused to explain why he characterized a compliant disability accommodation as "coercion."

• False Accusations & Attempted Suppression: He has failed to substantiate his public claim that fellow Board members violated rules by posting on social media. Notably, the posts in question merely: (1) encouraged homeowners to attend Open Meetings; (2) directed residents to Management to review Association records; and (3) provided critical safety alerts regarding a tree pruning proposal that had been pending for over 2.5 years, exposing the community to unnecessary fire risks.
  
  
  The Strategy: This unfounded accusation appears to have been a calculated attempt to intimidate Board members into silence, preventing them from engaging with the community or correcting the record. This creates a vacuum where subsequent inaccuracies posted by Group Admin Alvin Lin could go unchallenged. When this initial intimidation failed to stop the flow of transparency, the Group Admins were forced to resort to more draconian measures—deleting posts and "pausing" posting rights—to ensure only their narrative remained visible.
  
  Read the post, "False Accusations, Censorship, and Documented Election Interference Efforts by Group Admin Alvin Lin" to learn more.

• Lack of Preparation: He has failed to explain why he admitted to being "unaware" of the landscaping proposal's cost in November, despite the fact that the proposal was delivered to him in the June 17th Board Packet.

• Misrepresentation: He has failed to explain why he claimed to be "unaware" of homeowner correspondence that Management had explicitly emailed to him in September (as mentioned by a board member in the open meeting). Crucially, this email was not a passive "FYI"; it explicitly requested Board confirmation regarding how to handle a specific resident's communications. By failing to respond to this call for action, Director Patrick Szeto neglected his duty to provide direction to Management, only to later claim total ignorance of the matter.

• Procedural Violations: He has failed to address his unilateral suspension of meeting rules to conduct an unauthorized Q&A session. This action caused significant disruption, effectively denying other attending members their right to voice their opinions. Specifically, Director Patrick Szeto unilaterally decided to favor certain members by allowing them to speak well beyond the allotted three minutes, while denying equal time to others, violating the requirement that meeting rules be "fairly applied" (Information Handbook, Appendix B).

• The Silence: As of the deadline, Director Patrick Szeto has provided no response.

• The Legal Implication: Under California Corporations Code § 7231, Directors act as fiduciaries and must perform their duties with "reasonable inquiry" and "due care."

  • When a Director is formally notified that their conduct may have created liability (Fair Housing violations) and is asked to provide information for a scheduled Board meeting, they have a duty to participate.

  • By refusing to provide the requested written explanation, Director Patrick Szeto appears to be obstructing the Board's ability to fulfill its oversight function.

• Admission by Silence: In a legal context, when a fiduciary is accused of misconduct and afforded a formal opportunity to deny or explain it, their silence can be interpreted as an "Adoptive Admission"—a tacit admission that the accusation is true because they have no valid defense to offer.

5. The Liability Risk to the Association Director Patrick Szeto’s conduct poses a significant legal and financial liability for the entire HOA.

• Hostile Environment Liability: Under Fair Housing regulations, a Director who publicly disparages a resident’s disability accommodation helps create a "Hostile Housing Environment," exposing the Association to State and Federal regulatory penalties and lawsuits.

• Breach of Fiduciary Duty: By potentially violating state confidentiality laws and refusing to address the error via the proper corporate channels, the Director exposes the Association to regulatory penalties.

Conclusion Homeowners have a right to equal access and fair treatment without their legal accommodations being disparaged in open meetings. The Association must be led by Directors who understand that following Civil Rights laws is a core responsibility of governance, not an act of coercion.

Legal Authority for this Disclosure:

• California Civil Code § 4515: Protects the rights of members to communicate about association governance.

• Fiduciary Duty (Corp. Code § 7231): Mandates that Directors act with reasonable inquiry and care.

• California Constitution (Article I, Section 1): Guarantees the inalienable right to privacy.

• Fair Housing Act (24 CFR § 100.400): Prohibits interference with the exercise of fair housing rights.

• Right to Advocate (24 C.F.R. § 100.400(c)(1)): It is a violation of federal law to retaliate against any person because they have opposed a discriminatory practice. Documenting and correcting a Director's mischaracterization of a disability accommodation constitutes protected advocacy under the Fair Housing Act.

• California FEHA (Gov. Code § 12955.7): Unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of any housing right. Under California regulations, retaliation against a resident—including disparaging their motives for seeking a disability accommodation—is a violation of state civil rights law.

• Anti-SLAPP Protection (CCP § 425.16): This report concerns "issues of public interest" (HOA governance and civil rights compliance) made in a "public forum," which constitutes protected activity under California's Anti-SLAPP statute.