As a homeowner and member in good standing of the LCPOA, I submitted this formal notice of grievance regarding the apparent mismanagement by the Board of Directors and I requested the following at the May 7, 2026 Open Session Board Meeting;

1) Roy Paulson and David Boyd resign from the Board immediately.
They are not following the basic rules of governing a POA. We
mitigate legal liability by following the rules and by NOT PUTTING
OUR FRIENDS ON COMMITTEES. Even the appearance of the
possibility of a conflict hurts our defense and insurability.

2) Cathy Shickora, Vince Torre, Rick DeAndero, Kris DeAndero, Kim Newton and Jill Boyd be removed from all committees.
They have a conflict of interest and are hurting our case. Cathy and Vince have opened the door to potential civil rights and fair housing
liability. This has the potential to bankrupt the LCPOA
membership. The declarations from these motions are public
record. Anyone from the public can see what Vince Torre and
Cathy have said at Open Session Meetings.

3) Collect the $13,908.50 from Cal Westra, Rick DeAndero and David Boyd for the misappropriation of our funds for legal advice on a defamation complaint that was never served. Defamation is not covered by insurance since it’s a civil crime.

4) I’m requesting all monies approved by this board for the defense of Rick DeAndero stop, and those monies returned to the POA.
I refuse to pay for what the insurance won’t cover.

5) The communications committee be disbanded. They never give a report, there are no meeting minutes. This committee is
unwittingly helping Gene P prove his case. What have they given
input into and what have they produced? Is the Communications
Committee preparing the 60 Second Wrap Up that was suggested
by Roy Paulson to aid in his and David Boyd’s campaign?

6) All communications regarding legal issues, and our cases, be
prepared and distributed through a Litigation Committee
composed of practicing and retired judges or attorneys who
understand the law and legal proceedings. No Directors from the Board and no members with a conflict of interest.

The following 9 points with the 8 attachments explain why this drastic measure is necessary. We are at a critical point with one trial approaching and let’s not forget 3 of our board members sued another and that one is just starting. This mismanagement is bankrupting our POA. If we lose our insurance for the roads
we are all liable for accidents.

1. At the March 5 th 2026 Open Session meeting, Litigation Committee Chair David Boyd, stated that he was reading a letter from the insurance attorneys that the POA has won every motion. David stated this letter was written by the POA insurance attorneys with their approval to read it to the membership. I have repeatedly asked for this letter and have been told it’s confidential. Why haven’t I received a letter that was approved by the
POA insurance attorneys to be read to the membership?

2. On March 17 th 2026 our property manager, Elisa Garibay, emailed the Litigation Comm Report to the membership which states, “The court definitively ruled in favor of the POA. Specifically, the Court determined that Mr. Prokhorenko’s Open Meeting Act claim, as pleaded, does not state a legally valid case of action under California law.” David Boyd and the Litigation Committee failed to state that the Court granted Gene P 20 days to amend his complaint. This was the third attempt by our insurance
attorneys to have a cause of action dropped. Who prepared this report? If we won the motion to drop the violation of the Open Meeting Act a couple of months ago, why are we asking again as evidenced by the attached Motion to drop this same cause of action scheduled for May 20, 2026?
Refer to Attachment 1.

3. Why would our POA continue to spend time and money to win a Cause of Action that only amounts to $500? We are wasting valuable resources for $500 because David Boyd and Roy Paulson have a conflict of interest. On February 24 th 2025 the Court denied our motion to have the case dropped.

Our attorneys argued this was a neighbor-to-neighbor dispute and did not involve the POA. Our attorneys stated, “Plaintiff seeks to prosecute what, if true, is a battery action…against the Association. Frankly, if Plaintiff desires to maintain this cause of action against the Association relative to a battery, then the person that allegedly performed the battery is a necessary party as well.” Refer to attachment 2 pages 11 & 12.

4. The person accused of battery is Vince Torre who has been a friend of David and Jill Boyd for years commencing with Vince Torre and his wife Cathy Shickora providing boarding for the Boyd’s horses prior to the Boyd’s purchasing and moving to La Cresta. David Boyd is the Chair of the Litigation Committee and it appears that he is using his position on the board to help his ‘friend’ avoid legal expenses. David knows as stated above by the POA attorneys that Vince Torre will have to spend his own funds to defend himself for claim of battery. The mere appearance of a director putting the interests of himself and his friend above the members, is proving Gene Ps third cause of action; violation of the open meeting act, and breach of fiduciary duty.

In addition, David Boyd is a witness to the battery claim and his declaration of the events that occurred is in direct contrast to the declarations made on behalf of the Plaintiff and his witnesses. This includes the declaration that Vince Torre yelled for a Chinese member to ‘go back to Hong Kong’ at the Open Session. These declarations are public record at Riverside Superior Court.

While the Court did not make a determination on who is providing the truth, the Court felt it prudent to give the plaintiff 20 days to amend his complaint instead of dropping the violation of the Open Meeting Act. The complaint has been amended; it was never dismissed. We did not gain ground, we lost ground, and now we have potential liability of civil rights and Fair Housing Laws. Vince Torre and his wife Cathy Shickora are putting this POA at risk of fines from the California Civil Rights Department.

Vince Torre and Cathy Shickora need to be removed from ALL committees to protect us from further potential liability. The first offense for the federal penalty is a maximum $26,262 and $16,000 to the State. They double with the second, and quadruple with the third offense. That is in addition to actual and punitive damages, and let’s not forget the legal expenses of anyone who wins in court. These Declarations to the Court are public record. Anyone from the public can see this. Why isn’t our Board providing us the documents that are available to the public?
Refer to Attachment 3, page 2.

5. If the Gene P lawsuit is frivolous and we are covered by the insurance why are our legal and insurance expenses over $248,575 and mounting? It’s because our insurance does not cover defamation, battery and threats.

Refer to example 1, as stated in the 60 Second Wrap-Up for the March 5, 2026 Open Session Meeting, under Litigation. Our board spent $13,908.50 to advise David Boyd, Cal Westra and Rick DeAndero. No one was served and our insurance deductible increased from $5,000 to $15,000 shortly thereafter.
Refer to Attachment 4, pages 2 & 3.

Insurance does not cover board members and a member of the Proxy Committee committing defamation. Our board misappropriated almost $14,000 to cover the personal legal expenses of Cal Westra, Rick DeAndero and David Boyd. This is wrong and our POA is proving ‘breach of fiduciary’.

6. Rick DeAndero, David Boyd and Roy Paulson are compromising our defense. While the POA insurance attorneys were arguing in February of 2025 to have Gene P’s case dropped as frivolous these three directors were part of what Roy Paulson dubbed the ‘La Cresta Working Group’. I was included in this group until I pointed out that 1) having 3 directors from the board is a violation; 2) the ‘La Cresta Working Group’ were scheduling their meetings the Sunday prior to the scheduled Executive and Open Session Meetings. This was intentional. Members of the group that are Committee Chairs gave committee reports at the March 2nd meeting held at Charmain Sauro’s home, and 3) that Mark McLeavy should be removed from the group since he had a conflict of interest due to a legal dispute with his cul-de-sac neighbors. Mark McLeavy was using his position in the group to suggest additions to an article authored by Rick DeAndero and Fletcher Satterwhite entitled ‘Educating the Membership on Cul-de-sacs’. Mark McLeavy had a personal issue that escalated to a potential legal action between him and his neighbors. I did not want Mark or his personal issue involved in the group. That is a conflict. David Boyd, Jill Boyd, Vince Torre, Cathy Shickora, Kim Newton, Rick DeAndero, Roy Paulson and Paul Gaarenstroom are also members of the group.
Refer to Attachment 5.

7. Roy’s 60 Second Wrap-Up is not the official minutes of Open Session Meetings. Why is our property manager emailing the 60 Second Wrap Up instead of the official Meeting Minutes? The 60 Second Wrap Up was the suggestion by Liselle, a public relations firm Roy suggested to the La Cresta Working Group. Instead of using the 60 Second Wrap Up for transparency it has been used to tell half-truths, misinform, and to defame anyone who disagrees with the members of the La Cresta Working Group. I have a letter from David Boyd stating that our private conversation was recorded and he could have it transcribed. Attachment 6, page 2.

The only other person present for our private conversation was David’s wife Jill Boyd who was sitting in her truck with the windows down listening while David and I spoke at my front gate. Jill Boyd broke the law and her husband threatened me. They both have a conflict of interest. Do we want Jill Boyd on our Communications Committee? Cathy Shickora also has a habit of recording private conversations. She was caught with her phone recording my private conversation through an open window at a Wine and Appetizer Meetup in April of 2025. When my friend called Cathy out, Cathy proceeded to harass my friend while her husband, Vince Torre,
and David Boyd were blocking the exit from the home. Rick DeAndero was behind a wall egging them on. Are these the people we want on our committee’s or on our board?

8. Roy has a conflict of interest. He purchased the property at 39105 Avenida La Cresta to operate a business. We are not talking boarding horses or riding lessons. The Paulsons are holding events that bring groups throughout Southern California with large trailers on our privately maintained and insured roads.
Refer to Attachment 7.

These trailers are an eyesore and prompted a call from one of our new Santa Rosa West neighbors to Elisa complaining about ‘the contractor that is using their property to store trailers’. Instead of acquiring a conditional use permit with Riverside County, and the okay from the POA, Roy is using his position as president of the POA to put his personal interests ahead of the interests of the membership. Is this why our POA is wasting time removing a cause of action that requires the board to enforce the Governing Documents? If the POA agrees to a settlement that requires enforcement of the Governing Documents then Roy will also have to follow the Governing Documents. Roy currently has 4 violations on this property. When former director Alex
Hernandez was left off the title of his wife’s property he was asked to step down since he was not on title. That was a technicality. Now we are in the middle of a lawsuit that the Court repeatedly allows to proceed. It’s imperative that we as a POA follow the rules to demonstrate that our directors and committees are not compromised. It works to Roy and his wife Suzanne’s personal benefit to NOT enforce the Governing Documents. Our POA is wasting membership funds to continue a legal strategy that is backfiring and may prove the assertion that our board has violated their fiduciary duty.

9. There are numerous examples of Roy’s attempts to not enforce our CC&R’s. If we do not enforce CC&R violations within 5-years they become accepted and we lose the ability to enforce the violation. That creates a precedent for future violations. It appears that is what Roy Paulson is doing. It works to Roy’s benefit to erode the CC&R’s and claim they can no
longer be enforced. That is the claim regarding the manufactured home that was delivered on a chassis and was approved as an ADU. Our Governing Documents are our only protection to enforce any standard on ADU’s or manufactured homes. Now we have a black metal corrugated roof going on the secondary structure of a new home at the corner of El Centro and Avenida Arboles.
Refer to Attachment 8.

A roof on a secondary structure that is twice as large of the home dominates the lot.

Was this approved by the Architectural Committee? Does the board approve? This roof is a clear violation of our Governing Documents. Will Roy enforce the Governing Documents?

Barbara Bowers, Member in Good Standing
May 7, 2026