The most compelling reason for an HOA board of directors in Washington State is Legal Expertise and Compliance: HOAs must comply with a complex blend of federal, state (such as the Washington RCW 64.38 Homeowne
rs' Associations Act), and local laws, in addition to their own governing documents (bylaws, CC&Rs).
A management company should have specialized knowledge to ensure the association remains compliant, helping to avoid costly legal issues or lawsuits that could arise from inexperience or oversight.
The perception that HOA management company employees "ignore" or "don't know" the law often stems from a lack of mandatory licensing and specialized legal training in Washington state. While these companies are hired to provide professional expertise, several structural factors contribute to the knowledge gaps observed:
1. Lack of Specialized Licensing
Unlike real estate brokers, community association managers are not required to hold a specific license in Washington state. They are exempt from real estate licensing unless they are directly involved in selling or leasing property. This means there is no state-mandated educational curriculum or standardized testing specifically for HOA law that all employees must pass before being hired.
2. Ambiguity in Legal Boundaries
Managers often walk a fine line between providing "guidance" and practicing law without a license.
• Administrative vs. Legal: While boards hire companies like Blue Mountain Community Management to handle administrative tasks like keeping minutes and managing vendors, managers are not attorneys.
• Interpreting Documents: When a manager interprets complex Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), they may inadvertently provide incorrect legal advice because they lack formal legal training.
3. High Turnover and Training Gaps
The industry frequently faces high employee turnover. New or inexperienced managers may:
• Be assigned to multiple communities simultaneously, leading to a "one-size-fits-all" approach that ignores the specific legal requirements of your HOA's unique governing documents.
• Rely on internal company "best practices" that might be outdated or not fully aligned with recent changes to the Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (WUCIOA).
4. Limited Role in Board Meetings
By law, a manager's attendance at board meetings is governed by their contract, not state law. If a contract does not explicitly require them to provide legal compliance oversight during meetings, they may focus solely on logistics (like maintenance and budgets) while ignoring legal procedural errors.
5. Accountability Issues
Because management companies are private entities hired by the Board, homeowners often find it difficult to hold them directly accountable. Common complaints include:
• Poor Communication: Delayed responses or "stonewalling" when legal or maintenance questions are raised.
• Fiduciary Misalignment: While the Board has a fiduciary duty to homeowners, the management company's primary duty is to the Board that hired them, which can lead to a lack of transparency for individual residents.
To address these issues, homeowners often advocate for the Board to hire an independent attorney to review the management company’s actions or attend key meetings, as lawyers are trained to ensure strict adherence to state statutes like the Homeowners Association Act.
It's not the breach - it's the denial.
The worse part is not the breach, but the denial. Despite the overwhelming evidence, Blue Mountain claims the company has done nothing wrong. Or that it only follows instructions from the bosrf.
Members of the Board of Directors for Windust Meadows HOA, are bound by a Fiduciary Duty of Care under Washington law. This legal obligation requires the board to act in good faith and with the same care an ordinarily prudent person would exercise in a similar position. By refusing to investigate documented concerns regarding unilateral contract modification by Blue Mountain, failure to enforce standards of performance and quality as described in the contract and instead delegate it to the Blue Mountain contract coordinator, the undisclosed conflict of interest (Appendix B) and Blue Mountain's refusal to uphold the agency relationship, the board is potentially exposing itself and the Association to significant legal and financial liability.
• Breach of Duty: Failure to exercise reasonable diligence or ignoring potential financial harm to the Association is a violation of our role.
• Loss of Immunity: The "Business Judgment Rule," which normally protects board members from personal liability, may not apply if it is determined that we acted in bad faith or with "willful ignorance" of our duties.
• Personal Exposure: Refusal to act could lead to a lawsuit by homeowners to compel action, where we may be named individually and held personally responsible for damages
Unilateral Contract modification - Collections process
Contract unilaterally altered by Board Resolution
![]() |
| Para. 3.3 Contract |
![]() |
| Board resolution |
A very long discussion to have Blue Mountain agree they were not following the contract but a Board Resolution which unilaterally modified the contract: Blue Mountain never agreed to having erred in the process
Unilateral Price Increase
Unilateral 2026 Budget Rollover
![]() |
| As I objected to the 2026 proposed budget, Blue Mountain decided to roll over the previous budget |
Audit
![]() |
| Feb 15, 2026: Audit issues |
![]() |
Conflict of Interest
TownSq
![]() |
| Arguing against use of TownSq for critical information puposes: general reach is 5-20 homeowners |
Blue Mountain Community Management (an Associa company) and TownSq is a direct business partnership that may present a conflict of interest if not transparently disclosed to the HOAs they manage.
The Associa-TownSq Relationship
• Direct Partnership: Associa officially partnered with TownSq in 2017 to launch the platform across its communities, including those in Washington.
• Internal Integration: Associa markets TownSq as its "innovative all-in-one platform". While TownSq is owned by HOAM Ventures as of 2022, Associa remains its primary North American partner and integrates it deeply into its management services.
Potential Conflict of Interest
Whether this constitutes a legal or ethical "conflict of interest" typically depends on disclosure and contractual obligations:
• Financial Incentive: If Blue Mountain or Associa receives financial benefits (referral fees, reduced licensing costs, or equity-related gains) from HOA subscriptions to TownSq, a conflict exists because their recommendation may be motivated by profit rather than the community's best interest.
• Discouraging Alternatives: Discouraging "blast mail" (which you noted as more engaging) in favor of a proprietary or partnered app can be seen as self-serving if it limits the board's ability to reach residents effectively.
• Washington State Law: Under RCW 30B.24.020, fiduciaries must provide "reasonable disclosure" of conflicts that could have a "material adverse impact" on their judgment.
Blue Mountain Construction Coordinator
![]() |
| After the project coordinator claimed original bids were none of the BOD's business, Blue Mountain was compelled to produce one after reminding them bids were legally owned by the association. |
![]() |
| Bid manipulation |
![]() |
| Contract specifically states the BOD determines quality and performance standards |
Censorship
![]() |
| Repeated calls to collect the record ignored |
Blue Mountain as enabler
Miscellaneous















































































