She hadn't expected to uncover a controversy involving a private swimming pool.
When she called, her voice was cautious.
"I've been reviewing the recreation-program budget."
I sat at my kitchen table.
"Okay."
She hesitated.
"Did you sign any agreement allowing the HOA to operate swimming activities on your property?"
"No."
"Any agreement at all?"
"None."
For several seconds, she was silent.
Then she asked whether I was willing to provide that answer in writing.
I agreed.
She took a slow breath.
Then explained that the association had contracted with an outside company to organize summer activities.
The company was supposed to provide instructors, staffing, registration services, and event management.
The contract included a list of proposed locations.
My address appeared on it.
Beside the address was a notation stating that recreational access had been authorized by the property owner.
I stared at the wall.
"Who wrote that?"
She didn't know.
Then she explained something else.
The HOA had already paid a substantial advance to the company.
Some funds came from seasonal recreation fees collected from families.
Other money came from the association's general operating account.
The treasurer was concerned because the community pool remained closed and the alternate facility didn't have a valid access agreement.
She had asked the president for clarification.
The president accused her of interfering with a project she'd spent months organizing.
I recognized the pattern.
For several seconds, neither of us spoke.
Then the treasurer asked one final question.
"Have you ever met the owner of the event company?"
I said no.
She hesitated.
Then answered.
"She's the HOA president's daughter."
I sat upright.
And suddenly, the president's determination to force my backyard into the summer program began making a terrible kind of sense.
I didn't immediately conclude that a crime had occurred.
Family connections weren't automatically illegal.
A company owned by a director's relative could provide legitimate services if the relationship was properly disclosed, the transaction was authorized, and the work was performed as agreed.
But the lack of a valid pool-access arrangement made the contract troubling.
The president had promoted activities using property she didn't control.
Collected fees based on those activities.
And paid a company owned by her daughter to organize them.
Now she was pressuring me to provide the missing facility.
I asked the treasurer whether the family relationship had been disclosed to the board.
She said she hadn't found a complete disclosure in the materials she'd reviewed.
I asked whether the contract depended on my pool being available.