ACBC Collections Activities / Small Claims Court

ACBC is pursuing collection of past dues and assessments through Small Claims Court. To date, none of these actions have gone to trial. One remains pending, one was settled in mediation, and the rest have been settled by agreement outside court. Debt currently outstanding to ACBC is approximately equivalent to 1/2 of a full year's dues billing at current rates and the Board has a fiduciary duty to pursue payment. Some members have not paid dues for over 10 years. The following portion of this post is the Board's response to allegations of discrimination in ACBCs collection practices.

From the Board of Directors:

It has come to the Board’s attention that Amy Trujillo has posted a complaint on Next Door alleging that the Board’s pursuit of Members who have failed to pay their dues is discriminatory because the Board will supposedly  not pursue what she describes as “wealthy people who live far away”. This is not correct. This Board has repeatedly expressed it’s belief and policy that it has a fiduciary duty to those Members who pay their dues to pursue ALL of those who have failed to pay.  As reported at previous meetings, the Board investigated the possibility of turning over all of the claims to a collection agency, but that option was rejected because such agencies charge a high percentage of the amount recovered. The Board also considered retaining an attorney to pursue all of the claims, but that option also involves giving up a significant portion of any recovery. Ultimately, the Board chose to begin this process by first filing in Small Claims Court in Island and King Counties against Members who are residents of those counties because doing so does not require the Board to retain an attorney and thus maximizes the recovery. As has been reported at Board meetings, these efforts have been very successful and have resulted in recoveries of significant amounts of past due monies with minimal upfront costs.

There are some delinquent Members who reside in distant parts of Washington State or even in other States.  Pursuit of those Members will require either retaining an attorney or a collection agency, which the Board is exploring now that initial efforts have met with success.

The Board’s decision to first pursue “low hanging fruit” was and is imminently reasonable and practical, and is by no means a policy of discrimination against “poor” Members. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that Ms. Trujillo has failed to provide the Board with a copy of whatever complaint she filed with the Secretary of State. The Board welcomes the opportunity to provide its position on this matter to that Office if and when the Board ever receives notice of such a complaint.