Depending on what side of the fence you’re sitting on in a controversial issue, you may be arguing that the end justifies the means, Yes or NO. It is a moral and ethical decision and raises the question as to when and how. In a culture where its values have been deteriorating over the years to, what’s in it for me, greed is good, and I want it now, a valid and acceptable “means” has consequently also deteriorated.
In general, this end-means assertion is introduced as a defensive justification for some course of action being challenged by others. It usually involves a discretionary decision by some authority entity, like a town council, board of directors, management, etc. Not surprisingly, we find this defensive reaction in many HOA-Land situations; I discuss one such incident based on real events.
HOA Constitutional Government 
Interestingly, your example is almost exactly what I have appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals in Tucson — only difference is my complaint had to do with amending the CC&Rs, not a special assessment. I believe I sent you a copy of the original lawsuit. Unfortunately, the Pinal County Superior Court Judge ruled against us, so I have appealed that decision. I believe the Appeals Court may already have received all briefs on this issue SO all I can do is wait. Despite the fact the Association amended the CC&Rs (a contract) by holding the vote / signed concurrence open long past the 30-day designated by the instructions the Judge was not interested in any of our arguments.
Who represents the Association in your case? I am currently going against Carpenter Hazelwood.
Your post is public. OK? Did you send me appeals filings for my review? My article was modified from the real case of an amendment.
Contact me on my email george@pvtgov.org
In my personal opinion, the end does not justify the means if the person, Board member or anyone including attorneys associated with them are not ethical or honest or spin the truth to suit themselves in a controversial issue. Especially when they delete relevant information which would show they are not being completely honest or transparent. One example that I was shocked at is that attorneys can say whatever they want in legal filings and they are protected because it is privileged under their legal filings in court. “Litigation privilege is most frequently invoked to protect statements made during judicial proceedings by those involved in which he participates as counsel, if it has some relation to the proceeding. “ Most Americans do not know that this is allowed. Is this moral or ethical? In my opinion, NO! Look up 586 at 247 (1997)