TomW9 (Texas)
Posts: 2
Posts: 2
Posted:
What can be done about a board member removed for cause that is retaliating by trying to get HOA members to remove the rest of the board?
A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
🎁 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! →
Retaliation
Started by TomW9 • 15 replies • 2066 views
💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.
Create Free Account →
⚡ Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in
JohnB26 (South Carolina)
Posts: 1,569
Posts: 1,569
Posted:
Other than shipping him/her to Siberia .... ?
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posts: 5,671
Posted:
Welcome Tom,
If you have an association attorney AND this is really causing major problems among the Board, have a letter sent to him, telling him to cease his actions. Someone like this guy isn't going to take a gentle hint to behave and will need a higher authority to knock him in the head to wake up.
DJ1 (Ontario)
Posts: 798
Posts: 798
Posted:
You're joking right Donna? This person is still a homeowner and has every right to exercise his/her ability to have board members removed thru the processes available to him/her. If he can make his case to other homeowners they are the ones who would decide for or against. I'd tell the lawyer to kiss my *** if he sent me a letter from said board if I am exercising my rights to have a board removed. Both sides need to make their case, and a lawyer sending a letter isn't going to do anything but add costs for everyone.
Removed for cause by those who you oppose on the board doesn't automatically mean this person did something wrong, just that the other board members have an issue with him/her. He/her also obviously has an issue with them.
Not really enough info to say definitely there is 'retailiation' or that his removal was warranted.
Removed for cause by those who you oppose on the board doesn't automatically mean this person did something wrong, just that the other board members have an issue with him/her. He/her also obviously has an issue with them.
Not really enough info to say definitely there is 'retailiation' or that his removal was warranted.
JonD1
Posts: 2,350
Posts: 2,350
Posted:
DJ1:
I have to agree with your take. We certainly don't have enough information to determine who might be in the right in this situation.
This member/owner was removed with cause. Under what circumstances?
Now the remaining Board mebers don't want them to use the same system against them. Trying to have THEM removed!
My question what exactly is this former member doing????
Some people don't just go quietly into the night when you take action against them.
And as a property/unit owner this ex Board member has every right to take part in the system which directs his or her property. Just because they were removed from the Board certainly does not take away their rights to now act as a unit owner.
They can support, or as in this case, work against the current Board.
Always best to consider the consequences of your actions and whether you are willing to deal with them BEFORE you act.
I have to agree with your take. We certainly don't have enough information to determine who might be in the right in this situation.
This member/owner was removed with cause. Under what circumstances?
Now the remaining Board mebers don't want them to use the same system against them. Trying to have THEM removed!
My question what exactly is this former member doing????
Some people don't just go quietly into the night when you take action against them.
And as a property/unit owner this ex Board member has every right to take part in the system which directs his or her property. Just because they were removed from the Board certainly does not take away their rights to now act as a unit owner.
They can support, or as in this case, work against the current Board.
Always best to consider the consequences of your actions and whether you are willing to deal with them BEFORE you act.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posts: 5,671
Posted:
DJ,
Of course I was joking--the wack in the back of the head would be the method of a clown. But I also said---" AND if this is really causing major problems among the Board," then send a letter.etc
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posts: 5,671
Posted:
By the way, JohnB's solution of Siberia is okay?
RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 1,767
Posts: 1,767
Posted:
I agree with DJ1 120%.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Unless this member is spreading falsehoods about the BOD and/or their actions, I don't believe there is any legal action that can be taken against him, therefore no reason to have the attorney send him a letter.
IMO, there is really nothing the BOD can do. Any member is free to call for a recall of the BOD but if they expect to gain support of the members they must have proof of wrongdoing.
IMO, there is really nothing the BOD can do. Any member is free to call for a recall of the BOD but if they expect to gain support of the members they must have proof of wrongdoing.
JohnB26 (South Carolina)
Posts: 1,569
Posts: 1,569
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By DonnaS on 03/09/2010 9:24 AM
By the way, JohnB's solution of Siberia is okay?
By the way, JohnB's solution of Siberia is okay?
Please quote me precisely.
<<<"Other than shipping him/her to Siberia .... ?">>>
The question mark is a sarcastic way of saying that there are no legal options to prevent a person from exercising their rights. (Unless you are in the former USSR where people actually did get shipped to Siberia for expressing their views)
DJ1 (Ontario)
Posts: 798
Posts: 798
Posted:
Donna, even if it is causing major problems among the Board it doesn't necessarily qualify for your suggested action. Legitimate discourse could easily cause major problems among the Board, as could illigitamate ones.
RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164
Posts: 5,164
Posted:
To all,
I agree it certainly is questionable as to if there are any grounds to interfer with this guys rights' But maybe that is only part of the issue. The OP said he was removed for cause. I find this "for cause" troublesome to begin with. If a recall is done properly and this person is voted off the board, why do you need "for cause". It is not required in any election I know of to declare a cause the voter didn't vote for a particular person. And that is what a recall is...........I think. A re-election or a another election by the people to get a new representative. I suppose you could make a case if the person was not eligible for some reason, I sure would not want to charge them with something like stealing funds if all I had was some rumor. But, I believe cause is to be used when there is some solid evidence. But again that would be risky for a Board or an individual, but the association would be liable under any circumstances. I do believe all owners are mandated to follow the documents and if there is an "out" there to censor this person, the Board should consider it.So, I would say if you want to recall a Board member or a Board, do it, but unless a "cause" is required don't do it for cause. How many associations allow for a recall without cause, mine says, "for cause or not".
Also if your BOD is operating correctly and there is no reason for dissent, other than this one person disrupting the demeanor of the Board, he should receive a letter from an attorney explaining the violations in the documents, but, if he is in good standing, he can initiate a recall under the requirements. It would be up to the Board to defend themselves and maintain the integrity of the Board, if that is the issue, and it can be articulated.
I agree it certainly is questionable as to if there are any grounds to interfer with this guys rights' But maybe that is only part of the issue. The OP said he was removed for cause. I find this "for cause" troublesome to begin with. If a recall is done properly and this person is voted off the board, why do you need "for cause". It is not required in any election I know of to declare a cause the voter didn't vote for a particular person. And that is what a recall is...........I think. A re-election or a another election by the people to get a new representative. I suppose you could make a case if the person was not eligible for some reason, I sure would not want to charge them with something like stealing funds if all I had was some rumor. But, I believe cause is to be used when there is some solid evidence. But again that would be risky for a Board or an individual, but the association would be liable under any circumstances. I do believe all owners are mandated to follow the documents and if there is an "out" there to censor this person, the Board should consider it.So, I would say if you want to recall a Board member or a Board, do it, but unless a "cause" is required don't do it for cause. How many associations allow for a recall without cause, mine says, "for cause or not".
Also if your BOD is operating correctly and there is no reason for dissent, other than this one person disrupting the demeanor of the Board, he should receive a letter from an attorney explaining the violations in the documents, but, if he is in good standing, he can initiate a recall under the requirements. It would be up to the Board to defend themselves and maintain the integrity of the Board, if that is the issue, and it can be articulated.
DJ1 (Ontario)
Posts: 798
Posts: 798
Posted:
Robert I guess it also depends on who removed him. Usually only members can remove a board member from a board right. The board can demote a board member from a board position eg. remove a treasurer, but the person would remain a board member.
Still need more details from the OP on all these aspects, otherwise he will only get off the cuff remarks.
eg. Donna is ying and I am yang...er, is it the other way around.
Still need more details from the OP on all these aspects, otherwise he will only get off the cuff remarks.
eg. Donna is ying and I am yang...er, is it the other way around.
RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164
Posts: 5,164
Posted:
DJ1,
I agree, nearly always we need more info. I think we will learn a lot more as this plays out.
Donna, Mary, Michele, and all the rest for that matter, that post here regular are the best of the best. They are just like wives and need to get reined up once in a while. They are all smart as can be and beware when you tangle with them.....they will getcha.
I agree, nearly always we need more info. I think we will learn a lot more as this plays out.
Donna, Mary, Michele, and all the rest for that matter, that post here regular are the best of the best. They are just like wives and need to get reined up once in a while. They are all smart as can be and beware when you tangle with them.....they will getcha.
JohnB26 (South Carolina)
Posts: 1,569
Posts: 1,569
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By RobertR1 on 03/10/2010 5:45 AM
DJ1,
I agree, nearly always we need more info. I think we will learn a lot more as this plays out.
Donna, Mary, Michele, and all the rest for that matter, that post here regular are the best of the best. They are just like wives and need to get reined up once in a while. They are all smart as can be and beware when you tangle with them.....they will getcha.
DJ1,
I agree, nearly always we need more info. I think we will learn a lot more as this plays out.
Donna, Mary, Michele, and all the rest for that matter, that post here regular are the best of the best. They are just like wives and need to get reined up once in a while. They are all smart as can be and beware when you tangle with them.....they will getcha.
Whooooah .........NELLY
RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164
Posts: 5,164
Posted:
Don't worry, they are putty in my hands.
I am also moving to Patagonia forever in a few days.
I am also moving to Patagonia forever in a few days.
🎯 You've read this entire discussion
Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:
- ✓ Ask follow-up questions
- ✓ Share your experience
- ✓ Get expert advice
- ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →
⚡ Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in here