RC (Maryland)
Posts: 1
Posts: 1
Posted:
I am not sure what to do about this one. We have a small community of just over thirty homes. A management company was operating the board until earlier this year when HOA control was brought back in-house.
It seemed like a good idea at the time because the management company was so irresponsible that it didn't even pay the electric bill for our community and the electric company came to our homes to notify us that the lights would be going out. Since that time, the new board has broken every possible rule there is to break in our governing documents and they do so because the president is of the opinion that "we can do whatever we want to do". She has stated this so many times that it prompted me to remind the board that we are community "volunteers" that are "serving" the community, not the other way around.
Taking the matter to court is not the answer because it will result in the homeowners paying for a lawyer that would not be needed if the HOA followed the governing docs.
(1) The first and several subsequent meetings were mostly gossip trashing the homeowners the two neighborhood bullies (president and secretary) didn't like. Very little business took place. But at the very first meeting, I asked why the management company was allowed to raise the assessment to nearly double the amount last paid in 2008. I was told that it was because nothing was assessed in 2009. I also asked what the 2008 assessment amount was since I did not own in the community at that time, but that the real-estate information I relied on when I purchased my home was $150/annually.
(2) President stated that "we can do what we want to do" over and over again despite another board member (me) saying that we can only do what we are authorized by the governing docs to do or take a community vote. So the president decides that we will raise the assessments for 2010 because other communities charge much more than ours and because she wants to start doing community events. Our community does not have any amenities and are responsible only for common area upkeep, lights, taxes. I advised the president that the docs set limits on annual assessment increases.
(3) President decides that the board meeting minutes will not be shared with homeowners. (OK per governing docs, but that was an early clue that somebody is afraid of transparency). President decides that she is the approver of the minutes and that after a meeting, minutes are considered final and cannot be changed.
(4) President found and selected a new contractor based on whether or not the contractor would provide free services to a homeowner in the community because the homeowner's grass had grown too long and "their son hasn't been by to cut it". The homeowner had not paid their full dues and were delinquent (on a payment plan). When I pointed out that this is not fair to the other homeowners especially in light of the fact that several homeowners that were also delinquent received no such special treatment, I was told that those other homeowners don't live here any more, so the board owes them nothing. One of the other delinquent homeowners had put their home up for short sale after being hospitalized (cancer) and was bearing the burden of paying for lawn upkeep while hospitalized. President drops by my home uninvited and brings up the issue. I asked the president if the homeowner had requested the freebie service, and the president said no. I suggested that rather than singling out one family as the recipient of charitable services, we could make it more fair and more fun by having the contractor donate the free monthly grass cutting services to the community in general and that we could encourage other homeowners to participate in a raffle or community event each month and give that away to PAYING homeowners. The president agreed that this would be more fair and that would be a better question to pose to the potential contractors. I also found contractors that agreed to this arrangement that were less expensive than the current contractor originally proposed.
(5) The president proposed a board vote for the new contractor that offered the service only to the ONE homeowner mentioned above and then forbid anyone from discussing the matter. I stated at the board meeting that what they just did was unethical by not including everyone in the community as a possible recipient. The president stated, "oh you just don't like her" to me and dismissed my concern, which is hardly the case. I don't even know the recipient, let alone dislike the recipient.
(6) The treasurer gets the grass cut beside his house more frequently than he had in the past by chosing this contractor.
(7) I made notes about the meeting at the time of the meeting, but requested the minutes of the meeting several times afterwards. The meeting minutes were not distributed to the board members until almost three months after the meeting was held although the secretary said she sent them to the president immediately after the meeting for approval and board distribution. The minutes are noted as having been "revised". No mention of ethics being brought up appeared in the "revised" minutes.
(8) President's favored contractor began work and is underperforming per homeowner verbal complaints. They are also charging more than the other contractors proposed and they are not living up to their bid.
(9) On the first cut, the president's favored contractor cut common area grass around everybody's home except mine. This, of course, forced me to ask why and/or was it done deliberately. This is the same contractor that would not return my phone calls when trying to clarify the bid.
(10) President adopts new "standards" that are not enforceable by the county. One of the standards she decided to add was to begin enforcing "corrective actions" on grass growth above 6". The county limit is 12". The only person in the community whose grass was currently taller than 6" was one of the homeowners that she has previously bad-mouthed at the board meetings. The homeowner has a fancy type of grass that is supposed to be tall. The corrective action will be to have the new contractor cut the violators' grass when it is above 6".
(11) I made mention of the fact that an ethics issue was raised and that issue mysteriously did not get noted in our "unpublished" minutes. The president responded that I should have objected to the minutes prior to the approval -- even though she had previously distributed minutes stating that she would be the approver of all minutes and that after any meeting ends, the minutes would be final and cannot be changed. She basically shut out comments or corrections and made herself free to fabricate the minutes.
(12) At our annual meeting, the president told a bald-faced lie to the homeowners about the contractor. The lie was told without prompting and nobody in the group had asked a question relating to the lie.
(13) At the annual meeting, a guest speaker was introduced to homeowners who voiced an opinion about why we should increase our assessments and how lucky we are that the fees are so low. He asked several times if anyone had questions. I raised my hand and asked if the HOA board would be putting itself and the homeowners at more risk by not following the governing docs when it comes to the increases in assessments even though the previous increase was made by the prior management company and had never been voted on. The president stated that some people on the board simply cannot accept when others disagree and that this is what the problem is with self-managing HOA boards.
(14) Also at the annual meeting, another homeowner asked a question about why the assessment jumped up so high and pointed out that self-management should have brought the assessments back down to normal levels. That homeowner was also rudely responded to by the president.
(15) The annual meeting was held at a restaurant with the HOA picking up the tab for one person per homeowner and any others would have to pay their own way if they attended. Several homeowners attended the meeting and had to sit there humiliated as others ate.
(16) I informed the board that I had not received my HOA voting packet that the secretary claimed to have distributed. An entire month went by and I still had not received it so I informed the board again. It was finally delivered to me the night before the annual meeting and I was told that the packets were distributed at the last board meeting a few weeks prior. That was the only meeting that I could not make.
(17) At the annual meeting, homeowners were all presented with a budget and asked to vote on accepting the increased assessment with a proxy form. The proxy stated that if homeowners do not return the form by a date two weeks prior to the meeting, the board would decide their vote. What about the people that may not have received their packets? Remember I had to request in writing twice before it was finally delivered. When asked by a homeowner, the president stated that 10 people had not paid their dues and were not entitled to vote. The secretary told me that she had just come from the post office to collect HOA mail when I spoke with her that morning so the number of people that hadn't paid should be accurate leaving just over 20 people's votes to be counted.
(18) I made it known immediately after being elected to the board, that my personal email account should not be distributed. The board members send out emails using each others email accounts all the time. Last week, the secretary sent out emails to the entire community with everybody's email addresses in clear view. I have had the same email account for years without harrassment, but now, only one day after reminding the board that they should not distribute email this way, I receive an email linked to a viagra ad supposedly "from" a board member that resigned.
(19) Immediately following the annual meeting, the president (HR manager), the secretary (substitute school teacher) and the treasurer (public accountant), fired me. They said it was because I was too combative and they felt insulted by my emails. They also claim that I never mentioned their actions were unethical.
(20) The secretary announced at the annual meeting that she is moving out of the neighborhood. The president had verbalized months ago that she is planning to move in the near future once the housing market rebounds. Neither of them will end up being stuck with the new assessments in the long term which will be an increase in assessments over the next ten years of nearly $1,000.
It seemed like a good idea at the time because the management company was so irresponsible that it didn't even pay the electric bill for our community and the electric company came to our homes to notify us that the lights would be going out. Since that time, the new board has broken every possible rule there is to break in our governing documents and they do so because the president is of the opinion that "we can do whatever we want to do". She has stated this so many times that it prompted me to remind the board that we are community "volunteers" that are "serving" the community, not the other way around.
Taking the matter to court is not the answer because it will result in the homeowners paying for a lawyer that would not be needed if the HOA followed the governing docs.
(1) The first and several subsequent meetings were mostly gossip trashing the homeowners the two neighborhood bullies (president and secretary) didn't like. Very little business took place. But at the very first meeting, I asked why the management company was allowed to raise the assessment to nearly double the amount last paid in 2008. I was told that it was because nothing was assessed in 2009. I also asked what the 2008 assessment amount was since I did not own in the community at that time, but that the real-estate information I relied on when I purchased my home was $150/annually.
(2) President stated that "we can do what we want to do" over and over again despite another board member (me) saying that we can only do what we are authorized by the governing docs to do or take a community vote. So the president decides that we will raise the assessments for 2010 because other communities charge much more than ours and because she wants to start doing community events. Our community does not have any amenities and are responsible only for common area upkeep, lights, taxes. I advised the president that the docs set limits on annual assessment increases.
(3) President decides that the board meeting minutes will not be shared with homeowners. (OK per governing docs, but that was an early clue that somebody is afraid of transparency). President decides that she is the approver of the minutes and that after a meeting, minutes are considered final and cannot be changed.
(4) President found and selected a new contractor based on whether or not the contractor would provide free services to a homeowner in the community because the homeowner's grass had grown too long and "their son hasn't been by to cut it". The homeowner had not paid their full dues and were delinquent (on a payment plan). When I pointed out that this is not fair to the other homeowners especially in light of the fact that several homeowners that were also delinquent received no such special treatment, I was told that those other homeowners don't live here any more, so the board owes them nothing. One of the other delinquent homeowners had put their home up for short sale after being hospitalized (cancer) and was bearing the burden of paying for lawn upkeep while hospitalized. President drops by my home uninvited and brings up the issue. I asked the president if the homeowner had requested the freebie service, and the president said no. I suggested that rather than singling out one family as the recipient of charitable services, we could make it more fair and more fun by having the contractor donate the free monthly grass cutting services to the community in general and that we could encourage other homeowners to participate in a raffle or community event each month and give that away to PAYING homeowners. The president agreed that this would be more fair and that would be a better question to pose to the potential contractors. I also found contractors that agreed to this arrangement that were less expensive than the current contractor originally proposed.
(5) The president proposed a board vote for the new contractor that offered the service only to the ONE homeowner mentioned above and then forbid anyone from discussing the matter. I stated at the board meeting that what they just did was unethical by not including everyone in the community as a possible recipient. The president stated, "oh you just don't like her" to me and dismissed my concern, which is hardly the case. I don't even know the recipient, let alone dislike the recipient.
(6) The treasurer gets the grass cut beside his house more frequently than he had in the past by chosing this contractor.
(7) I made notes about the meeting at the time of the meeting, but requested the minutes of the meeting several times afterwards. The meeting minutes were not distributed to the board members until almost three months after the meeting was held although the secretary said she sent them to the president immediately after the meeting for approval and board distribution. The minutes are noted as having been "revised". No mention of ethics being brought up appeared in the "revised" minutes.
(8) President's favored contractor began work and is underperforming per homeowner verbal complaints. They are also charging more than the other contractors proposed and they are not living up to their bid.
(9) On the first cut, the president's favored contractor cut common area grass around everybody's home except mine. This, of course, forced me to ask why and/or was it done deliberately. This is the same contractor that would not return my phone calls when trying to clarify the bid.
(10) President adopts new "standards" that are not enforceable by the county. One of the standards she decided to add was to begin enforcing "corrective actions" on grass growth above 6". The county limit is 12". The only person in the community whose grass was currently taller than 6" was one of the homeowners that she has previously bad-mouthed at the board meetings. The homeowner has a fancy type of grass that is supposed to be tall. The corrective action will be to have the new contractor cut the violators' grass when it is above 6".
(11) I made mention of the fact that an ethics issue was raised and that issue mysteriously did not get noted in our "unpublished" minutes. The president responded that I should have objected to the minutes prior to the approval -- even though she had previously distributed minutes stating that she would be the approver of all minutes and that after any meeting ends, the minutes would be final and cannot be changed. She basically shut out comments or corrections and made herself free to fabricate the minutes.
(12) At our annual meeting, the president told a bald-faced lie to the homeowners about the contractor. The lie was told without prompting and nobody in the group had asked a question relating to the lie.
(13) At the annual meeting, a guest speaker was introduced to homeowners who voiced an opinion about why we should increase our assessments and how lucky we are that the fees are so low. He asked several times if anyone had questions. I raised my hand and asked if the HOA board would be putting itself and the homeowners at more risk by not following the governing docs when it comes to the increases in assessments even though the previous increase was made by the prior management company and had never been voted on. The president stated that some people on the board simply cannot accept when others disagree and that this is what the problem is with self-managing HOA boards.
(14) Also at the annual meeting, another homeowner asked a question about why the assessment jumped up so high and pointed out that self-management should have brought the assessments back down to normal levels. That homeowner was also rudely responded to by the president.
(15) The annual meeting was held at a restaurant with the HOA picking up the tab for one person per homeowner and any others would have to pay their own way if they attended. Several homeowners attended the meeting and had to sit there humiliated as others ate.
(16) I informed the board that I had not received my HOA voting packet that the secretary claimed to have distributed. An entire month went by and I still had not received it so I informed the board again. It was finally delivered to me the night before the annual meeting and I was told that the packets were distributed at the last board meeting a few weeks prior. That was the only meeting that I could not make.
(17) At the annual meeting, homeowners were all presented with a budget and asked to vote on accepting the increased assessment with a proxy form. The proxy stated that if homeowners do not return the form by a date two weeks prior to the meeting, the board would decide their vote. What about the people that may not have received their packets? Remember I had to request in writing twice before it was finally delivered. When asked by a homeowner, the president stated that 10 people had not paid their dues and were not entitled to vote. The secretary told me that she had just come from the post office to collect HOA mail when I spoke with her that morning so the number of people that hadn't paid should be accurate leaving just over 20 people's votes to be counted.
(18) I made it known immediately after being elected to the board, that my personal email account should not be distributed. The board members send out emails using each others email accounts all the time. Last week, the secretary sent out emails to the entire community with everybody's email addresses in clear view. I have had the same email account for years without harrassment, but now, only one day after reminding the board that they should not distribute email this way, I receive an email linked to a viagra ad supposedly "from" a board member that resigned.
(19) Immediately following the annual meeting, the president (HR manager), the secretary (substitute school teacher) and the treasurer (public accountant), fired me. They said it was because I was too combative and they felt insulted by my emails. They also claim that I never mentioned their actions were unethical.
(20) The secretary announced at the annual meeting that she is moving out of the neighborhood. The president had verbalized months ago that she is planning to move in the near future once the housing market rebounds. Neither of them will end up being stuck with the new assessments in the long term which will be an increase in assessments over the next ten years of nearly $1,000.