Non Owner on the BOD

My opinion is that non-owners should definitely not be on the BOD since they do not have a legitimate long-term interest in the BOD or the HOA. If there is a desire for a non-owner (spouse, friend, relative, otherwise) to be on the BOD, there are ways to add them to the title and have them actually become an owner. If someone is not willing to take that step then the association need not bend or change rules to accommodate.

Non-resident owners are still members of the association and hold all the same rights as resident owners. No problems here with them being on the BOD.

I do not know what they say. I asked the question to see what most think versus with an agenda.

Yet the question made me look. Ours say (summary):

Directors shall members of the association or spouse of such members. No person and spouse can serve on the BOD at the same time. If the owner is a corporation/partnership, the corportion/partnership shall designate a representative and that person will be eligible to serve on the BOD.

We don't have renters on the board - they CAN attend board meetings, but virtually no one does (of course, the members rarely attend either).

As for off site owners, we current have two on the board. One takes a few hours off from his job to attend and is pretty good. Ie's even attended a few CAI events - I just wish he had email so we can get information to him much faster, but we're working around that.

The other - well, he means well, but I think he volunteered because (1) our vice president talked him into it and (2) he was inspired partly by a blistering article in our newsletter in which we warned of possible receivership if we didn't get more people to volunteer to serve on the board (at that time, we were down to three out of seven). So far his attendence pattern is: show up one month (maybe two), miss the next two, show up for the next one (if you miss three consectutive meetings, you're off for good). then then miss again.

Our president hasn't said anything, but in light of us missing last week's meeting because only three people showed up (myself included), I'm wondering if I need to bring it up. Our president and vice president couldn't attend (the vice president had a meeting and I don't know what happened to the president) and the homeowner I spoke of didn't show up either (he was at the January meeting and I don't know what happened last week - if he'd shown, we would have had a quorum).

So, non-resident owners do have a right to serve on the board, but the key is getting ones who are committed to doing the job, just as resident owners do (or at least are supposed to)

One neighborhood I have dealt with had two board members who were not homeowners. One lived in the home with his partner (who was also on the board) and the other lived in an adjacent neighborhood.

My experience with them was that they were abusive - they had their own clique and wouldn't listen to anyone outside of their group. My neighbor joined the board because he was interested in helping out and like the idea of an HOA presence. The board never put his name on any official documents and kept him in the dark about everything (ranging from meetings to a long on-going lawsuit against the board and the HOA).

The board also eliminated limitations on their positions so they can run without term limits and so that there could be non-owners allowed on the board, which is mind boggling since they were originally not allowed on but they were and they used their positions to legitimize their positions by changing the rules afterwards.

Personally, I think at least one of these board members (the one who was a resident had at least a claim to the neighborhood) but I think non-homeowners (or even more importantly a non-resident) should not be allowed.

Another example is a neighboring association has a local real estate agent as their president. His company owns several homes in that neighborhood and so he uses his votes to get what he wants for the benefit of his business. He has even used his title and property to try and sway the county to place a tax on all surrounding neighborhoods for a beautification project outside his neighborhood entrance.

When outside interests are involved, it cannot be good for a neighborhood.

My opinion is that if they are elected, they can serve. It doesn't matter who/what they are. An informed and educated electorate thought about their qualifications, and vote them into office. They should serve.

After all, no one out there just stupidly votes without thinking, right? Something as important as casting a ballot, electing someone to handle thousands of your dollars, to make rules you have to live by, and to impact your life now and in the future, no one would be so utterly stupid as to simply walk into a meeting (or ballot box/booth) and just vote with no information what-so-ever, right?

The most important right a person has in democracy is to vote. Surely, people take that seriously, right?

I assumed Brian was being facetious when he said:

""""""After all, no one out there just stupidly votes without thinking, right? Something as important as casting a ballot, electing someone to handle thousands of your dollars, to make rules you have to live by, and to impact your life now and in the future, no one would be so utterly stupid as to simply walk into a meeting (or ballot box/booth) and just vote with no information what-so-ever, right?

The most important right a person has in democracy is to vote. Surely, people take that seriously, right?""""""

Right?

John, since I can't spell facetious, I don't think I can be facetious.

I think part of it comes down to the money. A HOA Board is elected to represent the general membership in day to day operations and to manage the budget. Why would I or other members want someone who doesn't contribute to the budget control it? It's like having your niece or nephew handle your family's finances...They are related but do they make the money?

Not to say non owners like renters, spouses, or other status doesn't have a good say or lack the ability to manage...It's best to listen for their feedback/Volunteering than to hand them over a right to vote...

spouses who are not on the deed contribute to the budget...

I should have added or made a caveat about spouses...I view a MARRIED couple as one entity as some laws do. You marry someone's debt when you get married NOT just the person. So to say a person is NOT an owner because their name isn't on the deed but they are a married to that person should be a different catagory. The way we handled this is that ONLY 1 spouse at a time could be on the board. They could swap out a term if they wanted but never at the same time. This is what 1 married couple I had in our HOA did every year. They'd switch out who would be on the board that year.

With the lack of participation in a HOA, I don't believe a HOA should limit everything down to name on deed. If I were to ever get married, I wouldn't put my spouse on my deed to my home. My spouse shouldn't be punished or not allowed to participate in his living conditions either. Plus we would have differing opinions ourselves on the direction of the HOA. However, we would share one vote together.

So I consider a married couple 1 vote. How they deal with that 1 vote amongst themselves is a personal issue with them. They aren't getting 2 votes...

you can't have your cake and eat it too...if you don't want non-members as board members then like it or not you will be excluding some spouses that live in your neighborhood. It is just the way it is. This is one of the reasons I am not a huge fan of making board members be members of the neighborhood.

It caused a problem with our last board 4 couples (each lot should have only 1 vote). Homeowners petition to remove all board members. Now a new board is in place. No more couples. It has created a serious problem. We currently have a renter and 1 non homeowner but lives with a owner. (currently looking to purchase a home in our subdivision)