💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

DarylF (Washington)
Posts: 157
Posted:
At our last meeting of the community we did not have a quorum and our board was up for re-election. 4 of the 5 wanted to stay on and 1 resigned. They have since found one person to replace the resigned position. Rather than call another meeting and take advantage of our descending quorum, or have a vote by mail (allowed by our documents) the board simply assumed that they stay on another year and voted amongst themselves to accept the one volunteer as the 5th member.

WA State law seems pretty clear to me RCW 64.38.025: “The board of directors shall not act on behalf of the association to amend the articles of incorporation, to take any action that requires the vote or approval of the owners, to terminate the association, to elect members of the board of directors, or to determine the qualifications…”

I realize that the 5 there now are the only 5 that want to do it and I doubt anyone would object, but shouldn’t they at least have a vote? At the board meeting tonight I brought up the above state law before they voted and one member who is a lawyer said the state law was just a guideline and we could “contract out of it”. Then they voted to proceed. Am I understanding the RCW incorrectly?
My understanding is that we have 4 board members that carry over from the last board since we didn’t have a vote, but that 5th member is not valid. Couldn’t this get us in trouble if someone objected to a decision of the board? Or am I missing something?

Should I do anything? They were very clear that they wouldn't listen to me. The President said he "didn't want to go through a dog and pony show." I kind of wish I recorded the meeting.

Thanks,

Daryl
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
Daryl, without knowing the specifics of your CC&R's they often generally allow but not require another meeting with reduced quorum. If the Board chose not to do that then they were probably correct and if no election then the Board would remain. Again check your CC&R's but most allow the remaining Board members to appoint replacements to the Board.

The lawyer is incorrect that the laws are optional and can be “contracted out of it”.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
DarylF (Washington)
Posts: 157
Posted:
Our bylaws says the board can replace a member that resigns for the remainder of their term. In this case the member chose to not re-run, but we haven't had an election for the next term, and it sounds like we won't. Does that allow the board to appoint the replacement for the next term?

DarylF (Washington)
Posts: 157
Posted:
Also, how do I prove they are wrong about trumping state law with our documents? I'm pretty sure they are wrong but i can't prove it.
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
I would say the appointment was valid, the Board member effectively resigned when he chose not to run or continue as a Board member when there was no election. You need to read the State Law carefully, in many sections there is the phrase "Unless the governing documents specify a different" or words to that effect. In those sections if your CC&R's specify something different, they would prevail.

If the Board fails to follow either the CC&R's or the law, the simplest and most expedient way to get your point across would be to get volunteers willing to serve and recall them.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
DarylF (Washington)
Posts: 157
Posted:
Here is the unshortened text of the law, I think the last line is relevent

RCW 64.38.025: "(2) The board of directors shall not act on behalf of the association to amend the articles of incorporation, to take any action that requires the vote or approval of the owners, to terminate the association, to elect members of the board of directors, or to determine the qualifications, powers, and duties, or terms of office of members of the board of directors; but the board of directors may fill vacancies in its membership of the unexpired portion of any term."

Our board filled a vacancy for an expired term.

Also, some sections of the law do state that the governing docs can overrule the state law, such as the quorum requirement, but this section does not.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Daryl

Is this not an issue where your CCR's and/or Bylaws control, not the state law?
DarylF (Washington)
Posts: 157
Posted:
Our CC&R's and Bylaws are worded the same as the state laws. I believe we are in violation of both.
JeanneK3 (Maryland)
Posts: 562
Posted:
DarylF:
Your attorney is most certainly wrong. If his response is recorded or in writing perhaps you should file a complaint again him with the state bar. And the association should get itself another attorney.
Jeanne
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By DarylF on 06/14/2012 6:18 AM
Here is the unshortened text of the law, I think the last line is relevent

RCW 64.38.025: "(2) The board of directors shall not act on behalf of the association to amend the articles of incorporation, to take any action that requires the vote or approval of the owners, to terminate the association, to elect members of the board of directors, or to determine the qualifications, powers, and duties, or terms of office of members of the board of directors; but the board of directors may fill vacancies in its membership of the unexpired portion of any term."

Our board filled a vacancy for an expired term.

Also, some sections of the law do state that the governing docs can overrule the state law, such as the quorum requirement, but this section does not.

Ah but you neglected the first section of RCW 64.38.025 (emphasis added)

RCW 64.38.025
Board of directors — Standard of care — Restrictions — Budget — Removal from board. (Effective January 1, 2012.)

(1) Except as provided in the association's governing documents or this chapter, the board of directors shall act in all instances on behalf of the association. In the performance of their duties, the officers and members of the board of directors shall exercise the degree of care and loyalty required of an officer or director of a corporation organized under chapter 24.03 RCW.

And if your CC&R's are silent as to whether or not the Board can fill a vacancy< I refer you to RCW 64.38.020:

(13) Exercise all other powers that may be exercised in this state by the same type of corporation as the association; and

(14) Exercise any other powers necessary and proper for the governance and operation of the association.


Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Daryl

Several here seem to think what the BOD did might well be proper. I know by one set of Bylaws I am most familiar said they might/could call and reconvene the Annual Meeting (and yes the quorum amount did decrease) but they did not have to. It said might/could, but not must.

Also with no one running for the BOD, why prolong it? Why not just move on?

I say your best plan of action would be to get candidate(s) to run in the next election rather then fight what has happened. If your so sure the BOD does not follow the laws or Bylaws you should be able to mount a slate of like minded thinkers to run for the BOD.

Hope this helps.

DarylF (Washington)
Posts: 157
Posted:
Glen, I'm not an attorney so I don't read laws all that often. Does the "except" in item 1 apply in item 2?

In my line of work and the documents I work with, I couldn't assume that. The "except" would only apply to item 1. Item 2 would stand alone.
DarylF (Washington)
Posts: 157
Posted:
and regardless, our bylaws are written to mirror item 2. even if they are legal, they don't seem right per our documents.

My worry is that someone in the neighborhood could make a fuss over this and bring in lawyers. We are taking a homeowner to court for unpaid dues (never from day 1 of living there) and there are people angry about fines and violation letters. If one knew they could stick it to the HOA (especially the one that doesn't pay dues anyway...) this could screw us.

Plus I'm a stickler for doing things the proper way...
RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 1,767
Posted:
IMO, the procedure was wrong. First, the meeting is not a Board meeting, but a Member meeting. Because there was one Director missing, the Members present, should have been given the opportunity to adjourn the meeting to a later date as prescribed by the Bylaws or State statues with a reduced quorum. What no one has mentioned is what if there were write in candidates on the ballots that were returned. Not sure what quorum was or even if it was achievable.

🎯 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