Making unqualified volunteers qualified

In a different thread, a comment was suggested that attorneys (perhaps others) prey on the "unqualified volunteers" that serve on an Associations Board of Directors.
I'd be the first to admit that many, perhaps most, Associations have no requirements to serve as Director. Others may only have the requirement that they be members of the Association. Therefore, I can see how unqualified individuals may be elected or appointed to serve.

To this end, I ask the following questions:

1) What would you consider to be valid requirements to make an individual qualified to serve as a Director?

2) Should there be professional licensing or certification requirements from the State for individuals to serve as a Directors?

3) What would those requirements be (if different than answers to question 1)?

4) Who should pay for this certification or licensing (the individual or the membership)?

5) If licensing/certification should be required, should the now "qualified" individual be paid to serve as a Director? If yes, what amount would be fair wage or should it be market driven?

6) What issues may the Association/membership need to address if a licensing/certification requirement was enacted in your State?

7) Would you be willing to pay more in Assessments in order to implement such a requirement?

Our criteria: If you raised your hand at the election meeting in January... Seriously, that is ALL you had to do beside be an owner. Some people didn't raise their hands but were "anointed" board position because we required 9 members. We later dropped that number to 5. It just 2 years to get that done...

So basically breathing, the ability to sign your name, and you showed up to a meeting... We had more restrictions on who could rent the clubhouse... According to the "Puppet master" con-man, he hand picked who would be the next president. Otherwise he'd spread rumors about you that weren't true.

Honestly, my board members ran the gamut of pretty intelligent people. One was a speech writer for a President, another a retired university professor. One retired IRS agent and another owner of an accounting firm. We come from a city of high intelligence so there was no lack in smarts before the new board took over. Who were mostly blondes (in a bottle) and shared a brain cell...

My qualifications were quite unique. Can not expect that of the other board members. Just hope that you all will have the ability to follow the rules and work together.

Whether that is a worst-case scenario depends on a lot of variables.

By their very nature, condos need an association of some sort to keep the building intact. I will withhold further comment on condos for now.

Associations that have a real mission would have a problem. By real mission, I mean maintaining the roads or operating a community swimming pool.

In those associations that exist mainly for the purpose of harrassing the members about the color of their shutters or the placement of their garbage cans, all of humanity would be better off if there was no one willing or able to serve on the board. What some might see as a worst-case, the rest of us would see as divine salvation.

Well, Tim, the vote seems to be tied. One in favor of educated board members and one in favor of abyssmally ignorant cave-dwelling, knuckle-dragging, troglodytes.

BTW, 10 times 90 is 190. I know because I asked an abyssmally ignorant cave-dwelling, knuckle-dragging, troglodyte. As long as we have abyssmally ignorant cave-dwelling, knuckle-dragging, troglodytes we don't need no steenkin' edjucashun.

Actually I wasn't taking a vote. A topic of discussion was raised in a different thread that I thought deserved it's own thread.

I thought it would be a good idea to discuss the merits and concerns of the topic. Hoping that the merits would stand or fall on their own while concerns are acknowledged and potential methods or procedures to minimize those concerns are provided.

1) I think this is hard to quantify. It really depends on the individual and I think this is where #2 comes in.

2) I believe there should be a State-run agency that oversees HOA corporations and that there should be a licensing/certification requirement. This should involve the individual having a firm understanding of all applicable statutes involved in running a HOA. One big thing I have noticed with HOAs I have been involved in or people I know who have served is that they may have good intentions but they have zero to little understanding of the laws that govern them.

Another big thing is that by tying serving to licensing/certification the individual should be held personally liable for their actions. A constant theme on this board is that homeowners enter into a contract when purchasing their properties and that ignorance is no excuse and that they should be responsible for their actions. The same should go towards board members. They should be aware of the laws and if they violate them then they should be held personally liable. Sure HOA insurance will cover them but to a point.

An example - in my neighborhood the covenants expired. Several area lawyers have reviewed the situation and see that it is pretty cut and dry - the HOA never filed with the state to preserve to C&Rs by the appropriate date and the C&Rs ceased to exist. The HOA was informed of this but they continue to enforce the C&Rs, demand payment, and threaten legal action (they have even demanded tenants pay rent directly to them dispite never filing a lien). Because they were well aware of the situation regarding the C&Rs and they continued to act I believe the individual board members should be held personally liable.

I believe this would have an effect of preventing poor (and illegal) decisions from being made saving communities lots of money. Consider my other neighborhood - the HOA went bankrupt because they fought a lawsuit that was 100% preventable. If the board members were held accountable I doubt they would have pressed on with their actions, the HOA would have been saved, and the homeowners would have been protected.

This may also discourage some from serving, but then again, if they can't follow a simple law should they be?

3) I think just a comprehension of all laws applicable.
4) I think the individual should be responsible for the certification. When I get a drivers license I am responsible for paying for the permits, tests, etc. I don't expect the car dealership to pay for me learning how to drive.

5)I don't think they should be paid but if the law allows for payment then so be it - allow for compnsation, BUT I believe there should be a high vote threshold for anything involving compensation.

6) I really don't see any issues for the membership. I think something like this may actually increase awareness of the laws.

7) No. When divided among all property owners the cost is minimal. I think Florida charges homeowners in HOAs 4$ to pay for the governing agency.

Tim,

Been thinking for awhile about this and see the merits of necessary qualifications versus the possible discouragement of some who might otherwise be willing to serve.

As a minimum I would like to see back ground checks be required so that no convicted felons, especially of white collar crimes, could gain access to an HOA's bank accounts. Also maybe an "information sheet" that the state provides to all candidates listing trustee responsibilities/risks and applicable controlling state laws-and require a signature of acknowledgement and acceptance that is retained on file by the state.

I agree that some of your other suggestions are good, but difficult to quantify.

Certainly this will earn me further scorn; however, I feel character is much more important that knowledge or experience. I understand this is probably impossible to measure, but having people with average intelligence with the right motivations to serve is more important than staffing one's HOA with a brain trust, IMHO. (Some of my comments like the 10 Commandments are done tongue in cheek, as I already acknowledged my face and sense of humor have made life difficult at times Personality is also key-divisive individuals need to be discouraged but how can this be measured and implemented?

That is the purpose of multiple people serving on a Board-they will bring varying perspectives and home ownership is not a privilege for an elite few but rather for the masses. The view that there needs to be more bite in how rogue Boards can be dealt with must be addressed as much as the qualifications of potential BODs. You can have the most qualified people still restricted by lousy governing documents.

Maybe states should consider certain limitations on how long developers can retain control, the duration of special classes of voting rights etc. By demonstrating that the power actually resides with the people IMO will do more to encourage active participation which is the key to proper checks and balances.

Mike,

I cannot give you the name on this neighborhood on this board because of posting rules but I can give you the information if you provide your email.

Tim:
Although I strongly believe Board Directors should get some training in how to manage an HOA or Condo, I feel licensing them will have candidates run for the hills.

I favor having the association pay for the half-day, full day or video training CAI offers for new board members. Although I have problems with the dogmatic attitude of many CAI attorneys, CAI's Board training program is quite good. If there is a need, I believe community colleges would develop training programs as well.

If people are unwilling to give one day of their time to attend a free course, they shouldn't be on the board.

Jeanne

Kevin,

I really appreciate the offer to help.

My yahoo email is [email protected]

This is my junk email, but I will check it and give you my 'real' email address at that point.

Thanks again!

The REAL solution?

Design these places on the premise that the BOD WILL be unqualfied. Checks and balances ect.

Oversight, transparency and the REAL power vested with the homeowners.

This simple solution is always discarded by the egos of the worst possible candidates for the position.

Resulting in the litinay of abuses and rip offs that we read about on a daily basis.

Human nature sure is strange.

Matthew:

Your position seems to indicate two possible points of question for me.

One, it would seem you would suggest anyone who did not successfully complete such a program MUST then be ignorant. At the least that seems to be a bit far fetched. Your point would be that all HOA Board members are currently ignorant? Ignorant to what?

Two, you seem to think a state sponsored course of some kind who increase IQs and abilities making them worthwhile. These same states developed and passed such solutions as Davis/Stirling which IMO does little to serve or simplify HOA ownership at all. This might be like Florida the same state that now require Board members to certify THEY READ THE DOCUMENTS, seeming to suggest that alone increases capabilities.

And while I agree there is value in education IMO some things you simply cannot teach. Especially in a few hour course.

Now the answer you provided to the math portion of our state exam was CLOSE in fact 100 points closer than one of or regular posters here who now sees all HOA Board members as thieves, liars, power hungry, unqualified wastes that certainly need to be removed and defanged. But he believes even with his own proven lack of basic math skills he still now knows best. IMO there would be no benefit in attempting to educate folks like that.

Just how many years might it take to have an individual like that rise to the level of multiplying 10 X 90 ? And who might pay for those years of study???

there can be no REAL solution until the criminal and civil codes of law are combined

eg. when breach of fiduciary duty becomes an actual CRIME with actual PUNISHMENT

then, and only then, will we actually have accountability instead of:

'i am only a volunteer, i'm doing the best i can, what do you expect?'

what I expect is: you volunteered to direct a corporation ~ do so ACCORDING TO THE ARTCLES AND BYLAWS or step down ~ if ignorant, learn ~ at the very least read the governing documents

AS A POSSIBLE SOLUTION:

how about an Oath (or Affirmation) of Office ?

I solemly swear/affirm to carry out my duties according to the xyz hoa, inc. bylaws and governed by the CCRs, which i have read and understand, with my undivided loyalty to the interests of the association.

as the song says: ................dream, dream, dream..........

TimB4, and those responding,

To make the replies more meaningful, IMO, some subcategories would be helpful.

For example, are you assuming a Condominium Association Board, or a HOA (stand alone individual houses) Board?

And then, in respect to Director Qualifications, when the Association is either completely self-managed (mostly self managed), or when there is a management company or manager employed.

So in the absence of any reasonable constraints...we must now go to the thread...

"Suing my HOA".

Because as more and more courts are figuring out what a mess these places are, that is where the contraints are found.

Great solution!

The association attorney is now very happy!

Oh I know.

Much has been made of the fact that I spend $40K on an attorney 10 years ago. And what a joke that was.

I do all my own work on my house, I got a freon license and installed my own central AC, built all my own decks, outdoor

shower....do my own car work ect. ect. ect.

So I thought....how hard would it be to do this law thing?

Turns out an idiot can do it...(that was tongue in cheek)

But it is fairly simple once you understand the Rules of Civil Procedure (all states just copy the Fed rules)

How a lawsuit is structured...Complaint, Answer, Motions, Trial.

So I gave it a whirl!

No my case is pretty simple...my HOA is pretending that a signed contract I have with them doesn't exist.

I also threw in a Constitutional count that fines were unlawful/unconstitutional too.

So I am patiently waiting for this thing to be resolved.

It has been interesting to say the least.

Ellie,

I'm specifically talking about Board members for any Association. Therefore, being self managed or not would not be a factor.

Tim

Here’s one person’s opinion:

1) What would you consider to be valid requirements to make an individual qualified to serve as a Director?
I’d start with someone who is at least 18, listed as owner or co-owner on the deed, is current with all fees (regular, special assessments, etc.) and doesn’t have any litigation pending against the association (plaintiff or defendant).

2) Should there be professional licensing or certification requirements from the State for individuals to serve as a Director?

NO –homeowners need to do their homework and decide what type of people they want on the board. I have no problems with a nominating committee, although I prefer people speaking up at an open meeting and telling everyone why they’d like to serve and what skills and experiences they bring. People could then ask questions (such as if the volunteer is willing to attend educational seminars from time to time on how to run an Association) and vote accordingly.

3) What would those requirements be (if different than answers to question 1)?

See my response to question #2

4) Who should pay for this certification or licensing (the individual or the membership)?

Although I said no to question #2, I think the individual should pay up front, but be reimbursed by the Association AFTER he/she served at least one full term on the board. This way, you’d know if the person was serious about serving on the board and the Association wouldn’t have to pay several fees for people who attended one or two meetings and then bailed.

5) If licensing/certification should be required, should the now "qualified" individual be paid to serve as a Director? If yes, what amount would be fair wage or should it be market driven?

I’m not sure – an argument could be made either way. On one hand, certification doesn’t guarantee a director will make good decisions (there’s such a thing as an educated fool) and licensed professionals get caught doing stupid and/or illegal things all the time.

On the other hand, one’s time is valuable so if a director is going to spend time going to meetings, reviewing assorted contracts, CCRs, Bylaws, exterior request, etc., perhaps the homeowners should be willing to pay. After all, these people are stepping up to help manage THEIR property – if you don’t want to do it yourself, you’ll have to pay someone to do it and one way or another, you WILL get what you pay for.

If board members are to be paid, I'd base it on fair wage, which should be based on the size of the community and the amount/type of the common areas that has to be managed. Thus, a 1000 home community may pay more than a 100 or 50 home community.

6) What issues may the Association/membership need to address if a licensing/certification requirement was enacted in your State?

Depends on what the law would say, but we would have to consider who’s even willing to go through the process. If you already have a problem with homeowner apathy, would a licensing requirement would make things worse if no one’s willing to volunteer? What happens if the current board goes through certification and some of them fail – do you continue to let them serve? Should you have potential volunteers take the training first and then take a vote on the ones who completed and passed it? What do you do about continuing education and how much should be required?

7) Would you be willing to pay more in Assessments in order to implement such a requirement?

Depends on the amount – it’s been suggested in some circles that HOA boards establish a line item in their budgets for some sort of board member education, such as a CAI membership, which our HOA does (I’m the representative for my HOA and pass along information to the other members). Before laws are mandated, I think boards should encourage continuing education in the most cost effective manner they can afford.

So many thoughtful & interesting replies. Thanks for getting this topic started Tim!

Quick answer that others already have written. A 1/2 day to several hour one-day seminar would be really, really helpful. Should be done ASAP after the annual election.

If there were vert. requirements, may potential volunteers would head for the hills, IMO!

I'd love to jump in with more but am leaving tomorrow for 6 weeks+ in Europe so don't have time. Just thought I'd let you know so that no one wonders whatever happened to CarolR from CA. I wonder when someone "disappears"! Should be back with you by apps. 9/12.

Tim:

Do you really think Mike might offer any response to the last question you posed???? That would require Mike to actually form his own opinions or thoughts rather than parroting all the information and lciams he spews on a daily basis.

Mike reads and tehn passes it off as his own. And if and when you bother to ask a follow up question or request an explanation SILENCE........

What shocks me most is that we have folks who seem to fall for Mike's limited version of the truth. They seem to have no abilty to read between the lines or find holes in Mike's claims. There are many!

So NO Mike was never interested in looking into how Board members might be provided more education his rant is and was unqualiied, non-professionals and after that he is empty with any ideas or possible solutions.

So don't bother waiting to long Mike is not on his way back with an answer. No doubt he is off advising others on how they can be just like HIM!

Thanks for the post Tim with the exception of Mike's comments some folks seem o actually have given this some thought................

Well there is Mike's canned position.

Straight out of the anti-HOA wing nut digest.

And once again Mike TRIES to suggest his view is supported by "many people". Based on anything more than some articles Mike has read??? No nothing more.

Impossible to get anywhere with folks as limited as Mike.

What an interesting topic! If we all had the dream team board, what would we talk about on this message board? Here is my humble opinion:

1) What would you consider to be valid requirements to make an individual qualified to serve as a Director?
I think a homeowner should live in the development for at least 1 year besides all the other written requirements.

2) Should there be professional licensing or certification requirements from the State for individuals to serve as a Directors?
NO. Florida has just implemented a rule for HOA's that we must now register the HOA with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and on file, must have a document signed by all board members within 90 days of being elected, that states the board member has read all the documents and will work to uphold the documents and policies to the best of his or her ability and will faithfully discharge his or her fiduciary responsibility to the association's members. I think this step is just right.

3) What would those requirements be (if different than answers to question 1)? na
4) Who should pay for this certification or licensing (the individual or the membership)? na

5) If licensing/certification should be required, should the now "qualified" individual be paid to serve as a Director? If yes, what amount would be fair wage or should it be market driven?
No payment, service on the board should remain voluntary.

6) What issues may the Association/membership need to address if a licensing/certification requirement was enacted in your State? na
7) Would you be willing to pay more in Assessments in order to implement such a requirement? na

I can understand why condo associations are regulated: Their purview of responsibility includes the roofs, walls, pipes etc, of everyone's home. With individual homes, the items the board oversees have little to do with individual homes other than esthetic decisions regarding fences and paint, for example. The remainder, although very important, deal with roads, irrigation, club house, pool. And the gray area of course are the application of other rules regarding parking, visitors, signs etc. But no real special knowledge except for common sense, is required to manage and maintain the pool, for example. The requirement of board approval assures us that no one rogue board member will reek havoc but we know one rogue board member can influence all the others. I do not think any kind of certification or licensing will rid us of these evil board members.

Mike,

As was mentioned on other threads, it's important to listen and perhaps heed the voice that doesn't agree and raises concerns. I agree with them, as seeing things from a different perspective can provide a different insight. Those who mentioned this importance in other threads specifically said that you were one of those voices we should listen to. This is what I'm trying to do. I'm not trying to belittle you. I'm just trying to see this issue you raised from your perspective. In order to do this, I need you to participate. Of course the choice to participate or not is yours to make.

Let me try to rephrase the issue:

Lets say that the CC&Rs are written to include everything you desire. There is true separation of power based on how you personally believe it should be separated. The membership makes 99% of the decisions. Enforcement issues are handled only by the membership or an outside entity (courts, arbitrators, what ever outside authority you believe should be used). The Directors are basically collecting assessments, paying bills and overseeing contractors that the membership approved. There is full transparency. Board meetings are even televised so all members may observe if they are unable to attend. A full transcript as well as the minutes are of all meetings are available online. Everything is how you believe it should be.

Would you then change you position and not require qualifications for your Directors or would you still require qualifications (if yes, then what qualifications and how would those be obtained)?

Now lets say that things are as they are. Mass. still has no laws requiring transparency or open meetings. The Board still has enforcement authority and authority to interpret the documents. However, you have the opportunity to specify what, if any, qualifications an individual should have in order to sit on your board. If they don't meet those qualifications they can not, under penalty of law, serve as a Director and have access to all of that power and/or authority granted by the poorly written CC&Rs and/or lack of State HOA laws (again this is how it is now).

You have already indicated that you would require a credit check (which I've previously asked some questions about for clarification so I can better understand that requirement). What, if any, other qualifications would you have?

1. Adult homeowner, no litigation pending related to the assoc, no felony convictions
2. No, but I would be in favor of some training/education on BOD roles, responsibilities and HOA ethics.
3. n/a
4. The membership should pay for it.
5. Depends on the size of the HOA. Mine is 230 homes, we are a volunteer board. For us, no. Our bylaws prohibit it currently.
6. Who pays for the certification, what impact it would have on volunteers/those willing to serve, what add'l liability or responsibility a certification means to the individual or association, and whether D&O coverage is sufficient
7. No

Others than Ray have posted that there should be no felony convictions to serve. Therefore, I think some clarification is needed. I'm just using Ray's posting as an illustration. Please, anyone who desires should comment.

Since there are verying types of felonies would any felony (including disorderly conduct, curfew and loitering violations) eliminate someone from serving or would only certain felonies keep a person from being qualified? If not all, than which ones?

I ask this question, as I asked a similar question to those who thought a credit check should be done, to illustrate that it's easy to for something to be mentioned that may mean different things to different people.