Intimidation by Board President and Secretary

You & other neighbors who know about the intimidation should go to the next board meeting and complain to the other board members. Ask the other directors to instruct the two to cease & desist.

Another option might be to hold a meeting of owners and a few of you report the intimidation to them.

In CA, you only need 5% of owners to sign a petition for a recall--to get the recall going. See davis-stirling.com about the exact way to recall a board in CA.

How many are on the board? When do their terms expire?

There may be someone you can call, but I don't know who and, in any case, I think it would take too long to get any action. You also might have trouble proving intimidation. Just what, by the way, is the nature of the intimidation?

You & the other owners need to handle this yourselves.

Thank you, but that is the problem, one of the petitions IS a recall petition. I have had a few people tell me that some of the residents are afraid of these two board members. I don't know why as they have no real power except the power of intimidation. Therefore they can continue to spend our money on cosmetic amenities which no one will use instead of much needed repairs. This is an effort as they have stated to attract younger retirees so they can make commission on the sales of these available homes. They are also trying to dismantle a community garden which has been here for over 16 years. Then put in the amenities they want to attract younger retirees.

> Threats of physical harm are considered actionable.

Exactly. Lobbying (even aggressive lobbying) is not improper. Threats of physical harm are. Threats of other sorts of retaliation may be.

Ooops. Meant to write: " I'm also thinking that the expense to add amenities might be a decision the Board alone canNOT make."

Joyce

The link below will itemize which sections of either Civil Code or Corporation Code the Attorney General of California has jurisdiction over.

http://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/homeowner_assn

As I had seen with my neighbors, when you are older with limited income and resources and maybe little to no understanding of the law (or HOA governance), the threat to ones personal property is enough to silence someone. Many of my neighbors never understood what was going on and were continually threatened with lawsuits if they opposed the HOA.

Same goes for my non-55+ neighborhood. Many homeowners believed the HOA lies and intimidation and when people like me questioned things we were painted as cheap selfish individuals who wanted to see the neighborhood rot over $100, which was not the case.

KevinK7 you are probably right about being afraid the board will pick on anyone who goes against them and nit pick little things which might be wrong with their property costing them money they can't spare. Meanwhile the board president's home has the stucco falling off and lawn ornaments that make it look like a cheap amusement park.

FrankS10 - I don't know where to begin with you, except to say that this board consists of nothing but elderly people and I am one of the elderly residents. To say that elderly people are afraid of their own shadows is certainly not the case here. Some of these residents come from what has been called "The Greatest Generation," they lived through wars and a depression and are afraid of nothing!! When you attain a certain age there is little that frightens you besides the spectre of financial problems and not being able to care for oneself. I don't know about the elderly you have known, but perhaps you live in an area where everyone is afraid! I wouldn't make assumptions about the elderly until you have walked in our shoes Frank and if you are lucky maybe you will live long enough to become elderly. I hope when you do become elderly nobody makes assumptions about your stste of mind.

Yes CarolR11 you are correct these two realtor/board members want to remove the garden which has been there for 16 years. As Davis-Stirling Act in California recommends - it is never in the best interest of a community to have realtors as board members, rather it is in the best interest of the realtor/board members who will probably spend money on cosmetic amenities to attract buyers, which is what these two had stated in a meeting that they want to attract younger retirees. In doing so they have acknowledged a conflict of interest as they are actively selling homes here. This is according to Davis-Stirling Act. There are five members on the board. While we are on this subject our CC&Rs stat that if a board member is removed the board must have a majority vote or written consent of the members to fill a vacancy. I have been asked by some if this pertains to board directors who resign. Does anyone have a definitive answer. There is nothing in this section which deals with a board member resigning or being asked to resign. To me it is either/or. We are in California. These board memebers are spending money to pay the association attorneys to be sure this community garden is dismantled, which is not what everyone wants. They have been in negotiations for weeks at the expense of the members. They don't seem to care how they waste our money as long as they get their way and can make their commissions. Bob Pratte our local columnist with the Press Enterprise has written three columns in favor of keeping the garden and has gone so far as to call this board "wacky!" Thank you all very much for your help.

Carol, I know the attorneys have the site to interpret Davis-Stirling and that is where I got the info on realtors. They said it is not illegal, but can be a conflict of interest if they are activley selling in the community, which they are. As to identifying the community, it is not my doing, I came on this site a few weeks ago and someone had posted the article on here and therefore everyone found out from that, not me. The directors who perceive another director as not complying with their wishes become verbally abusive and I for one refused to take that kind of treatment for months and months. At one executive meeting I was asking to be heard about abusive behavior from another director and they refused to hear my grievance to clear the air and be able to function as a cohesive board. I was tag teamed by two of the board members and called everything but nice. They then forced another member to resign for abusing me further and they thought I was going to sue the board. They have replaced one member after another without a vote or written consent from a majority of the members. They want board directors who will go along with what they want. There is no diversity of opinion on this board.

I was on the Board for 18 months and in that time I was appointed once and elected twice. These people if they don't like one board member they try to drive them off the board and when that doesn't work they recall them. I refuse to be a part of the recall and begged them to leave the board as it was. I was summoned to an executive session and was told to be sure not to miss it no matter what. I did not know it was to tag team me and verbally abuse me. For one thing I went against the president's efforts to dismantle our community garden. She enlisted the help of the rest of the board and they all turned on me and two of them tag teamed me for about twenty minutes at which time I told the president that I was not her employee and that I was holding a position that is voluntary and that I did not have to take the abuse and they would have my resignation. I was almost immediately replaced by another person who is also a realtor and works at the same agency as the board president. The one board member I had a grievance with who helped tag team me was also drummed off the board and asked to resign because he made the mistake of e-mailing again and taunting me about not being on the board, but he was. I was not aware that if your CC&Rs state there can't be appointed board members without a majority vote or written consent that they can be appointed and there is nothing that states they can be how then can they be forced to resign?

John, you are wrong the people were elected to the board and our Articles of Incorporation state that a vacancy can't be filled by appointment by the board and they trump anything a Bylaw states. This is not my issue as I am only trying to help the people who are trying to save the garden. I don't want the garden gone, but I am not a gardener. After 16 years it should remain.

For anyone that may have been following these threads and expecting that this is the same Association, it appears that the garden was removed. The status of the recall is unknown. See:

Homeowners flap uproots community garden

Note: there are several threads on the same subject. I've updated all of them for the benefit of future readers.