Board directors have big egos

It is impossible to run an Association effectively and have directors who truly have the interest of the members in the community. I sense most associations are dysfunctional and it is fair to say there are directors who are ego driven, enjoy the power, and are self serving. These are continuing observations I've seen: Board directors voting on matters where they have a personal interest that affects their property, directors who ignore or are selective of the governing documents and Robert Rules, create decisions based on their own needs and their friends, misuse of the power they know they hold, conduct business outside meetings via email, generally one director whom decides on a matter without the discussion or approval of other directors outside an open meeting, no equal or fair treatment of all homeowners, and lack of knowing their fiduciary duties and the governing documents. I know there are more and I have only touched just the surface on this topic.

There is an injustice to homeowners who can not do anything about these issues, unless they sue their own Association. A reality is the majority of homeowners do not participate nor truly care anyway, so it is difficult to address these concerns or remove these bad apples. Confronting the board, only results in being bullied by the other directors.

One's only recourse is to move out, but what if you like your home? Is your only recourse to be like the rest and not participate nor care? This will allow you to have less stress for sure!

I wish there is a way to have the government help assist homeowners make homeowner associations function according to State laws and their governing documents. There is no agency to govern homeowner associations and hold them accountable. Lawsuits are expensive and costly for individual homeowners.

I wonder what else happens in other associations? Is there hope?

I, and I think others, would disagree. In fact, to properly run an Association, the Directors need to have the interest of the members of the community. Mind you, this does not mean the interest of a single member or a small group of members. A Director must vote based on the merits of an issue and how they relate to the membership as a whole.


Some are. Many are not. Unfortunately, its the dysfunctional Associations that make the news. Therefore, those tend to be the face of Associations to the nation. I don't necessarily blame the news, as nobody wants to hear that a Board voted to pay their water bill in full and on time. Individuals need to keep in mind that news reports rarely tell the whole story.


I agree. That is certainly a fair statement.


Well, looking at this as a whole, it's really impossible for any Director not to vote on matters where they have a personal interest that affects their property. Directors make the decisions for the Association. Those decisions, good or bad, affect the development where they live and will likely affect their own property some how.

For example: Prune a tree or take it down? Get rid of an annoying tree that attracts birds that leave droppings on cars or simply prune it back for the aesthetic value it gives the neighborhood? How does a Director feel about trees? Who's car is parked under the tree? What does it cost now, and in the long run? How do the neighbors I see all the time feel about the tree? Will the decision cost me friends? All of these things, be they conscious or unconsciously thought about, affect a Directors decision. It's simply impossible to truly cast any vote and not have a personal interest on the issue.


A better question would be, did they read them? If they read them, did they understand them?
Did they take the time to research decisions of past boards to see if there is a precedence? Is it simply a matter of interpretation (lets face it, two people can read the same thing and based on their perspective have different interpretations)? How much time are they to take from their family for a volunteer job?

Heck, does anyone really understand Roberts Rules?


See earlier comment on having a personal interest in every decision.
See earlier comment on making decisions that are in the interest of the membership as a whole.


It be wrong to say this doesn't happen. It would be just as wrong to say that all Directors do this.

The question is, where are the watch dogs (i.e. the members)?

The membership are the checks and balances to the Boards decisions. Are the members readily volunteering to serve or are they apathetic and simply let those who want to serve serve?

Everything you say you observe does happen, it shouldn't but it does. Yet the membership often continues to reelect those same individuals back into office. By doing this, the members are saying you are doing a great job, keep doing things the way you are doing them.

Now, as I pointed out, it doesn't happen in all Associations. All Directors are not self serving. All members are not apathetic. All Associations aren't bad. However, my observations have been that those Associations that have self serving directors or are simply poorly ran, also have apathetic members.

There are many reasons for apathetic members. Regardless of those reasons, unless individual members are willing to step forward and serve on the Associations Board and Committees, then those who are willing to serve will be the ones making the decisions that affect you.


There is, in my opinion, an injustice in members making those kind of comments.

Most of the individuals on this site have had to fight what they saw as an injustice within their own Association. Each member has the same authority and opportunity many of the regulars on this forum have utilized. They gathered support from the membership and either recalled or simply didn't reelect those on the Board who were causing those issues. It doesn't happen overnight. In my case, it took over three years to explain and educate the members to the issues that I saw. However, it can happen. It can happen without taking legal action. It simply takes someone who cares enough about the issue to become involved and gather that support.


See my earlier comments about apathetic membership.
It may be difficult but not impossible.


I think a lot of that has to do with how the board is confronted.

Approaching the issue with the attitude of I'm right and you're wrong typically doesn't work. You may be right. However, this approach puts the other party in a defensive state. Typically, there is very little actual discussion when one or both parties become defensive.

Approaching the issue with, I'd like to work this out and perhaps I simply didn't understand what I was reading, opens the door for discussion to happen.

Simply discuss the facts and let the facts speak for themselves. Leave emotions out of it. Don't exaggerate. Admit when your not sure of the issue. Admit where you were wrong and how it could have been approached better. Don't just complain, offer solutions and if the issue isn't clear (like your issue isn't) offer compromises.


That is not your only recourse. It may be the only recourse you see if you aren't willing to put in the time, energy and effort needed. It may be the only recourse if you can't see issues from other perspectives. Not that the other perspective is right or wrong. Seeing things from different perspectives can help you better explain your perspective.

Moving is simply easier.


Amen to the less stress. Being involved and actually participating is tough and, if you are part of the actual decision process, even more stressful then simply doing the research and casting a vote.

Also, see previous comment about apathetic members sending the wrong message.


Do you really think that someone who doesn't live where you live, doesn't really care how your neighbors interact with each other, and really only cares about raising money and begging for votes will make the best decisions for you?

The job of holding Associations (i.e. the Board and Committee members) accountable is that of the membership (i.e. YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBORS). If your not willing to do that job why do think someone else is. Isn't that what created the situation in the first place? Members not stepping up to serve? As I said earlier, if members aren't willing to serve, then they allow those who are willing to make the decisions that affect you.
In general, the CC&Rs (deed restrictions) are considered a civil contract between all owners of the properties that have the same deed restrictions attached. Associations are formed to maintain and/or operate the common area and fulfill any services (trash/recycling, snow removal, street lighting, etc.) required by the CC&Rs. Per the CC&Rs, the Association is also given the authority (in addition to the owners) to enforce the covenants, restrictions and conditions of the deed restrictions (contract). Typically, Associations are incorporated (usually as a nonprofit) as this provides them certain advantages. As a corporation they must comply with corporate laws in addition to any HOA/COA laws.

The power/authority an Association has is determined by what the membership is willing to authorize though it’s governing documents or provided to it through the applicable State laws. There is no Federal or State agency that oversees Associations. OK there are some States, like VA, that have ombudsman offices. However, that office has little authority over the Association because they are not part of the judicial branch.

As we know there are civil laws and criminal laws. Criminal laws are enforced by the State. Civil laws are enforced by the individuals involved and they do this through the court system. Since contracts, hoa/coa laws and corporate laws are considered civil laws, there is typically limited governmental authorities to "oversee" or enforce those laws.

Sure the State corporation commission may fine for not filing the annual report on time. The IRS will certainly go after the Association for failing to file taxes. The District Attorney will prosecute if criminal laws are broken (example embezzlement). However if the Association doesn't comply with the Bylaws or a civil law, it's up to the membership to hold the Board accountable. The easiest way would be to recall the board or not reelect those same individuals. The more expensive option is to go through the court system.

This is why it's imperative that the members remain active in the development and actually take an interest in how the Association is governed. If apathy sets in (and, unfortunately it does), it becomes that much more difficult to change things when issues are discovered.

How can members be involved? First and foremost, attend the annual meetings and cast ballots. Members should also attend board meetings from time to time to see how the board is running things. If time permits, volunteer for committees, special projects or to sit on the Board and become part of the decision process.

Heck, in my Association of 130 lots, we had 17 lots attend the last annual meeting (and 5 of those were the board). I don't understand why the majority (over 80%) would allow 17 to make decisions that will affect their life and property.


Yes, Nina, there is hope. This site is full of stories where individuals have gotten involved and changed their associations. Everyone is willing to explain how they were able to make those changes. However, it is up to you to actually cause the changes you seek in your Association. Nobody else can do it for you. Not even the government.

BTW - I hate Associations. I've just found it's easier to make changes from within then to make changes by breaking down the door. I continue to serve on my Board because I'm concerned on how some decisions would come out. I am often outvoted. However, at least I'm involved in the process and have been able to make changes that I thought were needed.

I can't say I agree with the broad stroke the OP is painting all the boards out there. Are there out-of-control boards looking for their own little kingdom and serve for the power? Absolutely. Though I suspect there are a whole lot more out there that are doing a great job. Remembering we are all volunteers and we serve to make a difference in our neighborhoods.

My community is just 60+ homes and the board is consciencely looking how we can improve our neighborhoods. We diligently look at each issue with the varied eyes and life experiences we bring to the board. Each opinions expressed are listened to and are not dismissed because of who is presenting. We have been somewhat fortunate that there hasn't been a lot of dissention among us (the one causing drama is no longer on the board; it wasn't so much him but his wife who was causing it).

I think if we polled our community, a majority approve of the job we have done. We have make sound financial decisions and have a healthy reserves. We also have a game plan with our landscaping company to improve our common areas.

Casting stones is more fun for many.

Nina, the cheapest and quickest way to get rid of a lousy board is to (1) vote some of them out at the next election, and the rest of them at the subsequent election.

But this, as Tim shows and others here have experience, takes effort, might effort from Owners who're willing bond together, study their governing documents and our main condo laws here in CA and (1 & 2) (2) launch a vigorous but dignified, fact-based campaign "clean campaign" for "your people."

We did (1) 7 & 8 years ago to clear out an abusive and ignorant Board. At that time we used (2) and I just used it again in the last two weeks to defeat an abusive, ignorant incumbent who ran a personal-attack campaign against me.

The next cheapest way is to launch a recall effort starting with a petition. See davis-stirling.com for details and proceed exactly according to this legislation. You also, of course, need to have willing candidates.

Either way, takes serious joint effort. Too often, we Americans try to "go it alone"; the rugged individualist approach. Members in HOAs must coalesce with several others. Perhaps you are the one, Nina, to get this community action started.

BobD, not-from-NY, has legal solutions, but I'd try the cheaper, quicker way first if at all possible. But I really like to read Bob's writing.

As a side question, do most associations have directors that serve for more than one year? In our association, the entire board is up for election every year.

We also have staggered two year terms for directors. That's why it's hard to vote all of the stinkers out at one election. It's also possible to have one or two decent directors on a board, who, if some nasties are voted out, the decent ones who stay may find their voices of reason and a renewed commitment to the community.

IMO, a new director barely gets up & running in one year, especially if in a complicated HOA in a state with complicated legislation.

Good point. But even with one year terms for all directors, most serve more than one year, and two out of our five have been on for many years. I think one has been on since turnover about 15 years ago.

Well said.

Thanks, and I enjoy yours and others too.

Nina

In another life (business) I would tell customers if you have sproposals and one or two are different then you should group them in a pile of two. Do not look at each pile as who from but their approach. Eliminate one pile and spend your time sorting/evaluating those in the other pile.

As you could not even get a 2nd then your pile got eliminated first. Either you are totally correct or you are off the wall and got eliminated from the get go.

I do have an opinion based on your other posts. Care to hear it?

BINGO!

While most find it easy to lay blame on the members of the board for their perceived faults and failures in reality it is the members of the association who are responsible. When you don't care they won't care.

Sit back and do nothing and you get what you deserve.

Because doing something is just to damn hard and requires effort. ......Better you save your limited time for watching Survivor, Honey Boo Boo,
And Dancing With The Stars now that is what's really important in life!

Want to see what happens when lazy, do nothing, distracted property owners don't bother to participate in the form of property ownership that governs their homes and investments just watch the election returns and results and see what CLASS CLOWNS will be heading to Washington to decide how you live your life. Either voted in by uninformed idiots or allowed to win by disinterested fools.

And I wish for a 1953 Mahogany Hulled Chris-Craft.

Our chances are juuuuuuuust about the same.

Say, Douglas, I cut this from another thread, which seems to say that elections are indeed held every year, but directors are seated for two. But are you saying that your bylaws state that every director must stand for reelection every single year?

FL 720:

See section: 720.306 Meetings of members; voting and election procedures; amendments.— (9) (9) ELECTIONS AND BOARD VACANCIES.—

My HOA has a Pres. whose is def. on a power trip. We are trying to get a Management Company to run things as the board does. I think along with others that having impartial people running the board will alleviate personal issues.
Jay BUsh - Resident Hamrick Lake DOuglasville Georgia. 42 single family homes. Last weel @ the Annual Meeting 4 people showed up....

Our jurisdiction's condo law allows Administratorships ( among 6 or 8 remedials ) on application and at the discretion of a Superior Court judge. More than a dozen have been reported despite a healthy housing market. The corporation is not dismantled, but whatever formal self-governance disappears. One Administratorship (800 units) has lasted many years, and all have stimulated inventive approaches from the bench. There being no HOA law, no such HOA remedy has been provided "out of the box' by the legislature here.

Condo experiences here with formal condo act Administratorship - as opposed to conventional pre-bankruptcy protections under B&I acts - suggest the remedy may NOT cure chaotic mis-governance & incorrigibility even after 6 or 8 years of it. Barely is the process lifted when it's back to court over disputed elections and likely the same Big Cheap/lack of governance skills that triggered the discretionary process and keep it going. "We don't want to pay for our lifestyle choices" etc. Sucks up taxpayer-funded, congested court resources - indirect- when some of these outcomes suggest should have been a total winding-down amidst a generally well housing universe.