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

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

PjP (Alaska)
Posts: 5
Posted:
Hello everyone,

I am a member of a 76 unit association. I have owned my property for the past decade. During this time, there has been a relatively permanent board in place.

Due to recent poor decisions made by this group, I have become more interested. Such decisions have included very bad contracts. They also have taken other actions without obtaining professional opinions. Specifically, they elected to hook up some of our units to the city septic system without hiring an engineer to evaluate the condition of the existing on lot system. When pressed for their rationale explaining their decision I was told that they had uncovered a letter from an architect which stated that "the useful life of a septic tank is 10 years". First of all, I am unaware of and architects qualifications to provide a professional opinion on a septic system. Secondly, I work as an engineer, and know this information to be not correct. While some septic systems can fail within 10 years, others can last a lifetime or more. The only way one can know for sure is to have an engineer run an adequacy test on it. This cost our association $90,000. The units hooked up to the city system also had a monthly service fee of $50. This was very troubling to me, as we had an existing on lot system that could have been good for decades to come. The only way we would have known is if the board hired an engineer for testing.

As a result of this, I became much more interested in the association's affairs. I attended their annual meeting intending to take a position on the body. I was shocked to see how their "elections" were handled. It consisted of the existing board members sitting a round a table discussing with each other who would take which position. In reading our bylaws, our rules say that ballots are to be passed out to all members present this was not done and nobody who was not a existing board member could vote. I told them that I would like to serve. I was told that I could not take a place on the board until they "could check if our dues were current". It is unclear as to why this information was not available at the meeting. Nonetheless, our rules do not even state this as a requirement for voting.

Long story short, they never checked on it and continued to operate in the manner they had previously done for the following year. I have little time to spare, so did not really spend as much of it on it as I should.

I spent time prior to this year's "election " trying to uncover information in the associations files that could be brought to the attention of other owners. I made numerous written request to access the files on their history of assessing fines , executed contracts, and the location of their "dues must be current to vote" justification (for the record, my dues have never even been late once in the past decade). These requests were initially denied due to "executive privilege" and "privacy laws". I researched the matter further, and realized neither applicable to this situation.

As a result, I was told they needed to consult with their attorney first. I figured that this should not take more than a few days, so was agreeable. I again contacted them by email or weeks later and asked if they had a response. The answer was no and they were still waiting.

In the meantime we received notice of the election happening in a couple of weeks. Specifically, the notice stated "Remember, dues must be current to vote!" I immediately wrote and requested information on whether or not they had obtained their opinion and if they had located where they had determined the voting rights limitations. The response I received was something like "I am not an attorney... blah blah blah... We don't have a response yet." After this, the "election quote was held as scheduled. I saw no reason to a to attend, because in my view, they were breaking the law by doing it that way.

Over the year they have not responded to my questions and requests to access information (I found out this access was required by the nonprofit corporation active my state, our declaration, and our bylaws).

In recent months, I have began attending their meetings to try to force their compliance with the law without initial success. I drafted a very stern letter to them, and supplied it to them prior to their meeting two months ago. Attending that meeting and being more assertive, I seemed to make some progress, but the minutes that were sent out for that meeting stated that some of the owners in the meeting had "aggressive" behavior and caused one of their members to resign.

After not receiving access again I attended their meeting last month to make my assertive claims in front of other owners. Access was FINALLY granted orally, though I had to leave state the next day for a few weeks for other matters. The meeting was rather heated during my time to talk. As I had multiple of grievances I wanted to make others aware of, they tried to tell me I had to stop talking after three minutes. My response was that I had to finish speaking. hat I would not stop. until I made my point (probably five or six minutes). I told them that since they failed to be properly elected, they did not have legal authority upon which to stand. One of them threatened to call the police. My response was "Call them, there is nothing criminal happening here." My voice was elevated, but I was certainly not anywhere to yelling. Also noteworthy, there was another homeowner there that had very similar grievances to mine and was involved in the discussion at the time.

I have just returned home and discovered that minutes were sent out to the owners with a very extensive write up naming me and stating that I was "aggressive" toward them in the meeting. They stated also that I was disruptive and a problem... their threat to call the police was mentioned, my entire list of grievances was named individually, with the convenient exception that I've been diligently trying to access our records for the past year. I realize you're only reading one side of the story here, but does anyone have any suggestions? It seems likely that this is going to get really nasty!

Finally, I should add that I also go
BobD4 (up north)
Posts: 1,002
Posted:
...you left us hanging . . .
PjP (Alaska)
Posts: 5
Posted:
Sorry, I posted too soon (accidentally)! I was just saying that I have confirmed that state law allows for voting rights limitations, but only if it is stated in the bylaws and it is not there.
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
You need to rally support. The reason Boards become entrenched is because of the apathy of homeowners like you and your neighbors. Now it seems as if you woke up a year ago, now you need to wake your neighbors. Perhaps a one page factual (not what you think or feel) newsletter, letting your fellow homeowners in on what you've discovered. 76 X $.04 copy at Staples $3.04 X your time to deliver it. Don't expect your situation to turn around overnight but by next year you could rally enough people to vote one or two of the Board, then the same the following year until you replace the hangers on. One caveat though, this will require getting enough people willing to give up a couple of hours of television each month to protect their investment.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
BobD4 (up north)
Posts: 1,002
Posted:
you mention : "It seems likely that this is going to get really nasty!" Sounds fairly nasty already.

I can almost guarantee that the mainstream neutral co-owners are easy to rally behind a Board of Directors that can circle the wagons. Think restraint orders, qualified right to defame you with impunity in association mail-outs . . Watching mindless cop shows is poor preparation for general owners trying to understand somebody's due process beefs. There are examples of complainants and crusaders for due process literally driven out of their communities or drenched with judicial orders funded by their own common assessments.

You may need to take a couple of steps back, take breather and get qualified legal advice about your beefs, because the easiest bulls-eye is you.

If there is a qualified ADR alternative dispute resolution professional in your area take a close look.

In these associations influencing occurs from the Board downwards - or outside that Board by building quiet consensus with enough other owners sharing some common complaints. You may have to accept lots of crap for a long time; you bought into this.

About the septics : our 2 to 5 acre lots here are septic & well. As you know, septics properly sized and maintained may last 20 or 30 years or more , but if yours are near lakes /waterways you/the association may be getting the same government pressure that direct lakefront owners are getting around here.

About the dues-denied vote / dues-denied-eligibility issues, you may need well documented payment records for your lawyer.

Finally : is it really worth risking a heart attack to straighten out some of the sort of skillset challenges that unfortunately seem to infest many condo & HOA governancing environments ?
PjP (Alaska)
Posts: 5
Posted:
Thanks for the suggestions! I just noticed how many mistakes were in my original post! That'll teach me to write with Siri!
BobD4 (up north)
Posts: 1,002
Posted:
about newsletters be careful because the qualified right to defame is often a one way street.

Not far from your state but strata law, picked up by www.communityassociations.net :

March 8/11 BC Court of Appeal decision called Martin v. Lavigne (and Neufeld) 2011 BCCA 104 shown at www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2011/2011bcca104/2011bcca104.html : Retiror critics (recent purchasers) had previously written private and later universal circulation criticisms of corporate governance; he was a CA. A confrontation involving alleged surveillance by a criticized strata Board member preceded Board retaliation by newsletter ultimately held defamatory by Court of Appeal . President even planned 3 newsletters/announcements as if massive civil disorder was endangered ! The critics sold within 7 months and litigated from safety. The Appeal Court found that defamation actually occurred but accepted a “qualified privilege” to defame..

🎯 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