Pros & Cons of Term Limits for Directors

Our board meeting has term limits for directors on the agenda for next T. night (3/31).

The agenda items suggest 2 two- year terms with a one year break before the (ex) director can seek election again. During that year, none of that director's co-owners may seek election either.

Any thoughts??? Btw, our HOA is 37% tenants and another 10% owners who live here part time.

I will list what are the cons in my view others can point out the pros.

1) limiting the pool of possible board members. As many properties are faced with a shortage of those willing to serve you just imposed mandatory removal of this already small group.

2) limiting the time frame when policies, or strategies can be implemented. 2 years is a short time. In some cases where you need to make systematic changes to let's say the finances, maintenance policies, or perhaps you might have ongoing legal issues you new policy of term limits hinders the completion of such work or enabling members of the board to see projects through to their completion.

We just wrapped up litigation which had gone on for more than two years. Each officer of the board might have been forced to leave the board during this period.

We instituted changes in our finances resulting in a 15 fold increase in our assets never would have been possible in. Two year period.

3) limiting relationships with vendors and service providers. As board members hopefully you get to build relationships and trust with all vendor including
your PMs. Building those relationships takes time why jeopardize them by forcing board members out of office.

4) removing superior members of the board. So you get a hard working, intelligent, volunteer who by serving the community brings benefits you could never have imagined and now you serve the community by forcing them out every two years?

5) prevent accumulating experience and knowledge. On most properties there is a learning curve to board service. By imposing term limits you hinder that ability. We have a project ongoing to upgrade the electrical service equipment on the entire property. This will covervmorecthan two years time.
Those people who started this are now out and how do new board members take up where the others left off. Who, what, when, where and why?
The people who knew just left.

As I see the cons outweighing the pros Iblook forward to hearing just what benefits this policy might provide.

If people are doing a good job why implement a policy that forces them out after two years sounds counterintuitive to me.

Kerry,

As has been pointed out, term limits will decrease the number of available volunteers. If there is apathy in the membership, or if there are a lot of non-resident or part-time resident members, the number of available willing volunteers may already have been limited.

If I were to vote on such a measure, I would ask the following questions:

1) What policy or procedure is proposed if, because of the term limits, the Association can't seat a full (minimum required) Board?

2) Although the proposal says that they can't seek election again, does that prevent them from being appointed (especially if the minimum required can't be reached)?

3) Has a legal opinion been obtained about banning members from seeking election simply because they are on the same deed as someone who previously served (as I'm not sure that would pass a legal challenge)?

If the answer to #1 is, we don't have that yet, I would ask why a proposal that hasn't been fully explored and contingent policies ready to be put in place is being brought to the membership. I would tell the Board to go back and do the full job, vote against it and encourage others to vote against it.

If the answer to #2 was that they can be appointed, then I would ask why bother having term limits at all? I would see the proposal as a feel good measure, vote against it and encourage others to vote against it.

As for question #3, I would immediately question the reasoning behind this part of the Boards proposal. If no legal opinion has been obtained, I would question the legality (as it just doesn't sound like it would pass a legal challenge). Regardless of the answers, I would vote against the proposal based on this issue alone and encourage others to do so as well. Imagine, denying someone from being a candidate simply because of who they live with. Perhaps the color of their skin or ethnic background will be considered as a disqualifying factor next (yes, I took it there - only to stress the point).

That was fully understood when I made my posting.

Excellent question! It should be asked of the individual proposing this.

As everyone on here stressed the cons. Are there actual benefits? Kerry, since it's your Board's proposal, what are the benefits being offered to support the proposal?

Another sensible quote which make this topic hard to pick a side or a one size fits all:

""Term limits can also be harmful to your association because of the perennial problem of a lack of volunteers. "It's often hard to find people who are willing and capable to effectively sit on the board, especially in smaller associations" says Drewes.

That's one reason Abbate thinks term limits are a bad idea. "The universe of willing participants is very small," he says "There are some associations where maybe one guy has been on the board too long and views the association as his fiefdom. But there are others that wouldn't function as well if some board members didn't come back."

So the answer is???????????????

In the words of another poster here "One size does not fit all" in many HOA issues.

Hence all the opinions and debates.

Obviously, such a person has membership support.

There was a person on my Board when I had my issue who had served 18 years. It was only when I started questioning the actions of the Board and educated the membership that his support started to wane. He actually chose not to run one year after all of this started (but it too three years for that to happen).

The key was for the membership to be involved. Not having term limits - but having membership involvement.


As I've always said, there are different perceptions to every issue. That isn't the same as every perception being valid (except to the person who has the perception).


A Very true statement. However, making that statement doesn't mean that it will occur if term limits are imposed. It's also a true statement for Assocaitions that don't have term limits. Term limits may simply have a select few continue rotating, or worse, have the one who was willing to serve become unwilling after having some time off.

If term limits was the way to increase membership involvement I'd be all for it. However, I suspect that those Associations with term limits (and the question was asked by Jon if there are any on this site) likely still have an apathetic membership. Apathy has been one common issue everyone on this site has experienced and discussed how to overcome. Nobody every suggested term limits were the answer.

Tim,
As I stated these ARE NOT MY WORDS they are from the first article that popped up about "The pros and cons of term limits for HOA Boards members". I posted them since no one was presenting the PROS perspective. There are several more articles on line from almost every reputable HOA website stating the same PROS that article stated along with the CONS.

As I stated I see both sides. The MANY very easy to pull up articles seem to ALL be able to see the validity and value of both sides.

The exact article I took quotes from was:

HOA Leader.com, The article is titled FAQ THE PROS AND CONS OF TERM LIMITS FOR HOA BOARD MEMBERS, It appears to be written by Matt Humphrey president of the Alameda, California-based HOAleader.com from which the article was adapted

One more VERY similar article was published in the Chicago Tribune, titled "TERM LIMITS FOR BOARD MEMBERS HAVE PROS, CONS."

Honestly time I could not find one article that was one sided. I think that's a good thing, I'm annoyed easily by articles that are biased and tainted by ones own experiences.

ps. I don't know how to post a link here, I admit I'm not the most computer savvy individual.
(but you should be able to find and post the articles I easily found, I didn't go digging for some nutty biased articles they were mainstream and many they were not posted by anti-HOA advocates (actually seemed to be just the opposite).

The second article from the Chicago Tribune, titled ""TERM LIMITS FOR BOARD MEMBERS HAVE PROS,CONS."
was a direct link from the Community Associations Network.
(communityassociation.net)

Honestly again if you have a bone to pick about the PROS, pick it with them not me.

ps. another interesting perspective from one of the articles I read mentioned that some volunteers feel stuck with the job and it gives them an easy out. Lots of ways to look at things, huh?

My personal feelings on the subject is that it may not be realistic in many associations to have the limits and may just end up being a feel good measure, as Tim stated.

However, we do see some pretty discouraged, disgusted and desperate people posting here with real problems in the management of their associations. I feel that in some of these awful situations (or horror stories)that term limits MIGHT make the process easier in some ways to "throw the bums out" IF necessary. Simply my opinion that is COULD WORK to the benefit of the community in some situations.

IMO another benefit is that the BOD would have to be more careful to keep better records and possibly less "funny business" as far as financials would occur, if they're aware a new set of directors will be examining them soon.

I think Boards serving would also discover they better keep easy to locate and easy to understand association records in general. Kind of keep everyone on their toes a bit. (that aspect may be a good thing in many associations that are NOT run well and don't document properly or keep required records and get away with wrongdoing.)

Just my opinion as of now. I have never lived in a community that has limited terms, It would be interesting to hear from an individual that has.

It was Jon who seemed to think that all directors would be limited to one 1 2-yr. term; I didn't mean it to appear to suggest it was you, Tim.

And Jon's right, of course. This addition to our bylaws would have to go out by US mail to all 211 H/O's mailing addresses. In CA, there's secret double-envelopes with ballots and another page of voting instructions. For the best return, we should send the ballot envelope with prepaid postage. We'd need a simple majority plus one of eligible voters to vote to approve the new bylaw(s).

We will, Tim, as I wrote need to get opinions from our attorney on wording. I do think we legally can limit co-owners from filling the one year void, and also from serving simultaneously with their co-owners. Often this is husband & wife, who HOAs can and do limit them from serving simultaneously. The reason for the language of "co-owners" is because, just as an example, we have one unit that's owned by three couples who live in our county. They take turns using it when they want to spend time in "the city" to enjoy all kinds of events not offered in the 'burbs. Theoretically, one from all three couples (or even six) could be elected to serve!!

We also have a few H/Os who own more than one unit, so the wording needs to handle that.

Now, I doubt voters would vote for two people with the same last name, but addresses don't go on our candidate statements. And as we know married couples sometimes don't share the same last names. But if the term limit proposal does go out to H/Os, we would add limitations to co-owners serving simultaneously.

We would indeed, Tim & Amanda, need to specify IF the Board wants to pursue this on Tuesday, 3/31, what to do if we don't have enough candidates.

I'll add reasons for my pros & cons later. I really do want to see what all of you advise first. And, obviously, I'd be thrilled to hear from someone who has this in their HOA!

Do your CCRs or bylaws allow the board to establish term limits for board members? In some associations, such as ours, only the members (homeowners) have this authority.

Kerry

UNLESS you ALWAYS have a steady stream of individuals willing to nominate themselves to run for a position on the Board of Directors and you have contested election, then you should never consider putting term limits of the people willing to step up and serve.

Remember, an election is the best form of term limits.

I agree.

With our association recently going under a secession, we lost about half our of residents. That drastically cut our potential BODs to serve. In fact, we have 1 vacancy that we can't seem to fill. I have asked several people (as with another board member asking) and the overwhelming response is "no way." I have been on the board for 6 years (and board president 4). The next one closest to me is 18 months. Our CC&Rs and bylaws do not state anothing about term limits. In fact, we do not even have a term limit on the President's position. I was elected by my fellow board members 4 years ago. We do not have other director positions (VP, Secretary, Treasurer). As apathetic as the homeowners are, the other serving board members are almost just as apethic. They defer to me all the decisions and I am the one that has to initiate anything with respect to the running of the association. I sincerely don't mind and am used to doing the majority of the workload. I think if I asked anyone else to serve, they would rather resign their board position before serving as president. The upside is that I have learned so much about HOAs, applicable laws, conflict management, budgeting, etc.

Might be some who'd like to know how this turned out. The commercial rep on the Board was absent. The 6 residential directors were present and the initiator of the amendment made her motion, which was seconded. It failed due to a 3-3 tie.

It's a little interesting to note that the 2 newest directors, 15 months & 5 months voted in favor. I think they believe they can learn our complex HOA must faster than is realistic!

But, but... we, now the "old guard," handled the legacy problems including 4.2,mill. settlement for construction defects and then did all of the work interviews with many vendors to get the fixes done (via our PM).

At present we, happily (knock on wood) have no problems!! Our new PM starts next week and I, change junkie that I am, am eager for her to begin!