had to be interviewed for the board

Our bylaws state nothing about having to be "interviewed" for a board position. Indeed, none on the board has been interviewed, and I can find nothing in past minutes to indicate this is a new requirement. The only qualifications, which are in the bylaws, is that you have to be an owner and you have to be a member of the association (ours is voluntary, and maintains no common property). The interview was more of an interrogation.

There are several on the board who do not want me on the board (I am a professional parliamentarian, I expect enforcement of covenants, and I expect the association to follow the bylaws and laws (they have a hard time with complying with the covenants and bylaws). The president has stated publicly he does not care for Robert's Rules. The Nominating Committee chair (who is also the V-P) refused to answer my question on just what would disqualify a member from being on the board. I have a feeling they will not vote me in at their next meeting.

I have served on the board before (twice), served as a volunteer on committees, and even won an award for the best volunteer of the year (for the association). Some people just can't stand others who want to follow the bylaws and who are great volunteers. This board has no transparency, either.

Any suggestions on what I can do if I am not voted in. Personally, I think my only recourse would be to sue.

What will suing your HOA do for you at the end of the day?

First of all, forget about suing. Just because you're a homeowner, that doesn't automatically mean you get a spot on the board just because you want it. If the Board has the right to appoint someone for an empty seat, they can pick whoever they like, provided that person is a homeowner. That's the fun (or curse) of democracy - when there's an election, someone will win, others will lose. If the winner gets to appoint someone, he or she can choose whoever is best for the job. None of that means the best person will be placed in the position - you'll eventually find that out as time progresses and if people are paying attention, you can vote them out or recall them. And hopefully, that person(s) won't do too much damage in the meantime!

As far as interviews go, I do think it's helpful to ask people about their background and their vision for the community. It's better if those questions come from other homeowners, but if the Board is appointing someone, it is appropriate to ask some questions about why the person is interested and see if they understand what the job entails. In your case, it appears the president and vice president have some type of personality conflict with you, but what about the rest of the board members? If there are enough of them, they can outnumber these two and vote you in, so perhaps you can concentrate on making your case with them.

If you really want to join the board and they won't appoint you, run again whoever's up for re-election when the time comes. Then, you can campaign among your fellow homeowners - in the end, they're the ones who elect, re-elect (and recall!) board members!

So you plan to sue to force your way onto the board?

And I doubt the board just wishes to exclude super volunteers from the board.
My guess your stated EXPECTATIONS as to how you see the board operating might be the source of any hesitation.

IF theere is an open position IMO the board would have the right to interview you to see if they feel comfortable voting you in as a replacement.

IF there is an upcoming election IMO if the CCRs don't require any interview they would have no right to do so.

As a general rule forcing yourself upon people who would rather not deal with you rarely works out for the parties involved.

And your considering legal action is flawed thinking at best.

In the real world, what exactly does a professional parliamentarian do?

from a website:

How can a Professional Registered Parliamentarian help you?
A professional parliamentarian can serve your organization as a Meeting Parliamentarian, Convention Consultant, Written Parliamentary Opinions, Bylaws Writing and Interpretation, Parliamentary Procedure Workshops, and serving as a Professional Presiding Officer.

From another site:

Professional parliamentarian. Assistance with bylaws, rules, effectively and efficiently running meetings. One of only 30 highly credentialed parliamentarians in the world.

Lee

Several have asked is the interview to be appointed to the BOD or to run for a spot?

Personally I would not want a Parliamentarian on the BOD as I think they could slow things down especially in an informally run HOA such as ours is.

A parliamentarian can cut to the chase in a meeting, especially those meetings that can run on and on. A parliamentarian is also there while, to advise the president, to protect the rights of the minority. When a person calls three times for a point of order, and the president just doesn't want to acknowledge that person, a parliamentarian can advise him/her that he is not in compliance with his parliamentary authority. A parliamentarian can function quite well in a small group. But when that same president has held an illegal election, and the other board members are afraid to speak out about it, there is a problem.

The interview was to get elected to the board between elections at an annual meeting. The same board has just appointed people (the president's friends). The ONLY qualifications are to be a homeowner and a member of the HOA. That's it.

Yes, the governing docs require the board to follow Robert's Rules. But the president does not like Robert's Rules so he doesn't follow them--even the basic ones.

Several vacant seats, actually. Yes, Board has right to fill them. Yes, governing documents require RONR.

Personally, I don't think much of the interview one way or another.

On the other hand, if an individual has been denied a seat on the board after being interviewed, then I think that person is entitled to an explanation of why he or she was denied a seat. If the only qualification for sitting on the board is HOA membership, then the Board IMO has no legitimate basis to exclude.

I think that an excluded candidate could have a legal claim against the HOA - and I think a judge might order the HOA to make that individual a Board member.

But that's the only thing I see here other than claims by the OP that the Prez is overbearing (which is not uncommon). Am I missing something?

Personally, I don’t think a judge would even listen to this – it’s one thing if the board won’t give access to documents a homeowner is entitled to according to the Bylaws and/or CCRs, but if those documents also give the Board the authority to appoint someone to a vacant spot, why MAKE them fill that spot with a specific person?

Now, if the board is operating without the proper number for a legal quorum or someone who isn’t a homeowner (or a delinquent one) is serving contrary to what the Bylaws say, that’s another story.

And you still have the matter of money – going to court isn’t free. You may win, but who pays the costs of the association to defend the lawsuit? You and your neighbors because you ARE the association. This would be a good time for legally binding arbitration (it can be cheaper and faster than going to court), but if there isn’t a low cost or free program that offers that service, you’re back to where you started.

I do have sympathy for you, Lee, if the president is a boor and no one, including the homeowners, has the….cashews to stand up to him. If change is really necessary, you’ll have to speak truth to power, meaning you need to talk to the homeowners, who can vote him out (along with the rest of the spineless board??). There may be a lot of homes in your community, but taking a walk and taking to a few neighbors at a time is what you’ll have to do if you really feel it needs to be done.

I know it’s a lot of people and it may seem you’re talking to a brick wall because no one’s listening, but change is never immediate or easy. It’s just a matter of how far you’re willing to go. And you never know – you may find a few homeowners who are just as ticked off and can band together with them. That’s how revolutions get started - good luck!

Sheila nailed it when she wrote: "I do have sympathy for you, Lee, if the president is a boor and no one, including the homeowners, has the….cashews to stand up to him. If change is really necessary, you’ll have to speak truth to power, meaning you need to talk to the homeowners, who can vote him out (along with the rest of the spineless board??). There may be a lot of homes in your community, but taking a walk and taking to a few neighbors at a time is what you’ll have to do if you really feel it needs to be done.

I know it’s a lot of people and it may seem you’re talking to a brick wall because no one’s listening, but change is never immediate or easy. It’s just a matter of how far you’re willing to go. And you never know – you may find a few homeowners who are just as ticked off and can band together with them. That’s how revolutions get started - good luck!"

In our bylaws, Lee, if the Board fails to fill vacancies, owners may do It (I can look up the exact wording if you're interested). So... are all vacancies now filled? If not, what do your bylaws say about this? If silent and your HOA is incorporated, perhaps NM's corporations codes say something.

How many directors are your supposed to have per your governing docs?

Yes, I already know answers. But laws and your bylaws from others on this discussion often have insight that is good to know. It is one thing to have your HOA follow a parliamentary authority, and it is another that the HOA also comply with your own state law. Some of this will require getting an ordinance amended, so getting input and insight from others is always enlightening.

So, Lee, do your bylaws allow Owners to fill vacancies if the Board doesn't? Are there now 11 directors?

What is the "ordinance" that you'd like to see amended, Lee?

KerryL1 - I would be interested in the language in your bylaws about filling board vacancies. Thank you!

I'll pull out that bylaws language later today. I don't know if our bylaws language is in CA Corporations Code but if it is, it would trump bylaws that are silent on that matter, yes?

I agree with your reading Geno ... as long as the process chosen is consistently applied to all applicants. If a dual standard is applied, favoring some groups over others, the practice is suspect and subject to challenge.

Oh yes, we are consistent if nothing else! We just had a director resign last week leaving us with 6.

It's going into the slow rainy summer season here now, so there's no rush for us to fill the seat, but we'd still like to do it. A member could literally show up at our board meeting next week and, if there were no other volunteers, they would be on the board immediately.

And JohnC, that's interesting. I thought the "shall" vs "should" debate had been settled long ago. I'll have a look and file it away for what I hope will be our document cleanup effort that's not too far away.