Posted:
Krystal, I believe that your situation is a bad one, and one that you "inherited." If the contract was entered into "illegally" by one boardmember, without full board vote/approval, that was a way out of the contract right there. I am sure that one could argue "ratification by performance," (your board "accepted" the contract and allowed work to be performed, despite the improper signatures), but you also must weigh the fact that the current PM, should and did know that the signature and entering into the contract was not board approved.
Under normal circumstances I would hesitate stating this, particularly in a forum with MC's, but what occured in your situation (IMHO) was typical of abusive interactions. Your PM knew that the presentation of the contract was not appropriate (invalid signature), and continued on, ignoring this fact. Your "rogue" boardmember entered into that contract aware that he/she did not have full board approvals/vote. What occurs in these types of situaions, is that there must be a "bad guy" to come in and correct the wayward action. And in some situations, MC's will take advantage of board, and community ignorance of contract terms and conditions - to their benefit. Not all MC's operate in such a manner - but it does exist.
As most posters here have stated, look to your contract for "termination clauses." Educate the other boardmembers of what the community's rights and options are at this time in addressing a non-satifactory performing contractor. Address the issues with the PM, as is appropriate with and under your contract terms and conditions. It would be my assumption that if you have termination for clause, or even termination without cause, provisions in the contract - that they are conditional. A lot of contracts are drafted without full "balance" between the parties - and that can be huge problem for one when performance is an issue. If you have "cure" provisions included, then you must give the PM the opportunity to effect change. That can be a frustrating process - as you are still paying for the PM's services during that time, and likely you are already disappointed by the actions which lead up to this event.
Take from this situation the lesson that contracts must be reviewed properly, and even if you are the lone boardmember, you must require that certain provisions/language be included in them, which protects the community. Most PM's and other contractors may balk at altering their contracts, as they have had them reviewed/drafted, to protect their interests. That is not always a bad thing, just a reality in today's litigious world, that contractors feel is important to have those protections. It is when you have contractors who refuse to negotiate terms and conditions in contracts, that creates issues. If you have the same rules flowing to/from parties in a contract, there is balance. If there are one set of conditions for one party, and another for the other = headaches. You provide service, I pay you - if service is not performed, I don't pay you. A honest handshake and good customer service are fast becoming items for the museum of history at the Smithsonian