Committee for Nuisance Outside of HOA

Sorry this is so last minute. Our urban high rise HOA is one city block in size. Across one of our contiguous streets is a park that's a small city block square. It contains lots of 20 y.o. trees, several "cubes" to sit on, and some trash containers. It's not very well maintained by the city.

In the past few months, more and more homeless people congregate there during the day even setting up small pup tents to sleep in. According to police records, drug offense occur regularly. The police come when the park closes, 10pm, and chase out the transients.

We know that a very large sum of money, well into six figures, has been set aside to improve the park. Yet nothing has changed. Several owners in our building who have views of this park/live across the slender street from it, wanted to form an HOA-sanctioned committee to learn more about the park, to attend the meetings of various agencies to lobby for improving the park, and to learn of any plans that might be in the works.

Early this year, our 7-member-board approved them writing a charter and setting out their mission to submit to the Board. We approved their charter, chair & members last month and they've met three times since February. They have no budget and the only clerical work involved is posting elevator flyers and their own meetings and perhaps nearby gov. meetings about the park.

An Owner is very upset about this. She seems to have some support, but I don't know from whom. This owner, "Meg," is an attorney and she wrote a b died letter to our board demanding to know "under what authority" we can approve a committee to deal with something off our premises; under what authority we can e deal with any matter that doesn't involve members' "property rights," and under what authority th Board can approved a committee that might try to lobby city agencies thereby engaging in "political speech."

I do have some answers (I think!) But what are your ideas? Let me know if I left out any details.

And, btw, the Board president and our PM placed Meg's letter in executive session for the Board's response. I can't think of any reason why it should be on the ex. sees. agenda in CA. Can you? She is not threatening to sue, so this is not a "potential lawsuit." Thanks in advance!

Thanks for your reply, Tim. Can you elaborate and give reasons why this is "not an HOA issue"?

Some random thoughts:

1. I like what your board did Kerry.

2. Ex session seems appropriate if board believes that legal action may result from Meg's threats. But just guessing - not directly familiar with CA code issues.

3. Answer to Meg seems simple enough - Not spending HOA funds. Actions by public agencies is not beyond the scope of activities the board can investigate. Lobbying a city agency on how funds that have been allocated should be used is not engaging in political speech IMO.

4. Examples of things that could affect your HOA directly. Security measures. Property values. Image. Silly IMO to sit there twiddling your thumbs without engaging in the process.

5. Getting results. Government agencies more likely to be responsive to a Board approved committee than an ad hoc committee of concerned citizens.

6. Ask Meg to participate.

If you live where I think, I would strongly suggest you work with your local City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Council.

I agree with "Meg" that this is outside the scope of the Association. There should be nothing wrong with setting up a committee, with no funds available to them, with a clear mission statement and working with the Neighborhood Council and one of their sub committees.

buzz buzz buzz

can we not hear the buzzybodies ?

what, exactly, is the corporation's interest in the park ?

none, you say ?

D'OH

PRECISELY

I believe others have elaberated enough for me.

As I stated, the Associations job is to maintain the common area and common elements.

The park is not a common area, nor a common element.
If there are security concerns, contact the police when it enters the property, install cameras, install additional lighting, etc.

As an individual, contact the police anytime you desire. Contact your local representative. Form or join a committee of concerned citizens to lobby the issue. As an individual, these are your options.

If your articles of incorporation are like mine, it likely states the purpose of the Association. Ours actually goes to the point of specifying: "No substantial part of the activities of the Association shall consist of the carrying on of propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation"
.

Well, I haven't really seen any reason except one that goes something like: It's outside our HOA's jurisdiction. That's it? That's not exactly a "reason."

Every year our MC gives directors a seminar & their COO lists priorities for directors: While not at the top, one is marketability. It's true that our docs do not say part of our job is to maintain property values (as some do), but we do exactly that inside of our premises, the exterior of the premises and maintain the trees on the city sidewalks surrounding our HOA.

Our docs also do not say prat of our job is to s try to assure personal safety, but of course, we do try to.

I've already mentioned our cameras & security officers, city & our lighting are just fine so I won't repeat that. Residents regularly, even daily, call the police. I've already stated that our security officers-on duty 24/7-call the police too.

The reasons I supported this committee is: knowing that there's more that $500,000 earmarked for this park, joint action by a number of our owners sanctioned by our Board, is more likely to get the city agencies' attention than separate individuals.

Our bylaws say that the Board may "appoint such committees as it deems appropriate to carry out its purpose." Imo, protection/safety & marketability are a part of our purpose even if not spelled out in our CC&R.

Moreover, unlike Tim's, our docs do NOT limit the Association from activities that are off the premises. The wording does not say we may protect, maintain & enhance our common assets and common areas solely within the confines of our HOA. So I definitely don't think by approving this committee, we've opposed or contradicted our docs.

CA Corporations Code 7231, basically our BJR--Business Judgement Rule-- begins by saying in part: that directors "perform their duties in good faith in such a manner that the directors believes to be in the best interests of the corporation..." I strongly believe that urging the City to move forward on improving this park benefits all of us in my HOA.

Bt, Meg has only attended a few HOA board mtgs. and always complains that the Board is exceeding its authority. She's told me she'll never attend another as it would show disrespect towards herself (no, Not very clear to me either). Another newer owner, also an attorney, but retired, has joined this very Park Committee and also our CC&R committee.

If a magic wand could be waved, engaging offsite issues ( if at all ) would be easy to sort out.

Concerns raised by an attorney where homelessness or 'vagrancy' are part of the mix, can be understood for civil rights issues. So also the danger where there is concern that some sort of internal political action committee (with uncertain legitimacy itself) may risk stepping forward directly or indirectly to try to directly push local government.

But IF the facts are changed a little to downplay possible civil rights aspects - ie shooing away 'vagrants' is replaced by removing dumped waste/abandoned vehicles or halting nuisance odours, the issue of offsite involvement maybe better meet a legal smell or optics test.

At the end of the day, sort of a slippery slope to try to draw the line. Only the Board or management should be purporting to engage externally, and that after hearing owners openly & transparently. A VERY limited defensible involvement.

( Owners in my voluntary Building Scheme group - purely as individuals - annually clean up public roadside waste discards outside the lakefront community and actually conduct projects to preserve the habitat of certain species at risk. No association bucks nor status. )

Thanks Larry & bobD for your thoughtful comments.

Oh, BobD, I hope I didn't make it seem that our security folks are "shooing" homeless people off the public sidewalks in front of our buildings. They've only been shooed out of our lobbies and out of our residents' private patios. So I guess I don't see civil rights issues that might be lurking.

"Meg" the attorney wrote a couple of additional emails to our PM yesterday after Meg saw the elevator notice posted Monday about the committee's meeting later this week at 3pm. Meg wanted the Board to change the committee's charter so that all meeting times would be in the evening so that Meg could attend. This despite the notice saying that a manager from City Parks & Rec would be a speaker and that residents of a neighboring condo had been invited. Last evening at ES, the Board declined her request and in our letter to her will state that we greatly appreciate all of our committees and do not wish to micromanage them.

The letter also states that our bylaws and CA Corps. Code would seem to support our capacity to make decisions that we think are in the best interests of our community. We also remind her that for aesthetic (& marketability) reasons, the Associations sweeps and mops (when needed) the public sidewalks surrounding our twin towers. We also tend to the 30 or so trees AND their leaves in the winter on these sidewalks. We do the same for safety reasons to prevent slip & trip hazards or branches falling on passersby. These are not our common areas or common grounds.

I did look up your citation, Larry, and I actually had read it before about a different topic. I'm holding it back in case we need it later but also think it doesn't quite fit as the complaints was about poor lighting actually on the physical premises of the HOA.