I just found out because I am on the board...

Means I am evidently not allowed to talk at all to any neighbor at all. A fellow board member called our president to complain that I was having "secret meetings" with homeowners about our property management company.

Now granted I talk to a number of people out here and yes the property management is brought to my attention a lot - but I am pretty sure I have every right to talk to them about their concerns.

This same board memeber thtat was complaining doesn't think we should talk to vendors either to do any kind of follow up and everything should be done by the property management - and sadly we have proven they aren't doing their job...like following up with vendors, geting written contracts and not just verbal.

So if you were in my position wht should i do?

You can talk to whoever you want. It's a free country and you can dig your own holes!
However, as a board member you shouldn't be talking to the property manager or vendors directly. It's the presidents job to do so. Now,your not out of the loop. It's just you as a board member represents the "Whole" of the membership. The president then is the ultimate representative of the HOA/board. The president should be the point of contact.

I would suggest to keep listening to the membership. That's your job and responsibility. However, when it comes to communicating changes or violations to vendor's or PM's, it's best discussed openly in the board meeting and request the President take action.

Your HOA doesn't need to have a dozen points of contacts. You can get a million different results and stories. Just keep requesting and voicing your concerns at the meetings so that the members can be involved and the president is held to take action.

KrystalA: Since you are one member of the Board, all decisions arrived at should be done within the confines of the entire Board, as well as decisions made should be communicated to the membership collectively. Yes, you can certainly speak to your neighbors, it would be wrong of you not to be friendly and approachable. However, there is a distinction between being friendly and speaking about Board business to the community when it is not in a Board meeting or community meeting setting.

As far as the Board member thinking the Board should not do follow-up, obviously the Board should be on top of what the property mgr is doing, or not doing, since you have a contract and they are being paid out of the assessment fee collected from residents. However it is wise to allow the property mgr. 'to do their job' provided the contract states they are to monitor the vendors, etc. Verbal contracts mean nothing; all should be in written form and approved/accepted with signatures.

Krystal:

The board is supposed to be a united voice. Discussions taking place with regards to board matters should be discussed at board meetings and duly noted in the Minutes.

That is not to say you can't listen to a concerned homeowner. However anything you might say to the homeowner can be misconstrued. Example: Ms. Smith is talking to you about her ARC for a shed and has a talk with you in your driveway. You listen and say I understand, I'll try to help expedite the ARC. She goes ahead and installs the shed and not in accordance to your guidelines. The MC now writes a letter of noncomplaince and this Owner now states, but oh Krystal said I could put up the shed.

If there are 5 board members then it takes all 5 to discuss and vote on issues. Please refer to your D&O insurance and the indemification clause in your governing documents. I believe once you familiarize yourself with these 2 important sections you will understand why.

Again like Jadedone stated, you should always listen, but reserve your opinion.

I don't know if this is going to be a rant, or a ramble, or some bizarre combination of both, but this entire conversation irks me and I don't think I can really put my finger on why.

I think it has something to do with the fact that "board members" and/or "officers" tend to operate under the presumption that they are some sort of government entity, or that they are CEOs deserving of some sort of perk status or have some sort of higher status or elitist position or are of greater privilege somehow than run-of-the-mill homeowners.

They are administrators. Work horses. Volunteers who stepped forward to manage details and/or functions (including management companies), not to "manage" homeowners. They have no more inherent "power" than any other resident member, other than those administrative functions assigned by either the by-laws or cc&rs. They are caretakers, not somehow elite members who operate in secrecy, and, quite frankly, they hold their administrative positions at the pleasure of all the members of the organization.

The operations of the board should be transparent. The management company is not their "boss."

How petty and pathetic is it for another board member to accuse one of having "secret meetings" with residents about anything, much less about the property management company. I don't care how many conversations this board member had with residents or under what circumstances. To characterize interaction with residents as "secret meetings" is ludicrous.

What kind of power struggle move was that?! Seriously "secret meetings"?!

As if this were corporate espionage or Tony Soprano-like power struggles or something.

And quite frankly, I would stand up at the next meeting and say so on the record. I would express my "regret" that other board members feel interaction with residents is on its face somehow nefarious. I would remind them that the resident membership as a whole is an excellent resource for feedback and that one of our goals should be to maintain open lines of communication and nurture a relationship of trust and non-partisanship. It is not a matter of "them" against "us," it is a matter of "them" IS "us."

This whole hair splitting about listening versus talking is a little opaque as well. Should the board member who is talking with (yes, TALKING WITH) residents remember that as a board member she must always ensure that her conversations with residents can be interpreted by the resident as potentially "official" representation? Sure.

She should always make sure that the people with whom she is chatting know that any opinions she states are hers alone and she is not in any position to speak to what other board members, individually or as a whole think or feel about a certain issue? Of course she should. But to imply that she is somehow not allowed to express valid opinions, even if they are opinions that dissent from the board, is also ludicrous.

There are certainly many things that would be inappropriate to discuss in casual conversation with residents, such as which residents consistently pay late, or who owes and who doesn't. Gossiping of any sort would also be inappropriate.

Revealing conversations that she had with other board members in private would also be a no-no. But to imply that there is some giant wall of secrecy between the board and members, well, I find that a bit offensive. And forgive me if I have not articulated well why I feel that way, but I honestly cannot say. It's just a gut reaction.

/end of rant-ramble-mindbarf

That is not my point. The HOA board is NOT a Government "entity." I am speaking about the Big "G," noun definition (ala Mayor, Alderman, Council member, Senator, etc), and, even though HOAs are technically corporations, I was referring to the somewhat "royalty" status CEOs wrap themselves in. I was not saying they don't "govern" (verb - as in enforcing the CC&Rs).

My point is that in taking on the administrative roles of the board, directors can't make CC&Rs (on their own) and they can't change CC&Rs (on their own), they tend to assume some sort of mantle of power that they don't have in regards to the governing documents, unless specifically granted to them in those documents. (example, they cannot amend restrictions "just because" they vote among themselves to do it. They have to present the amendment to the entire community for a vote, that sort of thing). Too many board members consider their placement (election) to the board some sort of ascension to power that places them above the documents, somehow.

Don't get me wrong, I've been a director on an HOA board, and have held every office on a board, for over 10 years now. I'm very aware of the duties and responsibilities of directors and officers.

I have a fiduciary responsibility to the governing documents, and I have to follow the laws of the land in doing so, including the by-laws of the incorporated Homeowners Association. However, that does NOT give me the power to abuse that role, and quite frankly, many board members do. They seem to feel that by "ascending" to the board, they are somehow "bosses" of the Association. They are not. They are the "workers" of the Association.

As a board member, I have no responsibility to build and maintain a wall of secrecy around the board or its actions.

I have no responsibility to make and change or arbitrarily interpret, either broadly or narrowly, any rule or condition, or covenant or restriction that either favors one member over another, or punishes one member over another, OR that contradicts the intent or purpose of the documents.

I have no responsibility to sit back and allow a management company to dictate to the board or the community ITS version of how the association should be run.

I dunno. It was just a rant, just a ramble, and I feel marginally better having ranted it.

It really doesn't add anything to this conversation, but, meh, frankly, it's too nice out to worry about it.

Hi Krystal:

It sounds like your property manager doesn't understand the difference between a bid and a signed contract.

J. Patrick Moore, CMCA

MicheleD:

Just about every single word (if not all) in your rant/ramble is my HOA BOD

We have a few new members this year (one is my husband) and I'm hopeful we can get governance and communication where it belongs.