KrisS1 (California)
Posts: 12
Posts: 12
Posted:
We are a self-managed community. I'm a Director and have been on the board for over six years.
Our recent election brought in 3 new board members, none having HOA experience. In reading some of my other posts, you might have read that I was pretty excited about this, as two of the three outgoing board members were what you might call "dead wood" and they were done with the responsibility of being a board member. Being self-managed, there is no formal training for board positions. That being said, from the time I've been involved, for the most part, it's been the same people on the board in the positions of President, Vice P., Treasurer and Secretary. The people in these positions knew their jobs, followed the governing docs, Davis-Stirling, etc. They knew they had a fiduciary responsibility and took it seriously.
The three new board members recently met for board orientation. I created very detailed manuals for various board positions (thank you Tim and Richard for you help!). Personally, I think the manuals turned out great and I was very excited to provide them to the new directors. The manuals were something we were all in agreement that needed to be created.
That being said, as our orientation meeting progressed, one of the new members announced that they felt we didn't have to abide by Davis-Stirling because we are a community of townhomes and not condos. HUH? They felt that Davis-Stirling only applied to condos. I tried explaining about PUD's .... got nowhere. This director went on to say Davis-Stirling is a law form (they were confusing it with the Adams-Stirling website). Total confusion. This same new board member is questioning common area and arguing that they have complete ownership of decks, patios, etc. No, the Association owns the common area, but they have the use of it. They didn't like hearing that and said they would "look into it". There was more that I won't mention here but I was pretty appalled at heresay and accusations. I'm thinking some, if not all, of these new directors are not rule followers. I am and the other board member is and it's coming to a head with these 3 new inexperienced board members.
The treasurer just called for an executive session less than 4 days before our board meeting to discuss topics that are not to be on an executive session agenda, but rather can be addressed in a board meeting (frequency of meetings for example). When I told the treasurer that only a President, VP, Secretary or 2 directors could call an executive session, this person went back and got 2 other directors to call the meeting with them. Still, as I said, the topics are not for executive session and we are less than 4 days notice prior to our board meeting.
My question is - how would you handle this? I have e-mailed the directors asking why the two topics aren't being placed on the agenda for the regular board meeting and they are ignoring my e-mails. I'm pretty concerned at this point that one of these directors is putting out erroneous information and the other two less than knowledgeable directors are falling for it. I'm considering resigning, as my real concern here is the liability they are going to put the community at by not following the governing docs. This is very tough for me, as I've put quite a bit of effort in helping to turn this community around and now it appears that it might be going backwards. Perhaps that is the nature of HOA's. Or at least self-managed HOA's.
Our recent election brought in 3 new board members, none having HOA experience. In reading some of my other posts, you might have read that I was pretty excited about this, as two of the three outgoing board members were what you might call "dead wood" and they were done with the responsibility of being a board member. Being self-managed, there is no formal training for board positions. That being said, from the time I've been involved, for the most part, it's been the same people on the board in the positions of President, Vice P., Treasurer and Secretary. The people in these positions knew their jobs, followed the governing docs, Davis-Stirling, etc. They knew they had a fiduciary responsibility and took it seriously.
The three new board members recently met for board orientation. I created very detailed manuals for various board positions (thank you Tim and Richard for you help!). Personally, I think the manuals turned out great and I was very excited to provide them to the new directors. The manuals were something we were all in agreement that needed to be created.
That being said, as our orientation meeting progressed, one of the new members announced that they felt we didn't have to abide by Davis-Stirling because we are a community of townhomes and not condos. HUH? They felt that Davis-Stirling only applied to condos. I tried explaining about PUD's .... got nowhere. This director went on to say Davis-Stirling is a law form (they were confusing it with the Adams-Stirling website). Total confusion. This same new board member is questioning common area and arguing that they have complete ownership of decks, patios, etc. No, the Association owns the common area, but they have the use of it. They didn't like hearing that and said they would "look into it". There was more that I won't mention here but I was pretty appalled at heresay and accusations. I'm thinking some, if not all, of these new directors are not rule followers. I am and the other board member is and it's coming to a head with these 3 new inexperienced board members.
The treasurer just called for an executive session less than 4 days before our board meeting to discuss topics that are not to be on an executive session agenda, but rather can be addressed in a board meeting (frequency of meetings for example). When I told the treasurer that only a President, VP, Secretary or 2 directors could call an executive session, this person went back and got 2 other directors to call the meeting with them. Still, as I said, the topics are not for executive session and we are less than 4 days notice prior to our board meeting.
My question is - how would you handle this? I have e-mailed the directors asking why the two topics aren't being placed on the agenda for the regular board meeting and they are ignoring my e-mails. I'm pretty concerned at this point that one of these directors is putting out erroneous information and the other two less than knowledgeable directors are falling for it. I'm considering resigning, as my real concern here is the liability they are going to put the community at by not following the governing docs. This is very tough for me, as I've put quite a bit of effort in helping to turn this community around and now it appears that it might be going backwards. Perhaps that is the nature of HOA's. Or at least self-managed HOA's.