MarkW18
Posts: 1,290
Posts: 1,290
Posted:
And we thought we had it tough.
https://www.davis-stirling.com/Newsletters/2019-Newsletters/Nightmare-Bill-Signed
https://www.davis-stirling.com/Newsletters/2019-Newsletters/Nightmare-Bill-Signed
A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
đ 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! â
California New Laws
Started by MarkW18 ⢠9 replies ⢠619 views
đŹ Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.
Create Free Account â
⥠Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in
CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299
Posts: 6,299
Posted:
It's "interesting" that the laws continue to raise the bar regarding the knowledge and skills needed to he a successful board member. Meanwhile they also put obstacles in the road for communities who try to limit their boards to people who actually have that knowledge and those skills (no non-members serving on the board, limits on what can disqualify candidates, convicted felons OK as long as they don't "jeopardize the association's fidelity bond insurance").
And then they wonder why there as so many problems with HOAs and COAs.
And then they wonder why there as so many problems with HOAs and COAs.
CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299
Posts: 6,299
Posted:
There is an interesting overlap with another discussion we had (about disclosing information found during a background check).
For one thing, felonies that "jeopardize the association's fidelity bond insurance" is pretty vague language. What, exactly, is "jeopardizing"? Who decides? The association's attorney? The association's insurer? The state insurance commissioner? What felonies fall into this vague category? Who decides that? If you're not sure, do you err on the side of caution or not? Would it have hurt law makers to provide a check list of crimes that would disqualify you from serving on HOA boards so that communities have a fighting chance of getting it right?
Then, once you've resolved all that, and you discover that a potential candidate has been convicted of a disqualifying felony, how to you convey the information to homeowner-voters? What if the candidate says "nuts to you" and refuses to withdraw? How do you stop him from getting elected? Can you even do so within the confines of the law?
Grrrrrr.... To all the California board members, bless you, you're better people than I am.
For one thing, felonies that "jeopardize the association's fidelity bond insurance" is pretty vague language. What, exactly, is "jeopardizing"? Who decides? The association's attorney? The association's insurer? The state insurance commissioner? What felonies fall into this vague category? Who decides that? If you're not sure, do you err on the side of caution or not? Would it have hurt law makers to provide a check list of crimes that would disqualify you from serving on HOA boards so that communities have a fighting chance of getting it right?
Then, once you've resolved all that, and you discover that a potential candidate has been convicted of a disqualifying felony, how to you convey the information to homeowner-voters? What if the candidate says "nuts to you" and refuses to withdraw? How do you stop him from getting elected? Can you even do so within the confines of the law?
Grrrrrr.... To all the California board members, bless you, you're better people than I am.
GenoS (Florida)
Posts: 4,276
Posts: 4,276
Posted:
The so-called Nightmare Bill in California contains a number of good changes. Many of the changes it makes are already in the FL statutes and seem to work well for the most part. I'm not seeing the "nightmare" part.
SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964
Posts: 6,964
Posted:
One personâs comments:
Board candidate qualifications â I think itâs best to say candidates must be homeowners, current in all assessments and not have any pending legal action against the association. Beyond that, I think a good board can benefit from a variety of backgrounds, but the key is for the HOMEOWNERS to ask thoughtful questions of the candidates and think long and short term, as opposed to those one issue candidates (I will keep assessments low!)
I agree with prohibiting non-owners from serving on the board â if you want to have a say in how the association is run, buy a house or unit and pay assessments. In situations like a small association who might have a tenant whoâs also a CPA, I think you can find a way for that person to help (what about an advisory committee?)
Iâm also ok with disqualifying board candidates whoâve been convicted of a felony or is delinquent. I wouldnât necessarily disqualify someone whoâs owned their home for less than a year â again, this is where homeowners need to ask questions. Can this person provide a fresh perspective because he/she hasnât been involved in current neighborhood drama â or would he/she be easily manipulated (or have an agenda no one knows about because he/she is also friends with a homeowner who got tossed for some reason?
Iâm NOT at all ok with prohibiting associations from suspending an ownerâs right to vote. For me, the primary reason to do so is if he or she is delinquent in assessments. If you want to vote, pay your legal obligations in full and on time!
For election inspectors, why donât associations ask for homeowners who arenât on the board or running to do this? They should do their work in front of everyone the night (or day) of the meeting so no one screams collusion. In my community, our property manager collects the ballots, but they remain in the envelopes and are opened in front of everyone during the annual meeting â itâs worked for us.
I have no problem with posting the requirements for board membership at least 30 days in advance. We have to send out our ballots in this schedule, so we simply add the requirements to the letter. If an association has a website, it can simply post the information and keep it there year round.
Ditto for posting a list of candidates, deadlines for returning the ballots, time and location of the meeting. At first I wondered if people are this dim to where one has to legislate this sort of thing, but American has become the land of hanging chads (Florida) and voter suppression everywhere else, soâŚ
The email section is probably the most controversial. Consider all the spam and spoofing thatâs going on these days, I must say I have a problem with this information being published because some people donât understand the emails should only be used for association business.
I thought homeowners already had a right to get a membersâ list (homeowners), as itâs part of the association documents homeowners should have access to. I suppose people want to review the signatures of the envelopes to ensure theyâre present and legit â that could take some time if youâre in a large association, but if thereâs been an issue with election hijinks, this could be necessary to ensure fairness.
Board candidate qualifications â I think itâs best to say candidates must be homeowners, current in all assessments and not have any pending legal action against the association. Beyond that, I think a good board can benefit from a variety of backgrounds, but the key is for the HOMEOWNERS to ask thoughtful questions of the candidates and think long and short term, as opposed to those one issue candidates (I will keep assessments low!)
I agree with prohibiting non-owners from serving on the board â if you want to have a say in how the association is run, buy a house or unit and pay assessments. In situations like a small association who might have a tenant whoâs also a CPA, I think you can find a way for that person to help (what about an advisory committee?)
Iâm also ok with disqualifying board candidates whoâve been convicted of a felony or is delinquent. I wouldnât necessarily disqualify someone whoâs owned their home for less than a year â again, this is where homeowners need to ask questions. Can this person provide a fresh perspective because he/she hasnât been involved in current neighborhood drama â or would he/she be easily manipulated (or have an agenda no one knows about because he/she is also friends with a homeowner who got tossed for some reason?
Iâm NOT at all ok with prohibiting associations from suspending an ownerâs right to vote. For me, the primary reason to do so is if he or she is delinquent in assessments. If you want to vote, pay your legal obligations in full and on time!
For election inspectors, why donât associations ask for homeowners who arenât on the board or running to do this? They should do their work in front of everyone the night (or day) of the meeting so no one screams collusion. In my community, our property manager collects the ballots, but they remain in the envelopes and are opened in front of everyone during the annual meeting â itâs worked for us.
I have no problem with posting the requirements for board membership at least 30 days in advance. We have to send out our ballots in this schedule, so we simply add the requirements to the letter. If an association has a website, it can simply post the information and keep it there year round.
Ditto for posting a list of candidates, deadlines for returning the ballots, time and location of the meeting. At first I wondered if people are this dim to where one has to legislate this sort of thing, but American has become the land of hanging chads (Florida) and voter suppression everywhere else, soâŚ
The email section is probably the most controversial. Consider all the spam and spoofing thatâs going on these days, I must say I have a problem with this information being published because some people donât understand the emails should only be used for association business.
I thought homeowners already had a right to get a membersâ list (homeowners), as itâs part of the association documents homeowners should have access to. I suppose people want to review the signatures of the envelopes to ensure theyâre present and legit â that could take some time if youâre in a large association, but if thereâs been an issue with election hijinks, this could be necessary to ensure fairness.
If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius
GenoS (Florida)
Posts: 4,276
Posts: 4,276
Posted:
I basically agree with Shelia's thoughts. I agree that all directors should be members/owners after turnover. Curiously, even Florida leaves that up to the individual associations. If our documents said the manager of the local 7-11 was eligible to be a director, then that would be fine as far as the state is concerned.
As for board eligibility, no one convicted of a felony is eligible to run for the board unless their "civil rights" have been restored for at least 5 years. Anyone who is delinquent in any monetary obligation to the association may not run or appear on the ballot. Note that running for the board is different from actually being on it. People ineligible to run are perfectly able to serve as a director if selected by a board to fill a vacancy.
A charge of felony theft or embezzlement is enough for a director to be removed from office by operation of law. A director who becomes 90 days delinquent in any monetary obligation is deemed to have abandoned their seat on the board.
Associations may not impose other board eligibility rules beyond what's in the statute. An association may suspend the voting rights of any member if they become 90 days delinquent in paying any obligation (including assessments and fines). Suspension of voting rights reduces the number of "voting interests" for the purpose of quorum or anywhere a percentage of voting interests would be important. Again, the statute does not permit any other reasons for suspending a member's voting rights.
Election inspectors can be appointed from the general membership excepting board members and their spouses or immediate family members. All election materials - envelopes, proxies, ballots, tally sheets, etc. - are considered official records of the association that any member has the right to inspect after filing a Records Inspection Request. They must be retained for 1 year.
Owners may request, in writing, to receive official notices from the association via email. Those email addresses may be disclosed in place of phone numbers when a request for the roster of homeowners is requested. Otherwise, the phone number on record may be disclosed (if the HOA has one in its records). The idea behind disclosing a roster is essentially a contact list which can be used when running for the board. Candidates must be given information on how to contact all of the homeowners and, if a request to receive notices via email is on file, then those email addresses are viewable.
As for the other uses of email, obviously the HOA sometimes becomes aware of email addresses outside of the use for providing notice. Those may not be disclosed unless the owner consents in writing to the disclosure. For example, I consented in writing to disclosure of my email address for various uses when I moved here. A couple of years later I got an email from the Treasurer - email address checked out - offering to sell me a cheap Rolex watch. I immediately withdrew my consent for the HOA to reveal my email address to anyone. I gave them a fake one after that which I don't use for any serious personal communications. It's scary, though, to think that the Treasuere's email account had been compromised.
As for board eligibility, no one convicted of a felony is eligible to run for the board unless their "civil rights" have been restored for at least 5 years. Anyone who is delinquent in any monetary obligation to the association may not run or appear on the ballot. Note that running for the board is different from actually being on it. People ineligible to run are perfectly able to serve as a director if selected by a board to fill a vacancy.
A charge of felony theft or embezzlement is enough for a director to be removed from office by operation of law. A director who becomes 90 days delinquent in any monetary obligation is deemed to have abandoned their seat on the board.
Associations may not impose other board eligibility rules beyond what's in the statute. An association may suspend the voting rights of any member if they become 90 days delinquent in paying any obligation (including assessments and fines). Suspension of voting rights reduces the number of "voting interests" for the purpose of quorum or anywhere a percentage of voting interests would be important. Again, the statute does not permit any other reasons for suspending a member's voting rights.
Election inspectors can be appointed from the general membership excepting board members and their spouses or immediate family members. All election materials - envelopes, proxies, ballots, tally sheets, etc. - are considered official records of the association that any member has the right to inspect after filing a Records Inspection Request. They must be retained for 1 year.
Owners may request, in writing, to receive official notices from the association via email. Those email addresses may be disclosed in place of phone numbers when a request for the roster of homeowners is requested. Otherwise, the phone number on record may be disclosed (if the HOA has one in its records). The idea behind disclosing a roster is essentially a contact list which can be used when running for the board. Candidates must be given information on how to contact all of the homeowners and, if a request to receive notices via email is on file, then those email addresses are viewable.
As for the other uses of email, obviously the HOA sometimes becomes aware of email addresses outside of the use for providing notice. Those may not be disclosed unless the owner consents in writing to the disclosure. For example, I consented in writing to disclosure of my email address for various uses when I moved here. A couple of years later I got an email from the Treasurer - email address checked out - offering to sell me a cheap Rolex watch. I immediately withdrew my consent for the HOA to reveal my email address to anyone. I gave them a fake one after that which I don't use for any serious personal communications. It's scary, though, to think that the Treasuere's email account had been compromised.
BarbaraT1 (Texas)
Posts: 821
Posts: 821
Posted:
The new laws make sense to me, except the part about a third party election inspector. That's going to cost the HOA money. You can just ask a couple of homeowners unaffiliated with the candidates to do the counting, and have them do it at the meeting where anyone can observe.
NessoC (Arizona)
Posts: 4
Posts: 4
Posted:
The inspector of elections can still be a member of the association, with no increase to costs.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By BarbaraT1 on 10/15/2019 12:12 PM
The new laws make sense to me, except the part about a third party election inspector. That's going to cost the HOA money. You can just ask a couple of homeowners unaffiliated with the candidates to do the counting, and have them do it at the meeting where anyone can observe.
The new laws make sense to me, except the part about a third party election inspector. That's going to cost the HOA money. You can just ask a couple of homeowners unaffiliated with the candidates to do the counting, and have them do it at the meeting where anyone can observe.
A local Minister would be glad to do such for a donation to his church. Say $50. No one is going to question a Minister.......LOL
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
We also way have had three inspectors of election, who've always been approved by the board an have consisted of Owner volunteers. The only other qualification is that they must not be co-investors with or related to anyone running for the board.
đŻ You've read this entire discussion
Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:
- â Ask follow-up questions
- â Share your experience
- â Get expert advice
- â Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account â
⥠Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in here