do all board members have access to legal

Started by LaskaS • 43 replies • 1178 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

hi, I have been trying for the past 3 weeks to get the legal correspondence between the hoa attorney and the designated board members who communicate with the attorney forwarded to the rest of the board.

The president is basically ignoring my requests.

I have reviewed the texas non profit laws and our bylaws and declaration..

Can any of you , confirm or deny, does every board member have a right to review all legal correspondence between the hoa attorneys and board members.

I have also cc'd the hoa attorney letting him know I am requesting the documents and still have not even received a response..

I read that I can send a certified letter to the president, and also to the hoa attorney,,will that make a difference??

what legal rights do board members have to read and reveiw legal back and forth,, there are several cases the hoa is dealing with right now.

The only reason I can think that the board president and or hoa attorney haven't responded is because ..

i belive the president was trying to find a way to invalidate last years election designations and thus have all seats up for reelection at this election. As it currently stands,,I have a 2 year term. the president wants me off. He informed another board members a couple months ago that I was going to be off in February. I knew this was wrong. However. about a week ago.. the managing agent sent an email saying he wasn't clear on the outcome of the last election so he believes we all need to be up for reelection.
I immediately realized what was going on. (the managing agent and president were trying to get my seat up for reelection.. then, when a quorum isn't achieved at the annual meeting, then next meeting whoever shows up counts as a quorum and the majority votes decides the elections.. ) I immediatly forwarded the minutes from last years march meeting, which had the election results and the designations of who was 1 yr vs 2 yr. .. now the president is trying to make every seat be up for election based on the fact that we have staggered elections. this past year. we started fresh because of resignations and removals.. in 2019 we were told by the managing agent that 5 seats were 2 year and 4 seats were one1 year.. The board clearly specified in the minutes who was 2 year and who was 1 year).... now the managing agent is coming and saying,,actually only 4 were supposed to be 2 year.. not 5... And the managing agent said the only fair thing to do would be to put all the seats up for reelection.. this is so patently ridiculous...

help

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

Yikes, I forgot to write in correct punctuated sentence structure. I apologize.

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

I kind of went off on a tangent..

my two questions are...

Does every board member have a right to review all legal correspondence between the hoa attorney and the designated board members.
If yes, and my detailed written requests are being ignored. What recourse do I have. If I send a certified letter to the president and the attorney, will that force the attorney to comply?

Does a mistake in the staggering of terms of board seats..( staggering is required in our bylaws ) need to be corrected (one year later) if the upcoming election will remedy the situation anyway,(one of the orginal 5 board members who was designated as a 2 year term resigned and isnt' on the board) there are 5 seats up for election.. we thought it was 4 one year terms and then 1 term that would be to fill out the resigned 2 year seat.... now we are told that actually there was only supposed to be 4 2 year seats last year.. Since one of the 2 year members resigned anyway, I don't even think it's an issue. However. the managing agent and president are trying to say that unless one of the original 5 board members that were 2 year terms agrees to take the 1 year term, we have to redo everything.. It's so patently wrong..

First of all, I the designation who 2 yr vs 1 yr terms was made based on the managing agents instructions. Now a year later, The managing agent comes and tells the board that all seats should be up for reelection because the board didn't stagger the seats. I immediately sent him the meeting minutes showing that we did in fact stagger the seats and designate who filled what seat. Then he comes back and says, oh, well yall were only supposed to have 4 2 year seats not 5. .. So you all should redo everything.

I have sent the hoa attorney the written explanation of this attempt to manipulate the elections. I have stated clearly my objections and provided the excerpts from the state law and our bylaws. I am not getting a response.

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By LaskaS on 01/23/2020 7:39 PM
does every board member have a right to review all legal correspondence between the hoa attorneys and board members.

In certain circumstances, the law permits a corporate board and/or its attorney to limit what communications between the corporation and attorney an individual corporate director may see. Do these circumstances exist at your HOA, with your board and you? Maybe. But even if they do not exist, fighting this would be an enormous battle.

If you want to take something to court (or threaten same), then it sounds to me like you have enough evidence to argue that you are supposed to be serving a __-year term. I do not see why you need the president's communications with the attorney.

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

I actually want the attorney;'s correspondence with the president with regards to the ongoing litigation the hoa has been dealing with.
I was very much involved and provided much of the concrete evidence in the case early on. . The point is, all of the board is supposed to be keeping informed with the ongoing litigation.

I know that our hoa attorney is a very good and thorough attorney. I also know that the answer one gets from an attorney depends on the question. Therefore, I have insisted that with regards to the election and presidents attempt to change the election process ,terms, etc.. that the lawyer should be on a conference call so that all board members can participate and hear the attorney's responses.

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

Augustin, the fact is, everything seems to be an enormous battle. Unless I just sit back and let the president do whatever he wants and then rubber stamp it. And doing that is clearly a breach of a board members fiduciary duties.

What is the point of having a board if the president gets to decide everything. Even when the board has voted in a different way than the president. The president then instructs the property manager not to follow up..

There has to be some way that a duly elected board member, that has a valid concern with regards to the legality of how the hoa business is being handled, can get our hoa attorneys to be made available for answering hoa questions.

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By LaskaS on 01/23/2020 8:34 PM
I have insisted that with regards to the election and presidents attempt to change the election process ,terms, etc. that the lawyer should be on a conference call so that all board members can participate and hear the attorney's responses.

I do not think you have legal grounds on which to stand to insist on this.

One explanation for the non-response you are getting is that the President has painted you as an "adverse party." If by any stretch of the imagination, you have hinted at filing a lawsuit regarding the election situation, then you are an adverse party. This means that communications between the attorney and the corporation on this subject need not be shared with you.

Contrary to what HOA members and directors often like to think, the HOA attorney is not a referee in situations like this. The HOA attorney does not tell everyone what the law is. He or she defends the position of the board, whether the position is reasonable or not. That's the attorney's job.

It seems to me your only hope is for a board majority to remove the president. But in other threads, you have indicated a board majority will not do this. I think this leaves you with maybe two options: You can go to court, or you can run for election and try to win again.

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

Augustin, ah thanks for reminding me about the threatening of litigation.. I have not done that at all. and will make sure I don't do that.

I dont understand how the hoa attorney can ignore information he receives from a board member if it calls into questions the legality of what the president is doing... I agree that in a court case. lawyers are supposed to defend their client reasonable or not. However , with regards to the legality of board actions or inactions, doesn't the hoa attorney owe a duty to the hoa and not a single board member.. If I clearly explained what was going on, I would think that attorney has an obligation to make sure that the board is functioning in a legal manner.

GeorgeS21 (Florida)
Posts: 3,808

Posted:

Yep - they are out to get you.

C’mon, seriously?

Again?

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

george not sure what your comment is for..

out to get me sounds rather paranoid..

i'm just stating what is going on..

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

The need to know is not strong with this one. You really don't have a need to know. The one's that do are in the know. That is what it is. Your out voted and represented by someone else. That is it.

Former HOA President

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By LaskaS on 01/23/2020 8:57 PM
I dont understand how the hoa attorney can ignore information he receives from a board member if it calls into questions the legality of what the president is doing... I agree that in a court case. lawyers are supposed to defend their client reasonable or not.

It's not just in court cases or actual litigation. At all times, an attorney has a duty to act in the best interests of her/his client. The rub is what "best interests" are can be rationalized to be almost anything the client wants. Who is the client here? You are correct that the client is the HOA corporation. However, who speaks for the HOA corporation? A board majority, typically through its president.

Quote:

Posted By LaskaS on 01/23/2020 8:57 PM
However , with regards to the legality of board actions or inactions, doesn't the hoa attorney owe a duty to the hoa and not a single board member.. If I clearly explained what was going on, I would think that attorney has an obligation to make sure that the board is functioning in a legal manner.

The meaning of "functioning in a legal manner" can also be rationalized to be almost anything the board, speaking through its president, wants. Some attorneys walk away where a board's actions are egregiously unlawful. But if the line is grey and blurry, the attorney has a duty to advocate zealously for her or his client. In this case this means not playing referee in a dispute between a single director and the rest of the board. The attorney would be violating the professional code of conduct (which is statute in many or all states) if she or he did otherwise.

I think this does boil down to (1) your being outvoted (one way or another); and (2) your not being able to accept that power, and blind loyalty to those who have power, trumps truth and justice all the time. For many people, I think the second takes a long time to sink in. It's not the way most kids are raised. But it is reality.

GeorgeS21 (Florida)
Posts: 3,808

Posted:

This may not be about truth and justice.

It could be about being an ankle biter/blocker without supporting votes on the Board.

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

GeorgeS21, to me it sounds like LaskaS was legitimately elected to a two-year term. But the dork President is trying to force him to stand for election after only one year. Else as I posted, I agree he is having a hard time submitting to the reality of bullies, with far more power and resources than he has. I would be disgusted as well, but hopefully ready to 'accept the things I cannot change (at least not without hiring my own attorney).'

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

My impression is that some of this conversation is off in the weeds.

There is only one issue - Was Laska elected to a 2-year term by the homeowners?

If the documentation that the homeowners received said that they were electing you for 2 years, and they voted yes - End of story. The homeowners have the final say.

And that's the message that the lawyer needs to hear loud and clear. And the Prez. And all the BOD members. And the entire community, if necessary.

Say it loud. Say it clear. The homeowners voted you in for 2 years, and that's the way it is.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

GeorgeS21 (Florida)
Posts: 3,808

Posted:

And, again, this “reality of bullies” is an assessment based on what one person is saying ... with several other complex posts that don’t seem to point to much more than the others don’t agree with him.

I am always a bit of pessimist, particularly when only hearing one side of an argument. And, more so when it seems to happen so often, about so many things.

To be clear, if a Board member is so hard to work with, then others will look for ways to get rid of them. Obviously, one cannot engage in the unethical or illegal, but perhaps there is some angle whereby they remainder of the board is tired of hearing from the one person and has found a creative way to rid themselves of that board member?

PaulJ6
Posts: 990

Posted:

I don't quite follow everything above, but:

1. The lawyer can get in hot water if he is advising certain board members to take actions that are not in compliance with the HOA's governing documents.

2. The lawyer's client is the HOA, right? Not individual board members. So favoring individual board members can get the lawyer in hot water if that favoritism is not what the HOA wants (as determined by the board overall).

I'd round up other board members and vote to find a new lawyer.

ND (PA)
Posts: 792

Posted:

I'd say that if it is only the President corresponding back and forth with the lawyer and nothing is shared with any of the other Board Members, then this is improper. The HOA Attorney is not the president's private counsel . . . even if topics discussed are HOA-related.

However, if the President is doing so with approval from the majority of the Board, then I'd say his actions are likely more permissible.

But if you are the only one being left out of correspondence with the lawyer, then I'd say that is pretty telling and I'd agree with George's latest assessment.

All that said, I think you've indicated that some of the other Board Members sometimes agree with you on things. Can you not convince one of them to let you in on the correspondence and what's going on? If not, then sounds like it's you against the rest of the Board which is a likely unwinnable situation.

If that's the case, perhaps re-election of all seats at the upcoming election may be the best case scenario for you. If you have such a strong case against the rest of the Board (a President and his 'yes men'), then you should stand a good chance of convincing your neighbors of this, rallying support for you and new Board Members that you need to find to build your ethical team, and using proxies and whatnot to get a totally new Board elected.

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By PaulJ6 on 01/24/2020 9:19 AM
1. The lawyer can get in hot water if he is advising certain board members to take actions that are not in compliance with the HOA's governing documents.

As you may be aware, the disciplinary boards for attorneys discount any complaint that is from a non-client. There's like no chance that the disciplinary board will give a complaint from someone who is not the attorney's client any credibility. LaskaS is not the attorney's client here. On the other hand, the attorney who is complained about still would have to respond to a complaint by a non-client. It takes a lot of time. Want to help get rid of a HOA attorney? Complain about her or him to the disciplinary board. On the other hand, at this writing I do not see anything viable to complain about.

PaulJ6
Posts: 990

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AugustinD on 01/24/2020 9:34 AM

Posted By PaulJ6 on 01/24/2020 9:19 AM
1. The lawyer can get in hot water if he is advising certain board members to take actions that are not in compliance with the HOA's governing documents.

State disciplinary boards don't do anything at all in most cases, even if there is a clear ethics violation.

However, the lawyer can be sued (either directly or through a derivative action) by a board member who lost a position due to the lawyer's conduct.

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

On the third hand, one of the biggest problems with HOA attorneys is they often do present themselves, to both dissident members and dissident directors, as impartial arbiters of disputes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Importantly, the Rules of Professional Conduct treat the duties of an attorney who represents an organization at length. If there is any confusion about whom the attorney represents, the attorney is supposed to go to some trouble to clarify this to dissident members and dissident directors. It is one of the biggest abuses, and violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, perpetrated by HOA/condo attorneys. Every communication a HOA/Condo attorney sends to a dissident member or director should start off with words to the effect that, "I do not represent you. The law allows me to lie (and in fact requires me to lie) for the sake of zealous representation of my client (the HOA/condominium), and at the direction of the HOA/condominium's board majority. Nothing I write here should be interpreted as what a court would actually rule or what most attorneys would agree is the best way to proceed. In short, you should not believe a word I write here. To address what I say here, you should get your own attorney."

PaulJ6
Posts: 990

Posted:

In my state, the Rules of Professional Conduct expressly prohibit a lawyer from making false statements.

In my legal world, what a corporate lawyer tells one director of a client can be required to be shared with all directors, so a smart lawyer will caveat guidance given to one director with, "I am counsel to the HOA, not the board and not any director or officer, so what I tell you is the same thing that I can be required to tell others."

No lawyer wants to be dealing with a board, some of whose members like the lawyer and some of whom don't. That's a mess waiting to happen, and at some point when the board members who dislike the lawyer get control, they'll fire the lawyer.

Then again, the world of HOA lawyers is just ridiculous in my view. Things such as requiring that all communications be made through one director or officer, requiring a HOA to indemnify a lawyer, etc. are all totally shady and unprofessional in my view.

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By PaulJ6 on 01/24/2020 10:05 AM
In my state, the Rules of Professional Conduct expressly prohibit a lawyer from making false statements.

As I believe you know well, the meaning of "false" is malleable in the legal world. One person's "false" is another person's "but it is possible, so I am going to make this possibility thee main theme of my advocacy for my client. Even better, I am obliged to argue this as though it were fact. Doing so is more persuasive to the unwitting dumbbell dissident HOA/condo members and dissident directors. Plus it is intimidating. And my job with the opposition is to be intimidating. I am a hired gun, after all."

Quote:

Posted By PaulJ6 on 01/24/2020 10:05 AM
Then again, the world of HOA lawyers is just ridiculous in my view. Things such as requiring that all communications be made through one director or officer, requiring a HOA to indemnify a lawyer, etc. are all totally shady and unprofessional in my view.

I agree with all of the above.

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

At one point, we had a similar situation on our board, and we also have staggered elections, so during one meeting, we stopped and reviewed all the board minutes for the past three years and figured out from there, who came on when and who was up for election. Fortunately, it didn't take that long to figure out and after determining who was up for election, we placed that in the minutes with the dates that everyone would be up for re-election, so if someone resigned and was replaced, we knew that person was serving out the term.

I think what your board really needs is an executive session to ask the president point-blank what his concern really is, especially if there were a legitimate election with a quorum and you were elected. To that end, where the hell is the rest of the board - why are they sitting there while you and the president are going at it? It's really irksome when people do that because it's disruptive and hurts the ability of the board to do what they've been elected to do. No wonder some communities have such a hard time finding anyone to serve. While you're at it, tell the property manager to sit down and stay out of this - this is an association issue that the board and homeowners need to figure out.

As for the communication between the board and HOA attorney - we also had designated people (when I was on the board it was me or the president, and I spent most of the time talking about delinquencies). We usually sent everyone a summary of what was going on (usually cc'd them on emails), and the delinquency information was usually in our financial report anyway, so there was no issue. It's a shame people insist on breaking down walls and creating a lot of mess when all they had to do was to open the door if they wanted to go to the next room....

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

PaulJ6
Posts: 990

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AugustinD on 01/24/2020 10:12 AM

Posted By PaulJ6 on 01/24/2020 10:05 AM
In my state, the Rules of Professional Conduct expressly prohibit a lawyer from making false statements.

Quote:

I agree with all of the above.

Thanks and yes, "false" can be malleable.

But no lawyer wants a complaint, available online, naming him or her as Defendant, and stating that "Plaintiff was deceived by Defendant's false statements", and listing statement after statement that is arguably false (and which, in the complaint, will be clearly false, as the complaint will not show the counter-arguments.

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

mellissa..

If you are saying that information regarding hoa business, lawsuits, etc. can be kept from some board members, without any verified, justifiable reason. This is information I didn't realize, I always thought the entire board could and should be up to date on all information..

Most of the board are ok with the president doing everything..and just updating them as he sees fit... I know this is not how boards are supposed to operate,, what's the point of having a board if one person is going to decided when things get done. what gets done.l. who gets to be involved...

however,,I'm obviously outnumbered on the board... the good news is, most of the board is not against me per se.. because most of the issues that I have brought up in the past, have all turned out to be very relevant and correct.

The president is well aware of his ability to manipulate the board..

He's actually a very even keeled soft spoken person.. However,, he continues to operate the hoa as if it's his own . He isn't doing anything that Is egregious.. But he also is not letting anyone else have any say in what goes on. when i insist that the board vote should vote an issue.. the board gets bogged down in the process. and then nothing gets done..

so basically, either it's his way,, or no way.. I want a third party independent expert to come in and tell the board they can't operate that way.. that's what I thought our lawyer would do... If there is not government agency that oversees texas condominium associations. If the board majority is more concerned with keeping the status quo than doing things correctly. Or If the board members agree with my points , but don't think it's a big issue at this juncture.. how can I explain to them in a diplomatic way, the importance of all board members being able to participate. Not just the president and who he decides to include..

As it is now. and it's getting worse by them month. The president sends us the agenda the night before the monthly meeting. For the last two months I have asked for things to be added to the agenda before he sent the agenda(this is the proper way that our bylaws permit a board member or owner to have something added to the agenda).

When last months agenda came out, It did have the items I wanted to discuss. So i'm sitting at the meeting, My agenda item came up. Before I could even discuss what I wanted to discuss, the president said that wer shouldn't discuss this because a certain board member wasn't at the meeting and he may have input too..
That's not the way things work. I wasn't asking for any decisions to be made, I wanted to discuss the issue and have my point of view heard. .. The president of the management comapny we use who always attends board meeting(this is a different person than the property manager) basically says that the board can decide not to discuss my agenda item. I now realize this was wrong. If i property placed an item on the agenda, I should have been given time to discuss it. .Instead, once again, the president said the item shouldn't be discussed becasue board member 5 wasn't there.

so the meeting ends. Not a single thing got decided other than the president's telling the board what went on the previous month .. This is what the property manager is supposed to do.! However, the property manager doesn't show up to meetings. Despite the board voting last year in them minutes that the property manager needs to be at all monthly board meetings.
When I bring up this issue. The president says, well the property manager doesn't want to come because you hate him and want him gone.. IT"S BS.

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

omg,, AUGUSTIN..

please don't say this,

that power, and blind loyalty to those who have power, trumps truth and justice all the time. For many people, I think the second takes a long time to sink in. It's not the way most kids are raised. But it is reality.

is this really the truth?? I mean, i know in theory, what you are saying,, but at the end of the day. I didn't know that it was true'!!!!

blind loyalty to those in power trumps truth and justice all the time!?!!?!?!?!// if this is true , what's the point of standing up for the right thing... I guess it could be true in a totalitarian country or dictatorship, but that's not the way our country works.. I mean, sometimes things get corrupted, but what you are saying, I honestly have never been told that before.. ever!

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

georges21..

by definition, a person who disagrees with the majority is giong to be labeled a "problem"

this is where the issue lies..

I firmly believe that multiple options should be fairly presented and discussed and then a vote , and the majority decision wills stand.

However, this is not what is happening, Because I have on several occasions prevented the president from taking action that he was not allowed to take without board approval( i did this by reporting the action to the board, the board all agreed the president didn't have the authority, so the president back down, and the board voted.) After this happened a couple of times. I became the enemy.. much of the time the president didn't respond to my request for updates and information..

George, I have been involved in this nightmare since post harvey... I have been amongst the only owners/residents who insisted that what was going on wasn't proper or legal. I was the one who got the owners together to recall the first board( I had help of course.) I was the one was elected to the temporary board after harvey, and then realized the new board members weren't actually interested in rebuilding and didn't know anything about dealing with contractors etc etc.

The problem is, there are so many things that have been done wrong. we've been through 3 boards now. I'm on the current board. (4th board). The 4th board is at least honest and put a stop to the almost certain bankruptcy. We are past that point.. we are financially stable again. However, the common areas are still not repaired to the condition they were preharvey.. I'm talking landscaping and exterior door uniformity.. These are two things that are so basic.. . However, the president doesn't live here. so he has not prioritized any of the on site issues.
From what most of the people have said here. I realize, i'm in a no win situation. However, I vehemently disagree with anyone trying to paint the issues I bring up as not valid. Or , as you have done. you seem to belittle my requests for advice by insinuating i'm an ankle biter or whatever.

I have spent so much time and energy and I know the ins and outs of all of our documents and the state law. etc. At the end of the day. what i'm hearing from many of you , I may be right, but I won't win. I keep hoping someone will suggest a different strategy that would work. Maybe i'm missing something obvious.

Again, george, not a single homeowner or board member will say that I don't know what i'm talking about. Even people that don't like me acknowledge that I have been right on 95 percent of the issues that I have insisted be addressed.. (i'm not talking about issues that have more than one answer,, or subjective issues, i'm talking about the legal obligations of the board to the homeowners with regards to management of the common areas..
The problem is, even when i'm right, the rest of the board does not have the time to put into getting things done.. they prefer to leave it up to the president.

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

George,

also, for the record, I'm a Her, not a Him

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

ND..

The president does have the authority to be the point of contact with the attorney.

My issue is, I believe every board member has a right to be made aware of the ongoings. However, as many of you know. not every board member wants to know what is going on. Just because most of the rest of the board doesn't want to know what is going on , that doesn't make my request for the detailed information wrong. However, because other board members dont' really care to know the details, the president just ignores my requests.

The president will not forward the correspondence to me. I requested twice in a professional email to please forward me the correspondence for the past 30 days between the hoa and our hao attorney. (this was supposed to be the way we agreed to do things.)

The second request, I cc'd the hoa attorney.

I thought I had a right to access the records of the hoa. Legal correspondence is privileged, and not available to all owners, i get that.
However, I'm on the board. By definition , all board members should have access to all records.. How else can a person be make sure they make informed decisions and perform due diligence on issues.
I'm not just taking another board member's word for it!. yet every other board member seems to be fine with taking the presidents word for things. It's not that I don't trust him. It's that, the by not being able to review the information myself, I don't know if I'm making a truly informed decision.. The president does not have the right to filter what information the board has access to. or at least that's what i thought.

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

[below multiple ellipses are deleted for readability]

Quote:

Posted By LaskaS on 01/24/2020 4:49 PM
that power, and [snip] blind loyalty to those in power trumps truth and justice all the time!?!!?!?!?!//

For what it is worthy, I meant it happens way more often than most young people like to think. But you are right it does not happen every time.

Quote:

Posted By LaskaS on 01/24/2020 4:49 PM
if this is true , what's the point of standing up for the right thing. I guess it could be true in a totalitarian country or dictatorship, but that's not the way our country works.

In my experience our country works like this often.

What's the point of standing up for the right thing? I think total chaos would result if some battles, carefully chosen, were not pursued all the way to the Supreme Court and similar.

PaulJ6
Posts: 990

Posted:

AugustinD is correct.

Laskas, pick your battles carefully.

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

gentlemen,,

I think I just had an epiphany. what you said Paul!

I haven't been choosing which battles to fight.

I've been fighting every battle which in turn dilutes the importance.
I actually have been told this before. I just realized it when I read paul's comment.

ok, so how does one choose which battles to pursue.

the ones they know they can win, or the ones that are the most important.

all the battles take energy and time. I'm not sure I can win the most important battle. If I fight the small battles that I can win, but I still lose the war(obviously i'm using analogies), should I just accept the small victories. Even though the larger problem is still there?

paul, augustin, thanks very very much,, y'alls continued feedback as well as many of the rest of you has really helped..

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

Augustin,
I finally got an answer from a board member.

here is the exact wording with names redacted...

I am not an adverse party!. I am going to send a response requesting what grounds the attorney am I being denied. If I have been wrongly categorized as an adverse party. What is the correct way to contest this?
One possibility, from reading the board members response, I can see that maybe the attorney could claim the messages should not be forwarded because the internet is not secure..etc.... So I was going to request the email correspondence be printed out and made available for board members to review.

What I want to expose is that a single board member(president), tried to manipulate the upcoming elections. Only when I protested and cc'd the attorney,, with supporting documentation from our documents and state law did the president suddenly agree to not try and change the election process.

If a single board member tried to manipulate the election process, and only when the attorney was cc'd on the illegality of what was going on, did the president back down. I should be able to request the correspondence.... The attorney is not the president's personal attorney..

I appreciate any response you or some of the other active members who have a legal backround can suggest. thank you

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

LaskaS, are you saying that the president is no longer forcing you to run for re-election? If so, this is great. Else I am not sure what your questions are.

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

I forgot to include the exact wording of the response I got back from the board member who along with the president has been assigned as contact person for the attorney.

Laska,
I’ve been advised by our attorney (redacted) not to forward emails and to share all information openly by answering questions verbally at meetings.

SteveM9 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 3,699

Posted:

If the president is the ONLY designated person to talk to the lawyer, that is who the lawyer will talk to. No one else has the legal right. Its not the lawyers fault your board designated this guy who wont talk to you. Its your fault.

There is no reason you cant vote to add another designated person to the lawyers account who must be CCed on all correspondence, or simply vote to designate a new person to be the point of contact to the lawyer which will revoke the presidents access.

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

no.. what i'm saying is that the president will not make the correspondence between him and the hoa lawyer available to the entire board.

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

Okay... and...????

Former HOA President

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

Augustin,,yes!.. however,it's not the president isn't forcing me to run again,,

its that the lawyer confirmed and agreed with my legal points against what the president was trthe president didn't do me any favors.... he was not the one who asked the lawyer if it was legal.. it was only when I cc'd the attorney and wrote out in detail what the president was trying to do was illegal and his bogus attempt to manipulate the election process was illegal. Apparently,, the lawyer did in fact reply to my email..but not to me,, just to the president,, and informed the president, I was right, and the presidents interpretation of what can and can't be done was wrong.

If the lawyer gave a legal opinion on an issue that i raised.. It seems patently wrong that the president is not sharing the actual language of the lawyers opinion.. ,, I already knew I was right.. I want the legal opinion with the lawyers reasoning. and I want to know exactly what the president was trying to claim when he and the managing agent got together to hatch the plan to try and get me removed.

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

Augustin. I just reread my response and it's about as clear as mud. lol

In answer to your question.. Yes, I won this dispute. The president is no longer trying to force my seat to be up for reelection this year. I have a 2 year term. legally elected by the owners and recorded in our documents from last years election as a 2 year term.. The lawyer in no uncertain terms informed the president that any attempt to manipulate the election or change the election rules is illegal. ..

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By LaskaS on 02/12/2020 8:22 PM
I want the legal opinion with the lawyers reasoning. and I want to know exactly what the president was trying to claim when he and the managing agent got together to hatch the plan to try and get me removed.

Why? So you can count up the lies and report them to members? How does this help? You won the dispute. If a similar dispute arises, I suggest you do what you did this last time and email the attorney yourself. If I were a member of your HOA, I would be concerned you are not keeping your eye on the ball and focusing on the HOA's specific needs related to infrastructure. Your HOA is not the U. S. Congress with tons of money to demand documents and the media to get out as much truth as possible. Your HOA is a nonprofit with infrastructure to oversee. You won this battle. Enough.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

I entirely agree with Augie, Laska. Based on your previous posts, you need to make headway with theboard to appreciate you and what you have to offer.

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025

Posted:

augi,., kerry Yall are correct.. I won. i'll Move on.

and I have been working to try and mend the relationships I have with other board members. While I might have been right on the law, and won this issue. It doesn't change the issue of the president being the gate keeper of information and projects rather than the information be available to any board member to view and comment on.. We need a centralized check list. Several board members have tried to get this implemented. The president has resisted. His response is if we want to know something ask him..

Hopefully once we replace the incompetent property manager this will stop all the misinformation and lies .

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here