Quote:
Posted By GeorgeS21 on 02/28/2020 10:54 AM
I do have a problem with folks wanting to poke and poke and poke while not providing useful improvement options or help.
The California statute does not require a member to provide useful improvement options or other help.
For the record, I am coming from:
-- A condominium where one of the HOA directors owned a landscaping company that had the condo's landscaping contract (a few hundred thousand dollars in value). The self-dealing is what resulted in this director finally being tossed.
-- A HOA where a member sued the HOA circa 2005; then gets on the board around 2010; then when elected HOA President, arranges for the attorney she used to sue the HOA to become the HOA attorney. Neither the President nor the attorney disclosed the attorney's prior role.
-- A condo where the parking spaces were re-striped such that the widths were in violation of the municipal code and so small people were getting dents in their doors from vehicles in adjoining spaces. Whereas the vendor has promised the spaces would all be the exact amount or larger prescribed by the municipal code. Only a review of the exchanges between vendor and HOA showed the vendor had lied.
-- The property management company of a former HOA of mine was found by the state attorney general yada to have embezzled from a number of HOAs.
I hope it is clear why I support records inspections to the extent statutes and the governing docs allow. I am not persuaded of anything other than you seem to discourage legitimate records requests.