Owner with Outstanding Fine Run for the Board

Our CC&Rs indicate that voting privileges may be suspended if an owner is behind on payment of assessments. In the last election, the management company also stated that owners who are behind on payment of fines will not receive a ballot as well.

Can an owner who has an outstanding fine be a qualified candidate for the Board and can his/her name appear on the ballot?

They are silent on the matter of an owner who has outstanding assessments/fines running for the Board.

Seems to me you've answered your own question - if homeowners are ineligible to vote if they're behind on paying assessments, why on earth should they run? I would think voting privileges apply to running for a spot as well as making decisions as a board member (that's what they do).

If for some weird reason this person won, what sense would it make to serve on the board where decisions are made as to how assessments should be budgeted and spent? Sometimes, things don't have to spelled out, but should be plain if common sense is applied.

In that case, it may be enough for the board to simply pass a resolution to this effect - I don't see where this would contradict the Bylaws, although it wouldn't hurt to run it past the association attorney.

I understand and agree with spelling some things out, but sometimes people on this website get too heavy-handed - a few things should be clear, even to Captain Obvious. Or Ray Charles. If you had to spell out half the stuff that people ask about (some of which Captain Obvious or Ray Charles could see), you'd end up with an encyclopedia sized set of documents (remember encyclopedias) that no one would read. They don't even read the stuff that's already there anyway.

Is should be obvious because, what, other HOA's do it? Hopefully, governing docs are not one size fits all, because community specific.

Ok, see if this makes more sense.

A delinquent homeowner loses his/her voting privileges, right? The OP also said delinquent homeowners don't get a ballot, so it should follow he/she can't run for a spot because he/she doesn't even have the right to cast a vote for him/herself. If you're on the board and become delinquent, you have to step down until the delinquency is corrected. At least this is how it works in my community.

As a practical matter, I DO NOT WANT A DELINQUENT OWNER TO SERVE ON THE BOARD BECAUSE HE/SHE WILL BE IN A POSITION TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT ULTIMATELY AFFECT ME. That would also include what to do about other homeowners who become delinquent. I don't expect board members to be perfect, but I do expect them to set an example. If you can't or won't pay your share of association expenses, how dare you o tell me I have to pay mine or else?

Do you really need to spell that out in the governing documents if they already say delinquent homeowners can't vote????

YEP

Sorry

Generally, not in good standing could mean fine, but for this purpose it should be defined in the qualification of a Board member.

Our HOA discusses these things at every meeting. The Collection report is ONLY for Board members only. Owners are referred to by Lot # ONLY. So we give an OVERALL collections rate/amount but not individual unless your that individual. So it's not that much of a secret.

Our CC&Rs say that the board must suspend voting rights of any homeowner whose balance is not $0 - you owe a buck, you can't vote. In my state, late fees and fines are treated as assessments, so an outstanding fine means you can't vote.

However, neither the CC&Rs nor our bylaws say anything about limitations on who may run for a board position. The only qualification is that you must be a homeowner. There would be no justification to disqualify someone with an outstanding fine.

Like others, I think you can make a good argument that a person with outstanding fines should not serve on the board. I would question whether that person would enforce the provisions of our governing docs, which is one of the stated duties of a board member. What sort of message does this send to the membership?

On the other hand, it's possible that a person could be unjustly fined by a board that is abusing its power. Should that person be prevented from serving and helping to straighten out a rogue board?

So, our governing docs leave it up to the voters to determine whether someone with an outstanding fine has valid reasons to be in that position and should be elected, or not.

One caution about adding a disqualification for serving on the board based on outstanding fines:

It would be very easy to misuse this to keep people off the board. A rogue board wants to maintain its power? Just impose a fine on anyone who is making noise about unseating them, and do it close enough to the election that the dispute process doesn't have time to play out. "Oops, sorry, our bad."

The membership could still get rid of the bad actors, but they would have to go through the recall process rather than a normal election.

I don't see why not IMO. The HOA members have a right to know if there is a lawsuit. Seems to me need a committee that approves candidates. Atleast the board should approve those candidates that can be eligible. Don't have to say why but just say "Not eligible" to run. If you read the CC&R's or By-laws then you would know what qualifies and disqualifies a candidate.

Same states allow it, others don't.

I do not see how this logically follows. California statute now prohibits HOAs from denying HOA members the right to run and serve on the board when they are delinquent.I agree. If the person who is delinquent in paying her or his assessment or fines wins a seat on the board, then she or he must recuse himself or herself from board discussions of and votes on her or his situation.

Correction: In California, this is so only if the delinquency is for failure to pay fines. For delinquency in paying fines or assessments, from California Civil Code 5100:

"An association may not disqualify a nominee for nonpayment of fines, fines renamed as assessments, collection charges, late charges, or costs levied by a third party. An association shall not disqualify a nominee for failure to be current in payment of regular and special assessments if any of the following circumstances are true:
(I) The nominee has paid the regular assessment or special assessment under protest pursuant to Section 5658.

(II) The nominee has entered into a payment plan pursuant to Section 5665.

(III) The nominee has not been provided the opportunity to engage in internal dispute resolution pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5900) of Chapter 10."

See https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Civil-Code-5100

Our docs refer to a member must be "a member in good standing" to be able to run for the BOD and vote. We would interpret this that if not in good standing, they cannot run for office nor vote. We quietly took one owner aside at our last Annual Meeting and informed him he could not run for the BOD as he was behind in his dues thus not "a member in good standing". He withdrew from consideration.

I myself can see the same for those that owe fines but I can also see where fining could be misused to eliminate some for running. In the end, I would say fines cannot be used to eliminate one from running nor voting.

Bylaws are silent about an owner running for the Board with an outstanding fine.

They are silent on the matter too.

So, NpB,

Your state doesn’t address this.
Your CCRs don’t address this.
Your Bylaws don’t address.

There is no mention of “in good standing?”

Do your Bylaws or any other docs, NpB, cite any qualifications to be a candidate for director or to remain as a director?

Btw, why not have the PM show you where something is written preventing such an owners from voting?

That has now changed, as of January 1, 2020

Oh, I see NpB neglected my last question to him. Is it because it's another one of his "hypotheticals?"

Do the bylaws discuss nonsensical, repeated posts?

Think you answered your own question, NpB.