Questionable behaviour on the assignment of Landscape contract

At the first board meeting I am voted to be one of the the "landscape" representative.
Although we had been without landscape service for 2+ weeks, only then it is decided to start selecting a new contractor. A board veteran assigned herself the job to collect bids. I offer to help, but I was told not to worry.

After few days I start asking the veteran if there was something I could do to help. She ignores all my text and calls.
Two weeks after the first meeting and with grass that had not ben mowed for over a month, the Treasurer calls an emergency meeting for the same afternoon and he emails the bids + a summary already indicating a preference.

Me and another landscape rep, ask to no avail to postpone so that we could revier the material. It becomes immediately obvious that the veteran and the treasurer had already decided, they push on us one contractor which is the only one we talk about. And the only one called for questions. Over the phone the contractor makes a lot of promises. Later I ask that the promises he made be added to the contract. I receive a lot of friction even on that, but then they cave in. Later I ask the treasures to send a copy of the contract for review. No answer.

In the next couple of days I take the time to review the bids and I find that the summary that was send had several errors, and that the best offer had been listed on the summary at a higher value making it appear more expensive. I also find out that the contractor they pushed had no web presence, no reviews, no listing anywere, a ghost. I immediately write my concerns to the whole board, and I keep asking to see the contract before it gets signed, as well as the contractor license and insurance. No response again.

The nect day the treasurer sends the signed contract and the guy starst mowing. The contract includes a couple of things that were not discussed. I raise my concerns again expecially because I suspect the contractor not to be legitimate and I believe the contract not to be valid as it was based on a vote that came from misrepresented information.

TThe annoyed Treasurer finally responds that the board officers reviewed the contract, that I did not need to be involved, and that he would send the contractors licence and insurance "at his convenience".

I would like to know on what regulations can he base claim that the directors review and decide. I checked the bylaws and there are no special powers assigned to the directors. Also am I right that the contract is not valid?

I agree. The OP needs some seasoning and also the BOD was elected to make decisions, not him/her.

The course of action when you feel that directors do not act in the best interest of the community is to vote them out.

I don't know what the situation is with the landscape contract, and I'm not saying anything is "okay" or not, but it is impossible to believe that your governing documents do not grant the board of directors the authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the association. Virtually every business decision is made by the board. If not them, who?

Review your Declaration of Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions. I guarantee its in there.

Also I thought the board makes the decisons and that the directors are all the members of the board, not just the treasurer. I am a board director. I am confused. Which law indicates that some directors have higher decisional powers? Again I do not want to decide, I just say that the board needed to make an informed decision. What the treasurer is saying is that the officers (President, vice, treasurer and secretary) do not need to coordinate with the rest of the board of directors.

Being an Officer does not mean you make the decisions. The entire BOD votes and goes at the vote goes. All Officers do is sign contracts the BOD agrees to put in place.

Committees are always advisory only, they never have decision-making authority - so that's not alarming in itself. It's always a problem if some board members are being excluded from being informed about what's going on and voting on decisions, which it sounds like is happening here.

Based on what I've heard from other board members, committees are a mixed bag. If managed properly they can be very helpful; for instance, a finance committee that has financial expertise that the board may lack. On the other hand, they can also be a waste of time and actually harmful - such as when non-director homeowners believe that being on a committee gives them the same authority as the board, or when the committee deliberately exceeds the scope of its charter. It all depends on the individuals involved and what it required by the community's governing docs.