Are HOA boards worse than other nonprofit boards

I am, and have been, a member of numerous nonprofit boards. I've seen some harsh words used once, but that's it: the boards have been very considerate, by-the-book and upstanding. As a board member, we've been required to read the entity's governing documents, sign conflict of interest policies and more. On some of the boards, we've called in good lawyers. I have seen consistent professionalism, honesty and respect. These boards are mostly church boards, but I've also been in government, on school alumni boards and more. I've never been on a HOA board.

So I'm surprised to see the stories of HOA boards on this forum. They sound very poorly run, by people with bad personalities who don't care about the law. And the professionals that serve the HOA boards seem just as bad.

I would assume that some of that image is due to this forum being a place where people come when they have a problem that needs to be resolved, but am I missing something or just fortunate? For those who have served on HOA boards and other nonprofit boards, are the HOA boards worse?

Thanks.

Chris

I have served on both. Some observations:

1. Few owners/members care what the BOD does until it is a topic of interest to them especially if it will cost them money. Then they get involved.

2. People get on a BOD as they care, to protect their a$$, or to push for a pet project/issue. Many get soon lose interested in anything else.

3. HOA type associations have "unique" Covenants/Bylaws to operate by where other type associations run more controlled by government regulations.

4. Typically HOA's are asked to rule on issues/disputes specific to one "member" (fences, house color, etc.) versus the greater good of the association. This is the major difference.

5. Politics play a major role in each type organization.

Well said.

I noticed the NY connection as well, and it does make me go hmmm,but ok.

As Cathy noted, being on a HOA board has unique challenges. When the board makes a decision people don't like, it's not like screaming at someone who doesn't know you, but your neighbor next door or across the street. You may or may not have a relationship with certain board members before the decision was made - if so, you may be likely to stomp over to the person's house and continue screaming or worse.If

I've said before developers don't educate homeowners on what living in a HOA will mean or train the new board on what they should do. That's why board training is so important, but too many homeowners are in love with the position as opposed to do what's necessary to benefit the community.

== Start Excerpt from "The Urban Lawyer," Vol. 37, No. 3, Summer 2005 ==

Community Associations (CAs) are different from local governments or private businesses but may be similar to private associations in that:

-- Elected officials (officers and directors) of CAs are not paid and ordinarily do not treat their service as part or their careers. Many CA officers and directors lack training.

-- CAs are not ordinarily conducted for profit.

-- CA members are required to pay assessments that are not subject to the constraints imposed on property taxes or entitled to the federal income tax deduction allowed for local property taxes.

CAs are different from private businesses, or other private associations, in that:

-- CAs govern communities of homes and generally have much more power to affect the quality of residents’ lives. CAs typically restrict land use and regulate behavior within the community.

-- CA management may affect the value of the owners’ homes, which for many are their largest single investment.

-- Exit is often more difficult for unhappy residents than for unhappy investors in business enterprises or other private associations.

Finally, CAs are different from cities and corporations in that their restrictions, rules, and regulations are often much more invasive. The design controls administered by a CA may be either highly detailed or quite vague allowing, for example, the architectural control committee to disapprove designs that are not "in harmony" with the rest of the development. The controls often extend to color schemes and landscaping as well as design and location of structures, going well beyond the controls typically imposed by cities. Other restrictions and rules are often more detailed and leave less room for individual autonomy than most city ordinances.

In addition, enforcement is more likely. Unlike local ordinances, which must be enforced by some local official, CC&Rs can be enforced by any property owner in the common interest community as well as by the association. Also, unlike many local governments, which lack sufficient inspectors to spot violations, CAs often hire management companies that either conduct inspections or respond to complains by residents. CAs thus may have much more power than cities to affect the lives of their residents.

Thus, CAS often have a great deal of power to affect both the quality of life of community residents and the value of the owners’ investments. Neither the law governing cities, nor the law governing corporations, is well-suited to common interest communities. The community association governance structure, which is based on the corporate model, lacks the checks and balances that typically constrain cities from abusing their residents. The corporate model theoretically protects owners from abusive boards and management companies by giving them power to elect and remove the board of directors. However, individual owners who lack the political clout to mount a recall or successful run for the board have little recourse against board misconduct. In most states, if persuasion and politics fail, the owner can only resort to the courts. Resort to the courts is not only cumbersome and costly, but it is also risky. Governing documents for common interest communities typically provide that in suits between an owner and the association, the loser pays the winner’s attorney's fees. In addition, the business judgment rule of corporate law leaves owners with little protection because it requires that courts refuse to examine board conduct unless the owner can show that the board acted fraudulently, in bad faith, or with a conflict of interest.
=== End Excerpt ===

For footnotes, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/27895544?seq=6

My wife is president of a non-profit retiree board and is is paid very nicely for that privilege. The board has to do all the work to run the organization, which consists of 7000 members. The quality of board member is much better, but I think because they have to be involved.

This has to do with how taxes are filed and auditing is done. While an HOA might have shareholders, they don't get paid a dividend and the assets are not depreciated.

My wife has been president of an rather large HOA and now this organization. Because the HOA had a management company, the retiree organization is much more difficult. They had monthly activities for the retires, two picnics each year a holiday party and two golf tournaments.

Now if you had shareholders looking for higher dividends, then that would be more of a challenge. But trying to compare the two, now even close.

When I say she is paid very nicely, her pension with the city for who these retirees worked for is $150K annual and she get paid $1950 monthly as president and membership director.

I'm not sure where shareholders come into play, but having managed HOA's for a number of years, I have first hand knowledge of "all" the work they put in.

As far as Florida, while Superman didn't win the state, I had a task of two counties, Hillsborough and Pinella. One we kept and the other we flipped. As far as I am concerned I accomplished what I volunteered for.

The main difference is an HOA's BOD is elected with little or no concern about their ability or what they bring to the table. I saw the same thing in a member owned business fraternal organization that went broke. In most cases people are appointed to a BOD for what they "bring" to the table.

World of difference between BOD's elected by owners and those appointed to a BOD. Typically those appointed to the BOD can be removed by the BOD.