OK for board to impose standard eligibility requirements for director candidates even though the bylaws don't include them

Is this appropriate?

The bylaws of the HOA contain very few requirements about board eligibility:

1. There is an annual meeting and which board elections occur.
2. The president appoints two inspectors of election who are not directors.
3. When a board member ceases to be an owner of a home in the HOA (unless s/he is married to an owner), s/he ceases to be a board member.
4. A majority of the board must be residents in the HOA.
5. The original developer can continue to fill 3 seats on the board (which is a minority of 7 directors), even though the HOA is no longer under developer control.

That's it.

The board announced that:

A. All directors and director candidates are requested to sign a conflict of interest statement (which is standard and has been approved by the board; it prohibits a director from having an interest in any transaction with the HOA, or an interest in any company that does business with the HOA). At the annual meeting, the board will announce which directors and which director candidates have not signed the conflict of interest statement.
B. All directors and director candidates are requested to be current on their HOA dues and other charges. The board did not say if any delinquent candidates will be announced or not; I do not think that they will be.
C. Any director who is not an owner of record of a home in the HOA will not be eligible to serve as a director (other than the 3 developer directors), based on item 3 above.

Do you think that these actions are appropriate?

One board candidate, who is a relative of the CEO of the developer, and who lives in the HOA but whose home is owned by the developer's company, objects. The developer's company is late on dues on her home (and other homes in the HOA that the company owns). The candidate apparently is a partial owner of the developer's company and so the candidate states that the candidate is an owner, through an interest in the developer company.

To me the board's actions seem reasonable, but items A and B are not in the bylaws; they were just approved by the board. I think that the board has a very strong basis for item C, although the bylaws could be clearer about what counts as an owner.

If the board candidate gets on the board, then the developer's company will control the board (and both the CEO of the developer's company and his relative will both be on the board).

Thanks.

Thanks!

To clarify:

A and B are just requests by the board. Nobody will be banned from serving if the person won't sign the conflict of interest statement or is late on dues, but if people find out that a person didn't sign the conflict of interest statement, surely it would make it hard to win.

C seems to be OK in accordance with the bylaws, although the bylaws don't clearly say "you have to be the record owner of a home in order to be a director". But taking that position is reasonable.

Thanks again.

I hope you're not talking about the community where you had your rental property - You WERE selling that one and the closing is fast approaching, right? If so, stop worrying about that association - the new owner will have to read the documents and ask appropriate questions and what this does or doesn't do won't be your problem once the paperwork is signed.

That said, I don't have a problem with the requirements, although they'd have sharper teeth if they were written in the Bylaws. Maybe you feel differently and that's OK, but I don't want delinquent homeowners making decisions that will affect me. They're not even paying their share of assessments that keep The ball lace going and now they want to decide who The vendors will be? No, no, no!

The rule on the conflict of interest doesn't appear to be a requirement because it said request, not require. Even so, I want board members to understand the appearance of a conflict of interest is just as bad a having one, so they should be avoided. If you have one and can't fix it, refrain from any vote and discussion of the topic related to the conflict. It's a shame this isn't something thinking people can't figure out without it being written down so if this is what's necessary, ok.

Finally, I only want homeowners who actually own property in the community to serve on the board. Otherwise, how can I be sure they truly have my interests in mind when they vote?
what In the hell are they doing there anyway? At least a property manager has a motive - he or she probably doesn't want the community to go to shit because they lose a client, and therefore money.

Is this community developer controlled is not? If so it makes sense for them to make sure the board dances to their music, so I hope the other homeowners pick up on the conflict and ask questions. Better yet, don't vote for that candidate. If the community is controlled by the homeowners, this should drive home the idea that it's past time to amend those documents to delete all references to the developer. That can help ensure the developer doesn't dominate the board and the decisions it makes.

So, chris, is this the HOA in NYC you're trying to sell? Where you used to live?

I can understand why some of the proposed requirements are desirable, but I don't think the board can impose anything without amending the bylaws. Especially in cases where the new requirements contradict the existing bylaws, since the bylaws supersede any rules and regulations.

For what it's worth, in my community only those owners whose accounts are paid in full may vote (this is actually in our Declaration, which requires the board to suspend voting rights for any owner who owes the association anything). Neither the Declaration nor the bylaws say anything about any eligibility to serve on the board beyond being an owner, though. This is odd, since one of the board's duties is to deal with collections - a delinquent board owner has a conflict of interest by definition.

Actually, in California, HOA's can adopt rules prohibiting delinquent owners from serving on a Board.

Well, I wrote 23 Election Rules, effective for January 1, 2020 and they all prohibited owners from running if they were delinquent unless they has entered into a payment plan.

Actually the rules were written off the actual legislation, not the davis site.

Non sequitur.

What?// You forgot how to speak English?

I wish to point out that A & B were requests, not requirements.

C being enforceable would depend on the wording in the governing documents.

That's a pretty low bar.