Unauthorized work by board member.

I am going to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the president and/or the agent/property manager. The landscaper should have been informed, or any vendor, that direction come from the president or the agent.

Sounds like a loose ship is been sailed.

JohnT,
As John C. states you have limited options for removing her. If she was elected by the Community she can only be removed by the Community. If she is a Director that can be taken away from her but she would still be on your board. The only tool you have is to Censure her for this unauthorized action. As was also stated the Vendor should also be instructed who to take work instructions. My question to you is did the work need to be done and was the job done professionally? In some cases while doing one job another is uncovered. An example of this is they discovered a water main break while working in the area. It would be responsible to fix break and be compensated for it.

It is not clear about the size of your HOA and it also appears like you may be self managed. I can only assume that by visiting relatives for Christmas you still had access to email and phone calls so I am wondering why no one tried to contact you for guidance if that is the normal process.

The landscaper was informed of this and had contact information for me, the VP and the Property Manager. I'm more than willing to take the blame for my screw ups that I own but please don't make assumptions. I will honestly answer any questions you have. Short of having a person patrol our 50 acre community everyday this incident wasn't immediately seen. We pay our property manager for 5 hours per week and doing daily patrols is not an option.

I am not making assumptions. I do this for a living and have been a president of a rather large HOA that spanned over 100 acres and monthly landscaping cots over $15K per month.

As I mentioned, the question would be, as this as happened in the past, why did the landscaper take direction from Mary?

Considering Mary may have cost the association another $6500 in landscaping bills, I don't know why you're concerned about naming her specifically. That said, this is a board discipline issue, which calls for an executive session. Your documents may state how and when those are called - generally, they should be rare and used to address sensitive issues like board member discipline or litigation by or against the association. Executive sessions are not open meetings, so no homeowners should attend - in my community, we'd also send the property manager home.

You might make a motion to call for an executive session after or before the regular meeting to discuss the landscaping - if it's seconded and voted upon, send everyone home after you complete regular board business and formally adjourn that meeting. When everyone's gone, tell everyone, including Mary, what you found out and have her explain herself. From there, the board can make a decision on what happens next.

Personally, I'd issue a strong censure against her, make her refund the association (which the board should have done the first time) and then remove her from the landscaping committee. Advisory committees usually work at the pleasure of the board, as do their members, so check your documents to see if this is addressed. If nothing's specified, you'll need to establish some rules (which should already be there).

For documentation, you usually don't take minutes for an executive session. If the meeting occurred after the regular board meeting, minutes for that meeting could state something like"after this board meeting was adjourned, the board went into executive session. During the session, the board voted to censure Mary X for unauthorized use of association funds for landscaping. She has also agreed to resign from the landscaping committee and refund the association.

(AugustinD or Cathy may have a better way of writing this - if you're reading, have at it! When I was on the board, we never had to go this far - a stern talking to usually got the job done and fortunately, misuse of association funds wasn't the issue!)

So let's review - have an executive session to deal with Mary's conduct, summarize the proceedings and attach it to the minutes, and then prepare policies for all committees regarding spending association funds (they're not allowed to do that; it's a board decision) and how changes to vendor contracts must be handled. They could be drafted as board resolutions which should be approved during an open board meeting and attached to the minutes as well. Be sure to check your documents to ensure the Board has the authority to enact additional community rules as long as they don't contradict local, state or federal law, or current Bylaws and CCRs of the association.

What MarkM19 posted is what I am thinking: It is extremely common for one infrastructure repair to turn up other problems. Often, not fixing these problems on the spot, while xyz is already torn up for work, will lead to a much greater expense.

I think the biggest problem here might be the board's not understanding the nature of repairs on infrastructure.

A discussion needs to happen, but I have doubts about the appropriateness of laying blame on this "Mary" at this point. It's quite possible that this board should be grateful that she is the "boots on the ground" for these repairs, giving up considerable time. I mean, should the entire board be present when certain repairs are being performed, to vote on the spot when additional problems turn up?

Thanks Mark. Both Mary and the vendor had my cell phone and email address and I am always available. Since she is an interim director, I can call to have her removed with a board vote as outlined in our docs. The term she is filling is up in July of 2022. Myself and the VP have had several issues with Mary in the past and the other board members are well aware of this.

Wow.

Just wow. I am dumbfounded at the concern and many of the responses, especially that Mary might need to pay back the overage cost to the association.

I am not familiar with the makeup of your board, your annual budget, or the culture of your board. I can speak to mine, which is a community that is 95% parents of 2 or 3 young children ages 5 to 18. We are a very busy community that is seriously short on volunteers.

I can say that taking a $3,000 project and turning it into a $4,500 project would be fine with me if the finished product looked fine. And the homeowners, who ultimately are the dues payers, care far more about how the finished product looks than the cost.

A $11,000 project that turns into a $16,000 project is a little bigger deal, but again, in our community if the overall project looks nice that is more important than the cost.

The biggest thing, in my opinion, is that Mary is a volunteer who is working hard to make the community better. Don't drive her away.

Ditto. If JohnT38's Board demands Mary pay back the money, then it must compute this thusly:

Amount Mary okayed on the spot = MO1

Benefit HOA received from Mary's on the spot decision = HOAB1

Amount Mary must pay back = MO1 - HOAB1

Good luck computing HOAB1. I think one thing is for sure: HOAB1 does not equal zero.

I am thinking continuing to blame Mary is not appropriate.

Good communications are key to resolving the situation and going forward so the everyone is on the same page with regard to infrastructure repairs and how to make on-the-spot decisions.

So far to me, the venom towards Mary expressed here (censures and spankings, both of a fifth grade nature IMO) underwhelms.

SheliaH, by any chance is this a post-o? You're a veteran who's obviously spent a lot of time on a HOA Board, including in the critical and labor-intensive position of treasurer. Why is it you think that exec session Minutes are not necessary at least some of the time?

Had to re-read that (it's been a LONG week!) and you're right - We did keep a summary, but they weren't available to homeowners.

I think I was thinking of executive meeting details being spilled to unauthorized people, violation of attorney/client privilege and all that. Another reason we did our best not to have them unless it was absolutely necessary.

I'm happy to provide whatever facts you are looking for.

So you are saying she was selected by he BOD to fill an empty BOD seat? If so, the BOD can remove her.

You are correct on both statements.

Your summary was 100% accurate. There are no other facts that I am leaving out.

JohnT,
I think we have beat this one to death. My only recommendation is when approving future bids like this to state in the approval a "Not to Exceed price" Typically you may want to add a little extra to the price to save time so the vendor does not have to stop work but this way you are giving the PM and the Committee chair direct action not to exceed the bid.

If it was true that Mary intentionally spent HOA money that was not approved, and doesn't appear to care to understand the consequences, the most logical way to handle it is to not have Mary work with vendors in the future. The board can choose to have someone else handle vendor relationships if there is another volunteer.

Greg,
The Devil is in the details. If only one board member needs to approve she is currently a board member. I would suggest that 2 board member sign with the President being the other member.

1. I'd report out that landscape budget was exceeded the budgeted amount, which is the technical action.

2. I would not name "Mary" as the person who authorized the exceptional charges to the landscape project.

3. 50% increases in cost, due to change order, should trigger, board notification and further debate if the change order reflects a change in aesthetics versus a needed repair that's uncovered by the natural fulfillment of the project (think underground water leak, for instance).

Vendors need to know the people who will observe the finished product and exactly who signs off on change orders. Many board directors, especially new ones, take an egalitarian approach to decision-making and will issue change orders. Slight communication gaps will be exploited and inexperienced directors can easily be "sold" into making spot decisions onsite.

I bet this extra work, while unnecessary, is not to the detriment of the project or overall community landscape plan. It may be extravagant, expensive and ill-timed and certainly isn't appropriate in the political sense.

John nor the board should be blamed, either. This is a protocol gap that's easily closed with discretion between the board president and/or property manager and the vendors. Our community vendors - especially our long-running partnerships - know exactly who may attempt to approach them and who authorizes change and that board process.

What occurred is stereotypical HOA "behavior."

Relieve poor Mary from her position of landscape chair person or liaison to the vendor. Clearly her judgment level is very low.