HOA board members

It's a terrible idea in my opinion. If you're a homeowner, you have a vested interest in paying attention to what the board does, and most board members aren't inclined to do something that'll end up costing them a lot of money or drama (that's how it works in theory anyway).

If you're not a homeowner, it won't make any difference as to what the board does or not - you're not investing your money in the property and you can always move if you no longer like the community or can't afford it.

I lobbied for a change to our bylaws to limit directors to members only (member defined as deed holder).

In my lobbing efforts, I changed my mind.

This is because I discovered that many married older persons that are on their second marriage doesn't always have their spouse on the deed. This is done to keep the children happy or other financial/personal reasons. Had I been successful and implemented such a qualifier, I would have reduced the available volunteers to serve.

If you have plenty of volunteers (vs. the bear minimum) each election - then keep it.
If you do not have the volunteers - get rid of it to increase the volunteer pool.

This may be an issue depending on what Florida law says. In my state, anyone who is legally married to the person whose name is on the deed is considered an owner.

The easy way around this objection is to word the bylaws so that spouses have the same right as the owner. This will eliminate tenants, the property manager and other "interested parties" who may not have skin in the game the way owners do.

Once a developer has turned over control to the members of the HOA to elect their own Board, I am inclined to agree with TimB4. After all, only the Members can vote on directors. If the Declaration allows non-members to serve on the HOA Board, and post-turnover, then I think non-Member directors elected by the Members (or when vacancies arise, appointed by the directors) is fine.

Florida is not a common property state, so a spouse can’t vote or serve.

https://www.quickenloans.com/learn/community-property-states-x157903

Common property states include California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.

So no a spouse is not considered an owner.

It's not a matter of opening up everything to non-members or opening up nothing.

You can still limit board service to members but with specific exceptions as suggested above. For instance, my bylaws say you must be an owner to be a director, but committee membership is open to all residents.

For what it's worth about the tenants, people who rent generally aren't interested in the responsibilities of home ownership, especially in condo communities - otherwise they'd buy. The one group who may be interested are the domestic partners and other adults living together but not legally married, who seem to get overlooked most of the time.

Having said that, I still think there is an issue - maybe minor, maybe not - involving property rights. It's one thing to allow a bunch of strangers to control what happens with my property when all of those strangers are bound by the same legal contract as I am (the CC&Rs and bylaws). It's a different matter when others who are not bound by this contract have a say. It boils down to skin in the game. I would maybe change my mind about this if being a director were a paid, professional position and there would be negative consequences for the person who fails to perform adequately.

Thank you all very much for your comments

We only allow deeded property owners to serve on the board.

If a spouse doesn't have them on the deed why would I want them to make decisions about my home?

Is it a marriage or a business deal?

They don't come to meetings and they are told up front that they do not have an opinion.

Don't care about renters since we are owner occupied.