How do homeowners know whom to vote for?

My understanding is that you as an owner (not the President) can certainly campaign for or against someone using the same tools every owner has: Mass snail mails. Mass emails. A web site. Et cetera.

I am not persuaded that who works the hardest and who is obnoxious is confidential information. Though I would be curious as to what you see as obnoxious that is not visible to owners, since Arizona board meetings are mostly open to owners, right?

As long as your assertions are based on demonstrable facts, I think it's fine to share your opinions or these facts.

Some people advise not going negative. It might be a better strategy for you to list everything the candidates you favor have done that argues that these candidates are the ones for whom the owners should vote.

For sure. I am glad SheliaH mentioned this. In the three HOAs/COAs in which I have resided, these 'meet the candidate' town halls have been well-attended, with good questions from the floor.

Our BOD does nothing concerning BOD Candidates as we allow nominations form the floor, we have no ide who will be running. That said as only once have we had more running then open spots we have never had to "get serious" about BOD Elections. As a Member of the BOD I feel free in canvassing/supporting a candidate. What I will not do is become negative about a candidate, at least not publicly.....LOL

Unfortunate about Max's experiences with his HOA's candidate statements. I only am experienced with the many I've reviewed over 16 years living in my HOA. While some, to be sure, showed little comprehensions of HOAs. All, however, were "authentic," I saw no lies or hyperbolic claims about self. I did or do know all of these folks.

We did have two candidates for reelection 2 years ago who ignored the one-page limit and submitted several pages of their CVs to the newish PM who accidentally sent them to owners. Talk about hilarious, things they'd done in the 1970s! That were unrelated to Board service. Moreover, each ignored a very controversial topic at that time. Both suffered humiliating defeats. One is a PhD retired academic economist; the other an attorney.

If law firms were looking to make money on any of the assoiation I manage, I am afraid they would all be homeless. So, because of that I don't tend to read much case law. For the life of me, I have no idea how you do it Augie?

On the other hand, to be as effiecient as possible and be as transparent in representing my clients, I read up on some very well run HOA operations, such as the ones that are part of the Sun City HOA's that operate in different parts of th United States. Now those of some impressively run corporations.

I abandoned a PhD program in economics when I discovered how much hand-waving and questionable assumptions economists needed to draw any conclusions. Lots of hard work for questionable results - it's called "the dismal science" for a reason. (Things may have changed by now. At the time chaos and complexity theory were just starting to present new options for getting a handle on multi-variable systems with *many* interacting feedback loops - only one or two universities in the country were doing any real economics research with them. And now AI and expert systems have real possibilities. Anyway, for HOAs, finance or accounting are more useful fields.)

FWIW, the most disruptive folks in my community have been academics - they do things that would get them escorted from the building in the business world and are offended that anyone thinks they can tell them what to do. It's a stereotype, though - I've known plenty of academics who are nothing like that.

Back on topic:

What has worked best for candidates in my community was having a well thought out platform that could be summarized in a few bullet points, and communicating this platform in multiple ways. Candidates emphasized what they could do for the community. A hot-button issue is a guaranteed attention-getter, but those don't often appear.

Focusing on others' failures didn't work well - nor did name calling or stirring the pot, most people can see through that kind of behavior. The only exception to that would be if there is a well-documented problem with one of the other candidates that would call into question their ability to do the job (we had an example within the last year or so where a candidate had done time for white collar crime - financial shenanigans, I think). That would be relevant.

I say: Not a doggone chance. For example, as the Fed lowered interest rates based on xyz theory of econ, it ignored the reality that lowering interest rates is a short term solution to a long term problem. Namely econ cannot address the Tragedy of the Commons that has yielded (1) climate change and (2) the failure to get meaningful relief from a perfectly innocent, less than 0.00002 inch [= less than 2 x 10^(-5) inch] virus.

Worse, there's a practical limit to how low interest rates can go so as to boost the economy through more lending and so borrowing and borrowing some more.

Thanks for the short term fix economists. But you know darn well it's all smoke and mirrors in the face of these problems. You ain't seen nothing yet. Go buy gold, why dontcha?

Funny story. In one HOA we had a fellow stand for election by nominating himself, which was allowed. Our PM was Election Commissioner which meant he verified each nominee was in good standing. The MC finally told the BOD that he could not find any information on the person at all. Turns out he was not an owner. He was under contract for a home and the seller invited him to the Annual Meeting. He said he got caught up in things and wanted to become helpful..........LOL.

I see that California's CID/COA/HOA act expressly allows this. But in other states, I wonder if courts would refuse to allow this.

Back to PhDs: My anecdotal study finds that the PhDs best suited to serving on boards are in sociology or psychology. Not attorneys. Not engineers. Not carpenter/contractor types. Not realtors. But head shrinkers and pedigreed students of the mind.

So, go along to get along?

We haven't had any psychologists on our Board, but I've known a few in a different context. I think that it's harder for them to see the "big picture," and often there's an emphasis on "motivation," concern about why the individual behaves the way they do. I've seen this, too, among the couple of attorneys who served, and who were also really negative forces here. Sam with the couple of realtors who've served. It seems in US society, everyone's a shrink.

I dunno, the one best previous prez and our current treasurer have a master of Public Administration and they both can see the big picture really well.

So we are now comparing a reality TV show to a HOA Board?

Not all inclusive but the PIA's I served with on BOD's were school teachers and lawyers. School teachers were afraid to make decisions and wanted to treat owners like children. Lawyers were afraid to make decisions and were often confused about what docs meant. Realtors were good as long as they did not try to play lawyer which many do.

Can't think of a thing

I'm speaking strictly from my own experience of being thrusted into the role of president for 3 years. These are some of the skills that I found helpful. Our board consists of 7 people and I was taking over in bad times. Depleted reserve funds, failing infrastructure and a culture of never raising fees to keep the people happy. I didn't have a clue what I was doing but the first thing I decided is that I had to find a way to get people to understand what was happening and make them see that our problems were going to end up costing them dearly and that they better wake up. I went into this fully prepared to be ousted but I was not going to cave into the mob mentality.

1.) Must be willing to digest and understand the governing documents as well as have a good working knowledge of the applicable state statutes. If the board is inadequately trained it is up to you to find a way to teach them and make them understand why they must be followed. Follow the docs even when you don't like it. Otherwise change them through the proper methods. (We did this with our 40 year old docs a couple of months ago. It's not easy!)

2.) Must have excellent people skills and be able to moderate conflicts among board members and with owners. I believe the president should set the tone of the board. Examples: Honesty, respect and understanding that we are spending our neighbors money and they have the absolute right to question how their money is being spent.

3.) Must be a very good communicator with the owners and other board members. I've tried to do this through Town Hall meetings, a monthly contribution to the newsletter where I educated them on various HOA topics such as reserve funds, selective enforcement issues, the importance of scheduled maintenance, ramifications of outdated governing documents, etc. I made myself available to individuals for conversation on anything that they wanted to discuss.

4.) Must develop a reputation of trust. Total transparency and in cases where you don't have the answer you admit this and then promise to get back to them when you do.

5.) Keep your word.

5.) Must be prepared to never back down when you have the facts to back up your position and you believe you're right.

I am proud of the results that myself and the other board members were able to pull off. The reserve funds are up to 70%, the infrastructure has been greatly improved, new governing documents and budgets that are realistic and based on actual numbers. I ended my term in July because I will be moving but I'm glad I had the experience. It can be frustrating as hell but it can also be very rewarding.

We have each candidate fill out a form with their qualifications. We also hold a "meet the candidates" night and ask all the candidates questions that have been sent in advance or from the floor.

Sometimes, strategically placed questions can really show a candidate's true colors. You will quickly see which candidates are the ones with a short agenda that only benefits them or their friends. Candidates that don't do research about the community but just have opinions with no basis in fact. And there is always the candidate who doesn't give a damn about anything else except reducing the monthly fees.

It's crazy to vote for someone who has never even bothered to come to a meeting (we have open monthly meetings).

In the end, most people don't bother to do any research and end up voting for someone they know, or voting against someone they know and dislike.

Owners get to decide that for themselves.

Some may ask the candidates detailed questions and vote based on the answers.

Some may choose their friends or close neighbors.

Some may be swayed by reputations, gossip, what's posted on neighborhood social media.

Some may pick a name that seems familiar.

Some may choose based on gender or ethnicity. Who is in (or not in) their own group.

Whether these are good or bad reasons - not our call.

There's a common saying in HOA management, that it's like poker. You don't get to pick the hand you are dealt, you just have to make the best of it.

Good gawd--My typos. I'm sorry. I now just want tomato it clear that Owners watching directors at open board meetings can form pretty accurate opinions about how they help govern an HOA. AND, they speak with their pals who do not attend.

What "bubble?" Your reply about for whom Owners might vote I-- the subject here.

We have 30-35 owners attend our open board meetings every month and lately, we've had two open meetings a month both with good attendance at a hybrid Zoom & in-person meeting for two months now. (200+ units, 25% landlords, 11% part-time owner-occupants)

When three incumbents were defeated two years ago, I was reelected after a gap year and had observed these three at monthly meetings. One did nothing except second motions and read his mail. Another, an attorney, was rude to certain other directors and to owners during open forum. The third pontificated like the old windbag retired U. Prof that he was and acted as if no one else understood our finances. Now, I do think they lost reelection for other reasons too. But their conduct at our open meetings did NOT help them.

Your question, Max, has nothing to do with the subject. What is your point?

At the most basic level if no one attends open board meetings in states where they're permitted, candidates would campaign the old fashioned-way. Letters, flyers at doors. In CA, they may used the common area lounges, clubhouses, etc., free of charge and invite folks, etc/. etc.

Google "non sequitur," Max.