more reading proposed bylaws....is this normal?

I've been digging into the proposed bylaws coming up for vote, to which the HOA Leadership chose to send only a 3-bullet point summary.

I've found dozens of things that are added, removed, or substantially changed, and some that are quite shocking to me. Wondering what you think....

1. The section from original Bylaws that says that the Bylaws apply to all persons that own a lot parcel in the HOA is completely removed. essentially, the new version doesn't apply to any of the members without this paragraph.

2. sneaks in the line "only members may attend meetings of the members, unless invited by the board" into the paragraph defining what is a "member" --> this means the Board can exclude experts or relevant input from an Annual Meeting...no long up the the Membership.

3. removes the requirement to hold an election at each annual meeting.

4. Removes requirements to keep minutes of meetings.

5. Allows the Board to change the quantity of Directors on a whim.

6. Lists powers of the Board as "The Board will conduct, direct, and exercise full control over all activities of the Association." --> this raises an eye-brow...what are normal activities of the Membership?

7. Removes requirement to hold any Board Meetings at all.

8. Gives the President a Vote in tied Board of Directors votes.

9. Removes the requirement to hold an Organizational Meeting to elect officers.

10. Says that the Board can send all communications and notices over email. Explicitly states that Members cannot opt out, and its the Member's responsibility to make sure they receive the email.

================================

Maybe I'm overreacting, but to me, these seem like quite odd changes to sneak into the proposed Bylaws, especially since they were not summarized or noticed. In a worst case scenario....the Board now has total control over the HOA and has no requirement to hold any elections, can vote off non-compliant Directors and then shrink the Board quantity to just themselves.....yikes.

What are your thoughts?

You already know what I think, but in case I have to spell it out (again):

This is a power grab by your current board and is extremely dangerous if people sign off on that 3 point nonsense. I like max's directed proxy idea (they'd have to list out these proposals and homeowners can vote each one up or down). to

For me, stuff like board meetings being optional would be met with "are you high?" response. If you're doing your best and Being transparent about association, you don't even begin to think of stuff like this.

Throughout all these conversations, I have yet to see where your talked to your neighbors about the upcoming shitshow - and if not, I fail to see why not. You know many people won't do What you've done in taking a deep dive into all this, and if you don t try to get their help in quashing this mess, a lawsuit will likely ensure and cost everyone time and money.

Time is still marching towards this meeting - keep posting if you want, but I'd be spending a lot more time talking to my neighbors and strongly encouraging them to attend this meeting - especially the ones who signed that proxy without reading it. Good luck - you're going to need it.

?

In another recent thread of yours, you posted:


Did the HOA leadership send out the proposed amendment to the bylaws (even if it was three different versions), or did it not?

I think the question is, what will you do about it now that you know it.

Will you publish a newsletter to inform the membership of the actual changes proposed (along with your analysis of pros and cons)?
Will you knock on doors and gather proxies to try and defeat the changes?

What will you do now?

curious what most HOA's separate as "powers, duties, responsibilities" between the Board and the Membership.

Any input?

Been away for a while.

Adam (with Steve) --WHAT do your ID HOA or nonprofit codes say about some of the changes that trouble you???? In CA, the latter specifies minimum numbers of meetings per year, and a few other matters. They specify that meeting minutes must be kept Ah! I see Augie's citation). In Our state, organization meetings MUST be held. In some states like CA, they MUST be open meetings so owners can see the process by which the board (s)elects its officers. Important, imo. some may specify annual meeting MUST be held to elect board members. In CA, email as the ONLY source of communication to owners is forbidden. At minimum, there must be "general notice" on a common area bulletin board, etc. of assn. matters & meetings.

In most HOAs, I think, Ownrs have enforcements rights as individuals and, I guess, in the aggregate. They have notice rights before the assn may enter their homes. In open meeting state, Owners have the right to attend board meetings, and such states may have notice requirements for meeting agendas. In many states Owners have the right to assn. notice to cure violations and to due process prior to fines or other types of discipline (e.g. withholding common area amenities).

Re members' powers. I haven't heard of a state where owners can have any say about the funding level of reserves. Some states require/allow Owners input into ratifying budgets. a lot do not unless proposed budgets exceed certain levels. Ye, owners may call special meetings of the members.

Thanks for the info, Cathy. I'm not under the impression this is common or even typical, but I guess all exceptions are good to mention.

Florida gives owners enormous power over reserves. One example from FS 720

After one or more reserve accounts are established, the membership of the association, upon a majority vote at a meeting at which a quorum is present, may provide for no reserves or less reserves than required by this section.

FS 718 says similar.

Exceptions are good to mention. thanks, Augustin.

Dirt nap? Tell me you did not mean what I think you mean.

Anyway, I guffawed when I saw this.

No, I have never seen a board amend the bylaws to replace all, or nearly all, "shalls" with "wills."

I agree with your thoughts on this. "Shall" is the right language much of the time, so as to get the legal meaning as right as possible.

Has an attorney even reviewed the draft?

our board has paid nearly $5000 to an attorney to prepare these....on top of the issues highlighted here, I've found at least 4 issues where one paragraph conflicts with another....

seems like a hackjob.

Kerry, I have. Its been referenced multiple times in other threads. This thread is more about what's normal. Most of this stuff is not addressed in (my) state laws.