Florida HOA Board Members Meeting Attendance

Is there anything in the Florida State Statues that states how many meetings a BOD member can miss? Thanks!

I could not find anything about this in FS 720. I don't think the statute covers this.

Interestingly, our documents don't cover this either. The board can remove an officer by majority vote of the board members, but removal of a board member for any reason (and there aren't any listed - so it's truly any reason) has to be done by a petition of a majority of eligible owners. That's a big hurdle.

So you need to know how to amend your Bylaws. In some assns., it only takes a board majority From what we see here, more common is that a simple majority of owners are needed to amend the bylaws. Our new Bylaws do have missing board meetings as a redone to declare the director spot vacant.

I willing to go to th expense, most owners & also Owe/direcotrs would support such an amendment

Here's what our Bylaws say re: removal of director: "Fails (unless excused by the Board) to attend either (i) three (3) consecutive regularly scheduled meetings of the Board or (ii) five (5) regularly scheduled meetings of the Board within any twelve (12) consecutive month period."

So, Pat, if your bylaws are like Lori's and you're on the Board, simply make it an agenda item for your next open meeting. Or do you think the Board would resist such an amendment? If such an amendment, according to your Bylaws, must go out for owners votes, you may want to consider other amendments too.

Found Geno's post, see post 3 in this thread:
https://www.hoatalk.com/Forum/tabid/55/forumid/1/postid/279947/view/topic/Default.aspx

Whether FS 720.303 means what Geno suggests, I can't say.

I disagree with Geno's interpretation. I do not know what he did to come up with the list of DPBR arbitration decisions, but a number of the DPBR decisions he cites have nothing to do with his point. I wish Geno were around to discuss this, because I think he would own it. The main DPBR decision Geno claims supports his point is DBPR Arbitration Case 2016-02-9644. In 2016, FS 720 required HOAs and HOA members to submit election disputes to mandatory binding arbitration. But as of 2021 FS 720 permits a person to submit a dispute to either DPBR binding arbitration or a court. I have read these DBPR arbitrator decisions in the past and found their reasoning strangely unlike the reasoning of appeals courts. Back in 2016, this was easy to do, since an owner with an election dispute was not allowed to take the dispute to court. People back in 2016 were stuck with DBPR "precedent." I think this may be why Geno became so interested in DPBR arbitrator rulings: These arbitrator rulings could not be taken to court; the rulings were, for some time, the law.

I wonder why this changed. Maybe because DBPR was cranking out decisions right and left that were causing confusion and were inconsistent with how appeals courts interpret the law.

Florida courts have never ruled on the point in question (about a board removing a board member because the bylaws say this is allowed after the board member misses a certain number of meetings). FS 617 says this: "If at the beginning of the term of a director the articles of incorporation or bylaws provide that the director may be removed for missing a specified number of board meetings, the board may remove the director for failing to attend the specified number of meetings. The director may be removed only if a majority of the directors then in office vote for the removal." DPBR has claimed this does not apply. I believe appeals courts would say that this section of FS 617 does not apply if the section conflicts with a section of FS 720. But I see no conflict. FS 720 uses the word "only" several times to qualify when a HOA can only act in a certain way. FS 720 did not use the word "only" in the section (FS 720.303(10) (a) (1)) in question.

If the bylaws said removal by the board is allowed when a board member misses a specified number of meetings, then I say, 'you never know, but I think a court is likely to uphold the bylaw.'

Do you mean Augustin?