Special Meeting demanded by rogue homeowners

MaryD27,

Is this a condominium? Is it a subdivision of stand-alone, single family homes? Do you know which Louisiana statutes apply? The statutes might specify the window in which the special meeting must occur.

In addition, the statutes may have certain requirements that must be met before the association agrees to set up the special meeting. If these requirements are met, then technically the board can refuse to arrange the special meeting, and without explaining why to the owners. If you want to know why, ask.

Respectfully, I suggest you leave out the editorializing. Readers here usually get only one side of the story. For all I know your board is the entity that is rogue, and these two owners have been asking the board for years to comply with the law and covenants, yet the board refuses. The question you asked can be answered without knowing who the bad guys are here.

Are you sure the homeowners followed legal procedure when asking for the meeting? If not, they'll have to start over. Of course, once they are no longer owners, they won't have any standing to ask for anything.

I'm with Shelia on this. It sounds like you've got some vicious 'vocational dissenters' (aka "VDs"), and I know full well how annoying that can be{1}, but I'd focus on the response. Imagine how satisfying it would be to send them home looking like fools! (I'm an awful person, I know). You said there are like 40 homes? If I were the Board, I'd draw up a list of everyone and try to talk (and listen) to as many as I could. Take notes. See if anyone drops any hints about a planned sneak attack. Brainstorm how to respond to whatever kind(s) of attacks you can expect. It would be a lot of work - and for sure it's way easy for me to casually toss this advice at you, and I while I have some small (but growing) experience with this kind of thing, you'd never pay me money to consult on it - but my neighborhood is 10+ times as big as yours, I sorta wish there were only 40 homes and I could possibly get to know everyone.

And while talking with the 'hood, I think the Board should be open to the notion that they might not be 100% correct. The VDs may be crazy, but also they might have one or two valid points, and I think it would be folly to ignore / reject those points along with the other certifiably insane points the VDs are trying to push. It's possible that your neighborhood is chock full of crazy people. But maybe not, and my thinking is that it might be better if people walk away thinking "wow, the Board certainly is focused on the issues!" instead of "the Board really hates those VDs!".

Finally: for what little it's worth, the causal root of my own situation is a couple of tenants. So yeah, I've arguably got a bias against people making a mess and then strolling away, leaving others to deal with it.

Bill

{1} And I'm fully aware that I'm being something of a hypocrite, in that I was quite recently protesting an attempt to de-President me by saying "nope, you can't do that, against the rules!"

And it goes on and on:

THE NO WIN SCENARIO

Given the lack of response of the Board, I feel it is necessary to provide insight into the strategies laid forth.

Several years ago, was the last time I formally played chess as I was challenged by the person that had just won the Mississippi Chess Championship the week before. Xxx and her friend accompanied me to play this individual in xxx, where this person was staying, and after approximately 20 minutes I showed him how the next three moves would play out and he laid his king down. For me, chess is a challenging game only when playing an opponent in his own league. As far as competing against an opponent that fails to make a move, well that’s a waste of my time.

In the realm of chess, thinking of several moves ahead is a hallmark of a seasoned player. Similarly, throughout this process, I’ve had to anticipate moves and countermoves to reach our current position. My intention, much like in a game of chess, has always been to secure a favorable outcome for the entire community and had nothing to do with competition or ego.

Much like a grand chess game, the journey through the intricate landscape of community governance requires strategic thinking, where every move carries weight. In this intricate game, the last several years of inaction of the Board and the community attorney bring to mind imagery from the iconic movie 'War Games,' where the only way to not lose was to abstain from engaging in the game of thermonuclear war.

Much like the computer (Joshua) in 'War Games,' it seems our Board and community attorney fully recognized the futility of debating over the interpretation of our governing documents regarding Special Meetings of the Members. Instead of pursuing a losing strategy, they chose a tactical pause to reevaluate and alter the rules based on ‘arbitrary discretionary authority’. This move does deserve some credit for acknowledging the need to step back, thereby avoiding stepping up to the plate and losing by engagement. This in essence has acknowledged and validated our governing documents’ inherent ambiguities and lack of credible defense.

As we navigate the intricacies surrounding Special Meetings of the Members, it's crucial to recognize the deliberate and strategic approach I've taken throughout this ongoing debate. Through a series of well-thought-out actions, I've essentially imposed a Kobayashi Maru (no win scenario) upon the Board and our community attorney, Mr. Paul Mayronne. This challenging scenario is deeply rooted in the vagueness and ambiguity of our governing documents, which were crafted over 28 years ago and will soon be clearly revealed.

Our recent debates and discussions have laid bare the extent of this problem, revealing a fundamental issue: the pressing need for clarity within our governing documents. These documents have been the epicenter of our disputes, with one interpretation potentially now going to be pitted against another.

Our journey may have now led us to two potentially divergent legal opinions. On one side, we have an independent attorney, Richard A. Richardson, whose expert opinion supports our argument - that community members have the right to call special meetings and vote on community-related matters, provided they are legal and pertinent to community affairs and submitted correctly. This opinion emphasizes the importance of adhering to our governing documents' intent.

On the other side, we await our community attorney's response, which may or may not align with Mr. Richardson's viewpoint. Regardless of the outcome, this situation underscores the pressing need for change. It's evident that our governing documents require revision to prevent further disputes and to provide the clarity our community craves. These documents have become the epicenter of our disputes, potentially with one interpretation pitted against another. This inherent problem of our community governing documents has been stressed by me numerous times over the past few years.

The community attorney's opinion submission, no matter the stance, should serve as a catalyst for this change. If Mr. Mayronne agrees with our argument, it reaffirms the need for clarity and highlights the flaws in our current governing documents. If he disagrees, it implies that the governing documents are even too nebulous for legal interpretation to concur and require immediate attention.

As we await the community attorney's opinion, we find ourselves at a crossroads. Regardless of the outcome, it's evident that our governing documents need revision to eliminate ambiguity and provide clarity. It's an opportunity to come together as a community, guided by the best interests of all members. Just as in chess, sacrifices may be necessary to achieve a strategic advantage.

In response, I have advocated for a unified approach to rewrite the amendment concerning Special Meetings of the Members. This process should be guided by the best interests of the entire community, aligning with Louisiana law, the consensus of expert opinions on the matter, and the common practices of communities in our state, not with outdated documents.

Through these strategic actions, I've attempted to set the stage for less discord for our community. We should now be committed to coming together as a community to draft an amendment that mirrors our majority collective desires. It's time for us to shape our community's destiny, ensuring it operates with fairness and transparency as its foundation.

In unity, we commit to forging a path forward that ensures our community operates with transparency, fairness, and unity. The journey may have been akin to a grand chess game, but together, you make the moves necessary to secure a more harmonious future for xxx.

To further this mission, I recently proposed a logical course of action: Let's not merely react to the community attorney's opinion. Instead, let's take control of our own destiny. Let's rewrite the rules of the game but this time in a fair manner. Like the Kobayashi Maru, a no-win scenario, we've created a situation where no matter the community attorney's stance, we've highlighted the need to clarify our governing documents. We've effectively demonstrated that our current documents, drafted 28 years ago, are a source of discord due to their vagueness.

To resolve this, let's rewrite the bylaw governing Special Meetings of the Members according to the majority consensus of the community. This process will ensure that our community's desires are reflected in the bylaws and will eliminate ambiguity. I proposed this solution to the Board and as usual, there has been no response which reveals that this Board reflects their personal opinions over that of the community as a whole. This is exactly why Special Meetings of the Members were integrated into our governance, being a means of fair and impartial democratic balance to ensure autocratic rule would not metastasize.

In closing, remember that every move in chess, even the sacrifices, is made with a strategy to secure victory. I’ve played the long game, with the objective for a community that thrives without discord and division. Together, you will make the moves necessary to prevail, for nothing beautiful will ever prevail in the absence of unity.

The Tchefuncte Trace Community should now expect from the Board that all members of the community take part in the revision of specific items in our governance at issue. The Membership must be involved in not leaving the work to those that want to only protect their own best interests. This is the Membership’s Community, and the Board should answer to the concerns and desires of the majority consensus to see that they are carried out accordingly, not the other way around.

As far as I am concerned, the Board forfeited the game a long time ago. While the community awaits Mr. Mayronne’s opinion, the end result is already clearly defined and inevitable, and the Community should only do what’s in the best interest of the Community.

The best part of the letter is “in closing.” These letters must be Halloween pranks.

MaryD27, fact: An HOA attorney takes direction from the board. If the HOA attorney's recommended course of action is not to the board's liking, and the HOA attorney offers an alternative that is to the board's liking (though not the preferred course of action in the HOA attorney's opinion), and as long as the alternative does not break any law, then the HOA attorney has an obligation to do as the board directs. If the alternative is chosen, the HOA attorney arguably is representing the board and not the corporation.

This director's response is not terrible. But it also does not persuade me that this board is not behaving rogue-ishly. Maybe the board is not rogue. I just do not have enough evidence to say one way or the other.

I can say that this particular dispute (owners believing the HOA attorney is acting per the board's direction and frequently, not in the best interests of the HOA) arises often. Attorneys are in fact part-prostitute, doing what their clients want (to the extent the law allows), because a failure to do so means a loss of billable hours.

The reason for the Special Meeting request sounds okay to me. But despite all that you have posted, I simply cannot judge whether the Special Meeting request is out of line. If the request was done properly, the Association should grant the Special Meeting.

I will say that if the Board is resisting convening a Special Meeting, while the request that was made is completely compliant with the bylaws and state law, then the problem is the board.

I go buy the saying "It is best to have people to THINK you are stupid than open up your mouth and prove it" Samuel Clemens. You may find if you let these people go to do what they want, others may not support their views. Let people make up their own minds. If your scared they have influence, then is their some truth to what they have to say?

We had a person who was friends with our ex-President who is a scumbag. When he was President he would let his friends get what they wanted. So he told this friend/neighbor that if she talked to me, then I would agree to re-do our clubhouse. She was a Decorator. We didn't need our clubhouse redone nor spend the money on it. I told her that if she wanted it so badly, then she has to face the ENTIRE board at our next meeting. You don't go behind closed doors with me. Of course she was mad I told her no and take it to the board... She came to the board meeting full of steam and demands. The shock on her face when EVERYONE in the room said "We don't need our clubhouse redone. It's fine the way it is. Just a few paint touch ups".

Sometimes you have to let someone be heard so they can hear you...

It seems to me that the chances here are good that the board gets an emotional charge out of denying an owner a Special Meeting that the owners may very well have legitimately requested.

Just read the first post. The OP's query is to see if the board can (presumably, lawfully) delay scheduling a Special Meeting of the owners until the owners have moved.

Then read the post from the director who insists the HOA attorney is impartial and does not take direction from the board.

Maybe both sides in this dispute are poorly educated on the subject of HOA covenants and HOA statutes. This would be par for the course.

I am just not seeing justification for this extreme, one-sided attack and seeming insistence that anyone asking a board to comply with the covenants and statutes is somehow mentally deranged. I for one think the goal of the owners in this case is to make the community better and yes, within the framework of the covenants and statutes.

(For the record, I think the chess analogy by the one owner is d-u-m-b; the epitome of narcissistic writing; et cetera. But strip away the stupid chess references, and some concerns that seem to have merit come through.)

This is what got my attention:But unfortunately, the owner who wrote the above points buried them in bullsh-t and his own ego.

I admit if I were on the board, I would not be interested in helping the guy write a straightforward and lawful request for a special meeting. Because, first one would have to get past this owner's gigantic need to prove his self-importance.

Maybe both sides in this dispute are poorly educated on the subject of HOA covenants and HOA statutes. This would be par for the course.

That would be me . I’m a member of 2 HOA’s and registered on this site to learn something .

Yes I’m reading the documents. I’m reading them fowards , backwards , in between the lines , even taken one set of hoa ccrs and showed them to the legal comitee of the other hoa. I also have a lot in a no Hoa neighborhood with ccrs and almost all homes are non compliant , with no history of lawsuits to compel
Compliance

I agree.

Two homeowners by themselves can't determine the future of the community, even if they stay put. Absolutely nothing will happen unless the ringleaders have wide support among the rest of the community - and probably not even then.

What is the stated purpose of this meeting? Will there be any kind of a vote? Is the vote binding in any way? Or is this just a gripe session?

HOAs are governed by their boards. Homeowners generally have minimal say in the decision-making, with their input limited to electing board members and voting on amendments to the CC&Rs. In addition, some states give homeowners the right to vote down assessment increases over a certain amount or to vote down the proposed budget. That's pretty much it. Occasionally the board may ask for feedback from the community on a particular issue. But the board is not obligated to do this and the feedback is not binding - the board can still do what they feel is in the best interest of the community.

In case it isn't obvious, HOAs are not democracies or clubs or social organizations. They are corporations. Much bellyaching and woe could be avoided if homeowners grasped this fact, read their CC&Rs and bylaws carefully, and didn't get upset whenever the corporation behaved like a corporation.

As I asked way above: what is the topic on. The posted notice & agenda for this special meeting? Someone else asked too.

All that m,alters is that owners can request special meetings.