Rogue HOA board Texas-

For history, please see me last posts in the past week.

I live in a 55+ community of 100+ SFH in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Our covenants state we are governed by TPC 209

I am also a seasonal resident, who spends 6 months here and 6 months up North.

I have been seeking any way to find out what is happening in our community during our absence, all we want is to see the meeting minutes and maybe have some input if possible.

When I was told by the HOA president last year that if I wanted to know stuff, I needed to attend meetings, I went digging to see if there were any rules governing HOAs and for all the changes that occurred in 2021. my attempts to privately advise the current board of certain rights we now have were met with resistance so I asked to be on the ballot in January. They are always complaining they can't get anyone to run.

Seems yesterday, they all met, drafted a new rule that only people who live full time in the development may run for the board. They had it notarized and put there stamp on it. They also ruled that only in person attendance is allowed at meetings (even tho I'm the past, board members have been on speaker phone while away).

Law violations so far-

Board Membership requirement
Sec. 209.00591. BOARD MEMBERSHIP. (a) Except as provided by this section, a provision in a dedicatory instrument that restricts a property owner's right to run for a position on the board of the property owners' association is void.
(a-1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a property owners' association's bylaws may require one or more board members to reside in the subdivision subject to the dedicatory instruments but may not require all board members to reside in that subdivision. A requirement described by this subsection is not applicable during the development period.

Agenda's to regular meetings are never provided, either in advance or at the meeting.
Meeting Notices
209.0051
board.
(e) Members shall be given notice of the date, hour, place, and general subject of a regular or special board meeting, including a general description of any matter to be brought up for deliberation in executive session.
In the past year, they have had multiple resignations and appointed members to fill vacancies in private meetings.

Election of board members
4 board vacancies were filled in private meetings and the officers were also appointed in private meetings.
209.0051 see items 13 and 15
The board may not, unless done in an open meeting for which prior notice was given to owners under Subsection (e), consider or vote on:
(1) fines;
(2) damage assessments;
(3) initiation of foreclosure actions;
(4) initiation of enforcement actions, excluding temporary restraining orders or violations involving a threat to health or safety;
(5) increases in assessments;
(6) levying of special assessments;
(7) appeals from a denial of architectural control approval;
(8) a suspension of a right of a particular owner before the owner has an opportunity to attend a board meeting to present the owner's position, including any defense, on the issue;
(9) lending or borrowing money;
(10) the adoption or amendment of a dedicatory instrument;
(11) the approval of an annual budget or the approval of an amendment of an annual budget;
(12) the sale or purchase of real property;
(13) the filling of a vacancy on the board;
(14) the construction of capital improvements other than the repair, replacement, or enhancement of existing capital improvements; or
(15) the election of an officer.

They are also in violation of 209.004 as they have not amended their management certificate or filed since 2014 and have not uploaded amended certificate to TREC

They are also in violation of 209.00505 by having nobody but two board members on the ARC

My main concern is over election violations. It appears they do not have legal councel, they only hire a local atty as needed. (I have a call into him to clarify this.

What course of action needs to be taken now to remove this board. The owners for the most part are complacent and fearful of retaliation.

I have allready found 3 other people willing to serve as long as the 3 hostile and intimidating directors are not there.

Any words of support or advice?

Regarding the rule limiting board membership to full time residents, the primary duty of a board member is to attend meetings and vote on issues before the board. Many bylaws contain language stating that three or more missed meetings are considered a resignation.

In addition, it can be difficult for part-time owners to know what's going on in the community, as you've noticed. Someone who lives there full time and pays attention will be more informed than someone who doesn't - and you can make a good argument that this will result in better decision making.

One way around this is to conduct virtual board meetings. But this may not be legal in your state, and a number of regular posters here have said that they prefer in-person meetings and think that they're more effective. I have no opinion either way, other than pointing out that virtual and in-person each has advantages and disadvantages.

Finally, there are a number of jobs that board members handle that require them to be physically present - for example, community walk-throughs looking for issues and dealing with emergencies on site. Not only will the permanent residents respond quicker, all of this work will be pushed onto them. So you can also make a good argument that a part-time board member won't be pulling their weight.

As for whether or not the board can enact a rule limiting board membership, I have my doubts - they'll probably have to amend the bylaws. However, IMHO a rule may not be necessary since residency is a legitimate campaign issue, and full-timers who are running for the board can easily make the case that they'll make better decisions and do more work simply because they're around all the time. If I were faced with two equally qualified candidates, I'd give my vote to the full-time resident.

I said that, all other things being equal, I would give my nod to the candidate who is there full time - for the reasons I stated. That doesn't mean I agree with how the board went about doing things, because I don't think it was valid.

If state law says that board membership can't be denied based on residency, I take that to mean that there can't be anything in the CC&Rs or bylaws with such a restriction. I would be surprised, though, if the law says that homeowners can't decide who to vote for based on residency. For one, how on earth would you enforce this? Generally boards serve at the pleasure of the membership and directors can be removed with or without cause - a state law limiting this would probably not be valid. Owners can decide that they'll only vote for people with mullets if they want - which would be dumb, but it's not illegal. And finally, believing that a candidate who's there full time would do a better job isn't discriminating based on residency - it's deciding based on who you believe can do the better job, with residency being one possible factor in determining how well someone can perform.

Of course, if nobody is running for a board position, I'd say that a part-timer may be better than no one at all. But it would depend on the person and how much being gone half the year handicaps them. Someone who's gone for a month or two could probably make things work. But six months at a time? Maybe not - if for no other reason than missing 3 meetings could constitute a resignation. If that's in the bylaws, that's not a violation of state law - it's a consequence of being gone and it applies no matter why the person is absent. It recognizes that the person is failing to fulfill their primary duty as a bard member.

Another thing: if you've never served on an HOA board before, there is a lot to learn. Newbies spend much of their first year in a panic as they discover how little they know, they're getting their feet under them in the second year, and in the third they're mostly firing on all cylinders but will still be making mistakes. Someone who's gone half the time will get up to speed even more slowly.

If I were on the board, instead of enacting invalid rules, I'd be recruiting candidates because it sounds like they're needed.

True. But there are other options beside those two that are better than both. We often don't get them, though.

Unfortunately, I think that the large majority of owners - if they vote at all - have no understanding of how HOAs are supposed to work and don't even consider such things. If anything, discussions of such things are a turn-off. Worse, owners value other things and make their decisions accordingly. It's how the dog owners took over my community for several years, and they thought that one former board member (who did a lot of damage) was great.

The result is folks like the current board members in this thread and that level of understanding.

My Board has had two part-time board members. One had been an owner for quite a while and attended open board meetings when here. He was an OK director because he was familiar with our documents and really good at math, so, a good Finance Committee member too.

I never saw the other until, as a newish owner, he ran for the Board. He lived here about 1/2 time and commuted 2 hours to his other home in a town where he was on the city council. It was the death throes-year of a terrible Board, and they appointed him president. He was simply awful and soooo arrogant. A year later we got good candidates, defeated the last of the bad directors and this guy resigned (to become mayor or his town, omg).

But Barbara's problem is much different than opinions on part-time owners as directors. The facts as she presents them are that the current Board is completely rogue and violates many of their own docs and state statutes. The Board cannot vote to bar owners from board service unless they live in the HOA full-time. So what if they had it "notorized??" Their docs require a Nomination Committee, which the Board ignored .

Do a lot of owners in your HOA, Barbara, feel the board is problem and must change?? Without help from and unity with several like-minded fellow owners, I don't believe that you realistically have any chance. Partly because it looks like the Board is going to make it so your only hope is as a write-in. Another part is having a devoted team help with flyers, calling your own meetings to meet and chat with owners, etc. Citing all of the laws and your own docs that they have violated will NOT win you a place on the board. You'd need handful of suggestions to improve your community nd publicize them.

I am sorry to be so pessimistic.

Good work, Barbara! I'm happy & exited for you &your group.

Showing the Board that several or many owners see that they are in violation of your documents and Texas law might work very nicely for you good guys. The violations are so scattered the in your three post. It might be good to to submit each code, Bylaw or CC&Rs by its number and and edited-down citation. I think it best if you do not cite every sentence of every statute. Make each short & crisp.

Bylaw xx.xxx. There must be a nomination committee.
Tx 209xx. All Owners are eligible to serve on the board.

It's so key to have the support of several others--doesn't need to be many. Onward!!