Legality of a Board Member Voting on Budget not affecting her

I live in a NEVADA HOA where part of it has Single Family Homes that have NO BUDGET other than the Master Assoc Budget. The other part of the HOA has Townhomes and here, the owners not only pay for the Master Assoc Budget too; but also pay a Separate Budget just for Townhome expenses. So how legal is it for a board member who lives in the Single Family HOme portion of the HOA to be able to vote on the TOWNHOME Budgets, Town home assessments, Etc., when that person has ABSOLUTELY NO STAKE in paying for any of those dues/assessments etc. It's like we pay the bills, but an OUTSIDER gets to vote & tell us how much we are going to pay. And yes, please don't say vote the budget down. That takes 51% of the entire HOA to do and when has 51% of any HOA EVER showed up for anything let alone read documents sent to them. Also, the state mandates 51% so unless they change the rule, we can't change our bylaws. Personally, I don't see the need for an amendment if this voting on financial matters by a board member not impacted by it is indeed illegal. If it's not illegal, then an amendment would be the only way I see to fix this. Any ideas, comments? Thank you.

Does the townhome HOA have its own board and its own governing documents, or does the Master board make decisions for the entire community? If the latter, do the bylaws specify that a certain percentage of the Master board has to be townhome owners?

This question points up an issue that can arise in large communities that have separate attached home sections: people forget that that all owners are members of the same Master association and that the sections are not competitors for the same small pot of dollars. Townhome owners typically pay the same annual assessments as those in single family homes, and these assessments go toward the expenses that the Master association is responsible for. Townhome owners also pay a second assessment that goes only toward expenses of that section (such as lawn care for the areas around the townhomes). These two pots of money are separate, are used for different things, and should not be commingled. It would make sense to have two separate budgets to make this separation clear. (*)

Board members often vote on things that don't affect them directly - but they all have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the entire association and not just a small portion of it. The only time board members recuse themselves is if they personally have a financial stake in the outcome of the vote. But that's not what is happening here, since board members who live in the single family homes don't benefit personally from townhome assessments.

Finally, budgets are determined by projected expenses for the new year, and they are what they are. They won't change depending on who is voting to approve them.

(* I would have a different answer if the governing documents allowed commingled funds or made different sections responsible for shortfalls in other sections' funding - for example, if townhome owners kept voting down needed assessment increases, and the Master association would be on the hook when the townhomes started to fall apart. Or vice versa.)

To all that have replied thus far. Thank you.
Here is an update:
An HOA attorney stated to me, "In many cases, the governing documents may specify that board members must have a vested interest in the budget they are voting on, meaning they must own property in the affected section of the HOA. If your governing documents do not clearly address this issue, it may be a matter that requires clarification or amendment." Our bylaws are SILENT. So a legal opinion would be needed and depending on what that opinion is, the door could be open for an amendment. For the person who said I bought with my eyes wide open...that isn't the issue and I don't intend to bite the bullet if I have legal recourse through our bylaws. This current board just approved a 157% increase from a $16K yearly vendor to a $42K+ vendor. They are out of control and need to be reined in. Furthermore, not only is one of the board members NOT a member of the section that this board member voted an assessment upon; but 95 HOME OWNERS that also DO NOT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST in Townhome expenses were allowed to vote to approve the assessment. A group of concerned Townhome owners are trying to fix loopholes and make amendments where legally possible to SAFEGUARD OUR ASSETS. The U.S. Constitution was written by learned men. Yet we have 27 amendments. So NO BYLAWS are the BE ALL END ALL. If problems are coming up that never existed, one needs to STAND UP (NOT SURRENDER) to protect their investment and look to the bylaws to see what can be amended so that no future board can get away with (for lack of a better phrase) Financially Burning up your Assets.

95 Homes 135 Townhomes. Sounds like a slam dunk right? Not so, many owners are absentee living in other states & countries. Even ChatGPT states an HOA is lucky if 10 to 30% of membership gets involved in the HOA, its voting, budget etc. The law in Nevada states that 51% of the membership MUST disapprove a budget and SILENCE GIVES CONSENT. So if you don't respond, it automatically means you approve the Budget. Ridiculous. The Silent Majority are impacting our finances. Even the most OPTIMISTIC person would have to agree that mustering up 51% would me miraculous. So, unless NEVADA changes the law, HOA's here are doomed by this 51% threshold when things go wrong with their board.

Nevada's law is in line with those in many other states. It's not ridiculous if you understand how these things work, especially given the non-participation of many homeowners which you mentioned yourself.

The laws are written so that an activist minority can't hold an association hostage and prevent it from having a working budget. Boards are fiduciaries and must act in the best interest of the HOA. Homeowners are not and are free to act in their own self interest, even if that self interest is harmful to the association. Board members are also far more likely to understand the spending needs of an association. Homeowners, not so much. Are those the folks you want calling the shots?

A few activists plus a bunch of apathetic owners can derail an association. My community had no board at all for a few months earlier this year because of a small group who were yanking people's chains. It wasn't fun.

And no, HOAs are not "doomed". People who don't get involved may be happy with the way things are going, or they're not unhappy enough to get off their duffs and do something about it. The law assumes that issues that are serious enough to get enough people's attention will be addressed. If not that many people think something is a problem, then maybe it really isn't.

Oh, and be careful about relying on ChatGPT. It flat out makes up crap (that's what "generative AI" means). Earlier this year a couple lawyers got sanctioned by their Bar because they used ChatGPT to write some legal motions, and good ol' Chat cited non-existent case law a number of times. The court was not amused.

I got an idea. Rather than running around with your hair on fire waiving the constitution and demanding justice, why don’t you and some of the “concerned Townhome owners” run for the Board in 2024?

It hard for me to have sympathy for you as a victim when the townhome owners represent 56% of the HOA and could control 100% of the Board.

Was the outsider's the deciding vote?

True. Bylaws, AoI, Declarations and statutes simply cannot cover every conceivable issue that might arise.(snicker) Interested readers should go here:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/litigation-news/2023/use-chatgpt-research-bogus-cases-sanctions/

Excerpt:
Before the federal court, the airline moved to dismiss arguing the case was time barred. The plaintiff’s attorney-of-record filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss with citations to several purported judicial decisions. Although the attorney-of-record signed and filed the opposition, it was researched and written by the drafting attorney. The attorney-of-record did not review any of the cited judicial opinions.

In reply, the airline stated it was unable to find most of the cases cited in plaintiff’s opposition. The court conducted its own search and was also unable to find many of the cited authorities. The court asked the attorney-of-record to file an affidavit with copies of the seemingly nonexistent cases. In response, the attorney-of-record requested another extension to reply to the court by falsely claiming he was on vacation. Subsequently, the attorney-of-record executed an affidavit written by the drafting attorney with purported excerpts of all but one of the requested cases.

After further inquiry from the court, the plaintiff’s attorneys ultimately revealed that they relied on legal opinions provided by ChatGPT. The drafting attorney stated he had never used the technology before, did not realize that ChatGPT could create false content, and used ChatGPT because the firm had limited access to federal cases. The attorney-of-record did not review the legal pleadings before filing.

Subsequently, the court held an order to show cause hearing, fined the law firm and attorneys $5,000, and required them to apologize to each judge falsely identified as an author of the fake opinions cited in the opposition.