Seasonal Residnet Discrimination

My BoD continually makes derogatory remarks about snowbirds being on any committee or serving on the board. I understand everyone has a right to their opinion, but announcing it at our annual members meeting as a campaign speech is just not right. Comments like " this is a boots on the ground position and I can't imagine how anyone not here permanently could possibly do this job. Our president has even made comments at the meetings about not wanting snowbirds on committees. That is certainly discrimination and against the law. What can we do about this?

I agree the remarks are hostile to snowbirds. I also agree the language discriminates against snowboards. But this language is //not// unlawful discrimination under the Fair Housing Act or any other law.

About committee service --

Boards appoint owners to committees. The Boards have the lawful right to deny committee seats to any owner, as long as this is not on the basis of membership in one of the following classes: Race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), disability, familial status, or national origin.

As a snowbird, you fall into none of these classes or categories. Furthermore if the board feels that "boots on the ground" are needed, IMO this is a perfectly valid reason to refuse to deny an owner membership on a committee.

As for board service, this is the only issue where you might have legal traction. Namely: The Board may not lawfully prohibit you from serving because you are a snowbird.

I agree with your HOA president.

I'll also note that some bylaws require the board members to be full-time residents. This isn't unreasonable, because a good chunk of the job involves stuff that requires an in-person response. This is definitely the case in communities that are self-managed. (We actually see similar issues and complaints from people who live full time in communities with a lot of rentals. A common gripe is that the landlords aren't doing their fair share of volunteering, putting the entire burden on the full time owner-occupants.)

As far as committees go, people are sometimes unclear about the purpose of these committees. Is it to take some of the workload off the board? Provide entertainment to residents? Serve as a training ground for future board members? Foster community engagement? Some of these? None of them? Something else? It can be hard to judge the accuracy of the board's comments without having a handle on this.

Regardless, normally committee members are appointed by the board, serve under the board's direction, and may be removed by the board with or without cause. Bylaws usually contain language along this line. The board can appoint whomever they choose. They can even restrict their search to folks with purple hair, although you'd hope they wouldn't. In other words. committee membership is not a right guaranteed to any homeowner - nobody is being denied something they're entitled to simply by being an owner. Ditto for being a board member.

As I said, I fault the current board for tactlessness, and they should know better. But they are correct that many committee jobs can't be done over Zoom, and people who don't know what's going on in the community are at a disadvantage. I'd be more concerned if the board was using committee membership as a bribe or a reward to favored neighbors, but I didn't see any hint of that. (And frankly, an unpaid side hustle isn't my idea of a bribe or reward...)

Boards can’t ban snowbirds
Can snowbirds serve on an association board?

We have answers, this week with help from South Florida
community association lawyers Jed Frankel and Andrew Lewis of Eisinger, Brown, Lewis, Frankel &
Chaiet.

A community resident in St. Augustine says his homeowners association requires full-time residency to serve on the
board and allows removal of a director for missing three meetings.
Does state law allow communities to prohibit snowbirds from serving on boards? Can a director be
removed for missing meetings?
No, the law does no ban snowbirds from serving on condo and HOA boards.
A community rule requiring full-time residency as a prerequisite for membership on the governing board or committees
would likely be considered unreasonable by the courts.

Thanks for that info. I did omit the residents name and association, didn't know a law firm would be a problem. Appreciate your input!

I agree.

In our community, if you miss three consecutive meetings, you're off the board, regardless of the reason. We do recognize some people get sick or something else has happened in their personal lives, but our expectation is they'll give the board a notice before they miss meeting #3. I had a seasonal commitment that kept me from meetings for two months out of the year, but I attended the third and the remaining ones to stay on the board, and I also continued with treasurer reports when I had that position. Some people just say "I'm not in the mood" 'and just skip the meeting without telling anyone, which is rude and disrespectful of people's time.

And I have to agree with LetA and other others about offsite homeowners - in another conversation I noted those folks are notorious for not attending meetings, serving on the board or doing any type of volunteer work for the community and do little or nothing to keep track on what's going on (they hardly know their neighbors). I would hope the OP isn't one of those people, but if she is and is now complaining that someone said it out loud, all I can say is hit dogs will holler.

In Florida, my recollection is that either Florida statutes or Florida case law says Florida HOA boards // cannot// require that directors be resident owners. In other words in Florida, I am pretty sure Florida law states snowbirds cannot be banned from serving on the board. In Florida, I believe serving on a board is a right that belongs to all owners in the HOA/COA.

If you want legal citations, ask. Or I will snoop around in a bit.

Additional citations saying Florida condos may not restrict eligibility for serving on the board to resident owners:

https://beckerlawyers.com/association-cannot-restrict-board-to-florida-residents/

Jerry Moore Florida Operations, LLC v. The Park Homeowners, Ass’n, Inc., Arb. Case No. 2015-03-1417, Summary Final Order (December 21, 2016) (Bylaw’s residency requirement for nominees found invalid).

For Florida, I always thought that the legal reasoning behind court decisions and legislators saying that non-resident owners //cannot// be banned from serving on a board was that serving on the board (when duly elected or dully appointed) is a fundamental right of ownership in a HOA/COA.

I thought you had posted as much in the past?

Being the cynical sort, I'll note that Florida derives a lot of income from refuges from the Great Frozen North who want to get away from our gawd awful winters. IMHO, the almighty dollar is driving legislative and court action. Shocking, isn't it?

I don't remember saying that they cannot be banned. Maybe you're remembering a discussion about banning non-person owners from serving? I do remember talking about that and objecting to it, because it doesn't just keep corporate investor types off the board.

But as I said, this particular issue isn't really a matter of ownership rights, because no owner has a right to a seat on the board - they only have a right to seek election to the board. The membership decides if the person will actually serve. And looking at rights isn't the correct way of looking at it in any case, because this issue boils down to the (in)ability to do an effective job without being physically present a good chunk of the time. At best it pushes the majority of work onto the full-time residents, which is hardly fair to them and maybe discourages potential volunteers even more.

And LoriM15 points out some other instances where the part-timers' interests do not coincide with those of the full-timers who may be a majority of the membership (eg., the bulk internet contract).

"Boots on the ground" is a legitimate campaign issue and applies to anyone who is away from the community a good part of the year. It's also a witty way to phrase things, as it conjures up a battle and board service often is that.