Fair to all owners?

Our HOA's Mgmt. Co., which is a big national firm, has distributed a 5-page survey to owners about many topics and has included plenty of space for comments. Having a background in survey design, I'd say it's pretty good quality and most items measure important things.

Here's my question: Every owner on record gets to respond to it. Of 200+ condos, the big majority have 2 owners. A few have 3 or 4 owners. Is it fair to the many units that have only one owner that so many other units get to reply (usually) to two surveys.

My chemo-fogged brain can't think straight about this.

Agree that there should be one response per property/unit

This survey is way beyond the "design" capability of my Board or any that I've read about here, Dean. The Board voted to approve that the MC design and distribute it.

Owners' responses are only advisory. I'm simply curious about "friendly" opinions here, Dean.

The only clue I can see that could remotely identify anyone is oe that asked how long we've owned with about 6 ranges in years, e.g.,"over 15 years" (opened in 2001)

On the one hand:
The assessment at this condo association is based in part on the square footage of a unit. If the board is going to limit each unit to one survey, then arguably surveys should also be weighted pursuant to the square footage.

On the other hand:
These surveys are only advisory. Some owners might not even respond. It is the same for the open forum segment of Board meetings. At present, I advise letting any owner with ownership rights (a "property interest") respond, just as they do at board meetings.

For what ever reason your board opted to allow everybody listed on a dead respond. For what’s it worth, I have a 2 owner home in my HOA where the female praises the lawn care company and the male constantly complains about it.

Overall though, it sounds like a wasted effort by your board unless they wanted the survey weighted from multiple owner units.

The board made a mistake. It should have known better than to skew the results by giving more than one survey to each unit.

It is common that contracts lasting over one year need member approval, with certain exceptions.

In my many years reading dozens of Declarations and state statutes, I have never seen a declaration or state statute requires that a HOA obtain member approval for contracts lasting over one year.

Owners' powers are quite limited. Owners can lawfully elect and remove directors. Sometimes covenants/bylaws require owner approval of budgets. Sometimes covenants/statutes require owner approval of certain assessment increases or certain special assessments.

Nah. If you had it, you would share it.

Where do you get these misconceptions? It not common for homeowner approval of any contract, nor are approvals for multi year contracts.

This must be a state law thing. I've never come across any governing documents in my area that require such a thing. Contract negotiations and decisions are always in the hands of the board.

I'll summarize one of my usual rants. Giving homeowners authority over things that are typically board decisions undermines HOA governance. You can't hold the board accountable for decisions that they don't make. Homeowners are able to act in their own self-interest, unlike the board members who have a fiduciary duty to the HOA. Good luck suing the membership when a decision blows up in people's faces. Finally, unless the homeowners have participated in every step leading up to the selection of a vendor - which are confidential around here - they will be uninformed by definition. So you're putting the final decision in the hands of those who are less qualified to make it.

And people are surprised when things go badly.

I Certainly did not sabotage your thread. I simply responded to your question and others' comments.

I never stated that there was such a law.

.....

One-Year Limitation. Virtually all CC&Rs have a one-year limitation on contracts entered into by the association. This limitation is required by the Department of Real Estate (Cal. Admin. Code, Title. 10, § 2792.21) to prevent the developer from obligating the association to long-term contracts that may favor the developer but harm the association. Once the developer has turned over control of the association to the membership, the CC&Rs may be amended to eliminate the restriction or to change it to 3 or 5-year contract limitations, depending on the type of vendor. It allows the association to negotiate more favorable contracts for elevator maintenance, cable TV service, etc.

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/C/Contract-Formation-Inspection-Breach#:~:text=One%2DYear%20Limitation.,Admin.

.....

Our HOA does in fact still maintain the one-year limit on contracts, with some exceptions

4.2. Powers and Duties.
The Board has the powers and duties necessary to administer the Master Association's affairs
and may do all acts and things not by law or by these Bylaws directed to be exercised and done
exclusively by the Members. The Board may not enter into any contract with a Person
(including Declarant) wherein the Person will furnish goods or services for the Master Common
Area, or the Master Association for a term in excess of one (1) year, without the vote or written
consent of Members representing at least a majority of the Master Association's voting power,
except for the followingit goes one to list public utilities, insurance, alarms. etc

.....

We just signed a contract with Flock. Normally, they require a 2-year commitment, but since our governing documents have the 1-year limitation, they had to make an exception and even acknowledged that a lot of California HOA's have this restriction...

And I will add that there are plenty of good former board members in our community who quit because of our lame leadership. Now they are just homeowners who could be running things much better!

Thank you for the clarification. Homeowners approving multi-year contracts seems like such an outlier, I was curious where it was coming from.

FWIW, multi-year contracts can be a good way to reduce costs if the vendor has a track record of providing excellent service. You do have to make sure that the vendor doesn't get complacent, though - that's one potential downside.

Your covenant at 4.2 appears to mirror https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/10-CCR-2792.21

IMO Flock might reasonably be argued to be "burglar alarm and fire alarm equipment." If so, a multi-year contract with Flock would be an exception.

This issue arose because a Floridian (LoriM15) spoke of a five year contract for a security system. Florida has no state regulation equivalent to what JamesB37 cited. Even if Florida did, the security system might fall under the burglar and fire alarm exception. As well the California regulation appears to pertain largely (or entirely?) to subdividers.

Honestly, James, while it's good to hear from you, how does telling your story address the OP?
Would you like to start a new thread?

I think if you're trying to get a review of the manager's work, then getting opinions from all residents is reasonable. Otherwise the folks who live alone will have a greater voice in the outcome.

But this is why I asked about the goal of the survey. If you were trying to gauge support for something that will be paid for out of assessments, that it would make sense to have one response per unit (assuming that's how you're assessed). That's because those who live with other adults will on average pay less per person than those who live alone, and those who live alone will take a proportionally greater financial hit.

"Fair" all depends on the goal of the survey and what the board chooses to do with the results. And you can reasonably argue it both ways - the answer is dependent on specific details which we don't know.

You're right that, in order to be fair, these types of things should be treated like votes - only one per unit. But do you think owner input will have a significant impact on the decisions made by the board? Or is it more to get a feel for opinions?

No such meeting as a town hall. It’s either a board meeting or a member meeting.

Legally, no such thing.

Terri & Elle: Please see Tim's citation above from davis-stirling.com, which is compiled by a CA HOA law firm and is very well respected. Please also see his CAI (Community Association.Inst.) citation. Most relevant is its "get a sense of members’ priorities." IMO, both sources take precedence over Elle or Terri's opinions.

My CA HOA's Bylaws (restated 2022) "Section 2.14. Conduct of Informational Meetings. Nothing herein shall preclude the Association from also conducting informational or 'Town Hall' meetings of the members in order to discuss any Association business, conduct a straw poll or to address other matters where it is considered beneficial to the membership to meet concerning any item of business or matter reasonably related to the Association or project. No formal notice or other formalities shall be required in relation to such informational meetings nor need any minutes be created or approved. The chair of the meeting, as designated by the Board, shall have the sole discretion as to how such meeting shall be conducted."

Plenty of notice, though, has been given -- about 9. days. The TH also will be on Zoom--about 25% of owners are absentee.

So... probably a quorum of directors will be there and, as with previous TH's over the years in my HOA , they'll sit with us fellow owners. The'll participate in the Q&A discussions like any other owner.

My HOA's Bylaws, Elle, has no quorum requirement for Members meetings*. Having been a Board member for 14 years, the most useful is a careful & clear a presentation by the HOA's reserves specialist about the importance of healthy reserves and how to achieve that goal. For max attendance, this and other THs should be held when most omwrs cna attend. Our Board also has offered pastries, coffee, etc. to hoe create a friendly ambiance.

As Tim's citation shows, there are many good reasons for an HOA to hold a TH.

* except for recall elections.

There are no "items of Business" at TH,s Terri, i.e. no board member votes are taken. Items of business in CA must be noticed 4 days ahead of the meeting where some sort of action can or will be taken be taken. NO action will be taken at this INFO mtg.

Since the CA HOA lawyers at D-S.com, CAI, and my HOA's Bylaws say THs, i.e., "informational Meetings" are OK, that is enough for me. It doesn't matter that the ors town hall or informational meetings are not in the ACT. Neither is "straw poll."

Do you, Terri, see some sort of harm to owners from such meetings? How many have you attended?

To me, such meetings, and I've experienced probably a couple of dozen over 14 years, have always improved my corporation somehow or other. One example was the TH led by our HOA attorney when Owners could ask any questions about the draft rewritten CC&Rs. Much clarity from all attending was gained. For a fact, voter turnout was higher than if no TH had been held. Who benefited ??? The entire HOA.

I expect that out of this will emerge agenda items for future Board meetings.

Experts disagree with you, Terri, as Tim cites above re:" informational meetings." I can't comprehend why ou think your opinion is correcting they ll are wrong including my own B.ylaws. The Bylaws section I cite above was written by our HOA's atttorney.

Please carefully read my citation above from our Bylaws, Terri, which refer to the TH as a members meeting NOT a Board meeting.