GeraldT4
Posts: 1,022
Posts: 1,022
Posted:
I'm seeking everyone's YES or NO opinion with your reasoning regarding amendments to your Articles of Incorporation, CC&R's, By-laws, the concept of which comes entirely from your Board, no state law overrides. Do you feel that the process of amendments as such would be more appropriate if coming from non-board members first, communicated to the board, and for the board to then act?
As an example, an association board wishes to permit non-owners to be on the board, and vote on association matters even though the Articles state that members are owners, only members in good standing can vote, only members in good standing can be on the board.
The same association board recently attempted an amendment to the Articles that ended in defeat because 2/3rd's of the members did not vote in favor.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that non-compelling amendments are defined as those that do not conflict with local, state, and federal law, and are beyond the scope of rules and regulations that correlate to the cc&r's. That a board should exercise restraint in proposing non-compelling amendments to the membership without first receiving compelling request from the membership. The reason I believe this is because a board member, for lack of a better characterization, has a more captive audience with management, and a better opportunity to influence decisions than a non-board member does. All fine and good due to the fact the board member volunteered for election. However, fiduciary duty should carry with it focus on the meat and potatoes first, and secondary matters later.
Please ask questions to help formulate, synthesize, and guide the topic.
As an example, an association board wishes to permit non-owners to be on the board, and vote on association matters even though the Articles state that members are owners, only members in good standing can vote, only members in good standing can be on the board.
The same association board recently attempted an amendment to the Articles that ended in defeat because 2/3rd's of the members did not vote in favor.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that non-compelling amendments are defined as those that do not conflict with local, state, and federal law, and are beyond the scope of rules and regulations that correlate to the cc&r's. That a board should exercise restraint in proposing non-compelling amendments to the membership without first receiving compelling request from the membership. The reason I believe this is because a board member, for lack of a better characterization, has a more captive audience with management, and a better opportunity to influence decisions than a non-board member does. All fine and good due to the fact the board member volunteered for election. However, fiduciary duty should carry with it focus on the meat and potatoes first, and secondary matters later.
Please ask questions to help formulate, synthesize, and guide the topic.