Few Questions on conduct of Homeowner Meetings

Should the BOD have (most current year of) Meeting Minutes, Reserve Study, Financials readily available for any homeowner to look at either at Annual Homeowner Meetings?

Also, our PM/BOD leverages our Annual Homeowners Meetings only for electing new directors to the Board and, we are told no other business will be conducted. So why call it an Annual Homeowners Meeting?

I understand the part of announcing meeting decorum for election purposes, but quorum was met with proxy/ballots received and homeowners showing up at this meeting to vote. So, if this is our annual meeting wouldn't homeowners have the upper hand at this 'once a year' meeting since all we can do at regular BOD meetings is sit, watch and listen! I ask because last year a homeowner was upset that he was not given a chance to voice his concerns; rather, the meeting was abruptly adjourned. Here again the PM reminded him no other business would be conducted; however, both the PM and BOD refused to acknowledge that homeowner saying only they would be going into Executive Session.

I don't think this is the correct way to have homeowner meetings. If this sounds familiar, what changes were made in your HOA? -ReneeD

I agree with Susan. This is a homeowners meeting, not a board meeting. Put together your own agenda, pass copies around the community door to door and then ask that your agenda or something close to it be ratified at the beginning of the meeting. Then the board will be put on notice that homeowners want to discuss these issues and should have relevant materials with them.

Thank you all, especially you, Susan! I will see how successful I am at our meeting--which me luck--- although the past 4 years they have had an attorney "run" these meetings which obviously homeowners have been paying for but, whenever I bring that up his response to me has always been that the BOD decided to have him there(I attend most meetings and not once have I heard the BOD mention/approve of this action.) Either way, I am not even given a blink of any eye for a response from him as his attention always diverts to his "busy-ness" (if there is such a word) with the meeting at hand or an approaching BOD member. Ultimately, one is left feeling worthless as he goes into a disertation on how to run a meeting correctly and that the only business being conducted at this meeting is for the sole purpose of electing new board members.

The other item I consider rather bothersome is the fact that any proxy/ballots mailed in have already been opened by the PM prior to this meeting--as I've been told, to "save time". IMO, this could be construed as vote tampering and/or votes "misplaced". Also, when proxy/ballots are counted, they ask for volunteers as there is never an appointed teller. And, as I've observed from previous elections, while this happens, the PM is actually handing out more blank ballots to other homeowners even after they turned in their votes.

On a separate note, I have also tried to get other homeowners willing to take time to listen to me and/or make an effort to attend meetings especially if they are not satisfied with what they see. Unfortunately, many have good intentions but then not show up. I have even suggested they drop off their ideas at my door, voicemail, email. Unless it hits their pocketbook nothing changes.

Here is a couple plug nickles' worth of observation:

• Setting aside potential trust issues, having the proxy information ready in advance should pose no problem. Since a person can show up after executing a proxy it would seem good to have know in advance and make it quicker to pull those. Also, it would could save some time in spotting where a proxy has been executed more then once.


• I would expect that the President would run the meeting. Before our turnover the developer let the PM run the show. But we don't intend that in th future.


• Asking for volunteers at the time would be preferable to me as to having someone appointed in advance. This is especially true if the floor approves said people.


• All ballots should be given to the owner at the door. This is the only way you know for sure that you have one ballot per lot represented.


• IF you really want to make a difference then ask the neighbors you mentioned to sign their proxy over to you for execution. And make a drive for proxies.


• Also you need to run for the BOD and be open about your intent to do so when you request the proxies.


• If the vote is close at all, it won't take many proxies at all to swing it one way or the other.


• Most of your neighbors don't care that much.

Renee...I live in Illinois as well, and you could live in my neighborhood the story is so familiar! I have become a thorn in the side of our Board because I educated myself on the Not for Profit and our CCRs (neither of which they follow)

If you really want a look at the financial, the minutes, etc....put a request in writing and send it to the Board. they are required to arrange a time for you to view them.

As for the proxy issues I agree 110%. There'sno way they should be opened prior to that meeting when votes are being counted. there should ideally be a double envelope system if the vote is being made. If it is just an assigned proxy vote, that's less apt to be a problem, but still suspect.

Good luck.

The Board had no right to (or threaten to) adjourn or go into Executive Session at an Annual Meeting. (which was said in the original post)

Mary -

Typically, executive session refers to a private portion of a Board meeting (usually governing docs stipulate other requirements as well), not of a general meeting.

Now, if the adjourned, a Board meeting would have to take place before retiring to executive session. That might be problematic if there are notice requirements for Board meetings.

Mary - please take no offense at this response (since none is intended), but your post makes it appear that in fact you don't understand Executive Session either conceptually or contextually.

So let's review:

Meetings have two types of attendees:

1). Participants - who can make motions, vote on motions, conduct business
2). Observers - who watch the proceedings, and to varying degrees dependant on corporate documents, relevant laws, etc, may make commentary or have limited engagement of those actually conducting the business of the meeting.

Conceptually Executive Session essentially separates these two groups of attendees. The reasons, justification, logistics, conduct, etc of Executive Session may vary as determined again by corporate governing documents and relevant laws.

Applying these concepts to the context of an HOA Board Meeting makes obvious sense since Board members are participants and non-Board owners are observers.

However applying this contextually to an HOA members meeting does not make sense since everyone in attendance is a participant rather than an observer. (OK, OK, so perhaps someone else is possibly in attendance, but that's barely relevant here). So who does Executive Session in this instance pertain to?

On a lighter note, as to "noticing" Executive Session within the notice of a members meeting, I can only imagine something like,

"Notice is given that in the event that the Board of Directors can't control the rowdiness of y'all, we will purposefully isolate ourselves from all you heathen who can't seem to understand our 'truth, justice and the American way' by possibly declaring an Executive Session of the Board"

Mary - so it appears we have arrived at a semantical discussion. Executive Sessions are a special type of meeting of a particular body. There can be no executive session of a members meeting only of a Board meeting, which really was my whole point to begin with. An attempt to define an executive session of a members meeting would merely mean the exlusion of non-members and as such becomes in and of itself irrelevant.

In deference to your references to AZ law, that is precisely why I disclaimed my post statement to include reference to corporate documents and relevant laws. Since AZ represents only a small minority of the total possible relevant laws, such references are useful information, but not transferable outside that geography.

Susan - you're absolutely correct and I wouldn't either argue nor object to such a process. However, what you've described is exactly the process that would normally need to occur, rather than just "default" to let somebody other than the officers of the corporation running a corporate meeting.

Philosophically, I'm perfectly fine with (in fact supportive of) the idea that such meetings should serve to empower the members - I'm just a stickler for a logical, procedural approach to making that happen.

It takes a "super majority" vote - 2/3 vote.

Who runs the meeting is an administrative rule and I belive is suspendable.

I will confirm it, though.