board member & vendor.

If the work is being done at the agreed upon price where's the conflict?

As a note, when it is time to renew, if you get new bids, then the Treasurer should not be privy to other bid amounts. But he/she should not participate in any discussion of whether to bid out the contract or not. (I would bid the contract out simply to avoid the appearance of impropriety. And the Treasurer can bid again at whatever rate he/she feels is appropriate.)

Also be sure the membership knows at all times that he has the contract. It is appropriate to let them know now if they don't realize. And if he continues the contract at the end of this contract you should remain open about this. Keeping things like this in the open is very important.

Yes, there is a conflict of interest, and all the membership shoul know about it.
Is there Ethic Code Rules for the Board Members at youHOA?

Robert

no, there is not ethic code rule.

Is a conbflict of interest when the appearance suggests there may be?
I am suggesting that the appearance of involovement counts for something. I would much rather (from my pint of view) not have a Board member involed in signing the checks, apparently he would sign his own check, and formulating policies that could effect him personally. To me, it is just a bad idea and if it happened in my condo I would want the Board to assure the members there is no other person capable of handling the job. It is certainly not unuisual for non-profits to not allow Board members to have business contracts with the company. Another question is: where do you draw the line, ar you going to select a Board member and deny an owner not on the Board. If it is legal then, all Board members could have contracts of somekind with themselves. Don't like it. IMHO. Let him volunteer, the rest of the Board does.

The person having the contract would appear to have been a contractor before being elected. In my view, this makes a huge difference. I see no reason why the existing contract is invalidated by the election to office short of a prior rule being in place. From a legal and business perspective you simply can't do anything about it.

As to the appearance, versus actual conflict it can happen depending on how a conflict is defined. For instance, in a zoning request recently, one member of the Zoning Board stepped aside for an issue because he had been close friends with the son of the applicant. While he did not have a direct conflict, he did right be eliminating a chance that someone could say it only went through because of the friendship.

To this end, the Vice President should not be privy to any bids if/when the contract ends. And further, should actually step out of the room when the contract is under consideration. This action should be noted in the minutes so that all the owners can know that this man isn't using his position to improperly direct money his way.

It really isn't that tough. Think about how you would feel. Or even go so far as to ask some members about their feelings. Remember folks that we are talking about people here.

Robert,

I certainly agree that more often than not we don't get the whole story. But, isn't it human nature to only tell your side of the issue, especially when asking for advice, comments, opinions, etc.? Some people really don't want advice or opinions, they really want justification for their actions. A friend of mine always said: "There are 3 sides to every story; mine, yours and the truth." At the time, I didn't realize how prophetic her words were!

Mr. Robert,

I am sure that all of us ladies appreciate your approach to the situations with your very wisdom and sense of humor. We thank you.

Kirk was right - he DID have the contract before being elected by the residents.

But I wonder, too, about the future. Complaints about his company's work COULD be a conflict for the Board. On the other hand, if the company does good work, what better situation could you ask for?

This will test the strength of the president (when leading the discussion about contracts and work performance.)

I totally disagree on this. He need only to not participate in discussion concerning his own contract. (He can answer questions, but should otherwise sit out.) He should also not vote on any action regarding his contract.

Actually, this is where she should have abstained because of a conflict of interest in this particular issue. Hopefully she could see that while it wasn't the best thing for her husband's business it was the best for the neighborhood. All the same, because this does have a financial impact on her, she should have recused herself from the vote.

The existence of such a situation is not a conflict of interest. The voting on an issue in which you have financial gain is. And this should have been pointed out ahead of time away from the meeting. In my opinion, the president should have called her up ahead of time and discussed that if she votes on the issue, then it is a conflict of interest. He should further point out that because of this she should recuse herself. If her vote affected the direction then she might be sued. And even if insurance covered her legal fees, that is a huge headache for the amount of money involved.