Quote:
Posted By DanaB1 on 10/25/2008 12:34 PM
I'm always amazed with how often the topics of posts have to do with boards not being open with the associations they represent, the difficulty in removing them, the boards that make poor decisions due to lack getting any kind of education in running an association, the number of board members that don't do anything but show up and talk about "their unit", the failure of board members to understand how to balance a budget and save for future expenses,................... anyone want to add to my list?
Dana
Dana, you have really hit the nail squarely on the head. What you are suggesting in your post is precisely why state legislatures and, indeed, even the federal government has had to step in to regulate and control homeowners associations. It is precisely why I am working with members of the Indiana General Assembly to enact legislation that will rein in boards.
The gap between the ideal and the real in homeowners associations is huge, and it appears to only be getting larger.
Associations, if not create, perpetuate a culture of non-participation.
Attorneys and property managers tend to have more to say about the management of associations than the residents that are supposed to be served.
Boards tend to attract people that have a stronger than normal penchant for control of others.
Most boards are busy, but busy doing the wrong things.
Our notion of how boards and associations should conduct business are taken right out of the 17th century idea of a social society or guild.
Most boards are woefully uneducated and uninformed about their roles. Homeowners association governance is not an entry level board position.
The notions of servant leadership and policy governance is unknown to most boards. Most people (and many posters here) view the protection and preservation of the corporation as their primary responsibility.
There are vast differences among associations. One size does not fit all. Condo management and governance is quite different than the management of single family suburban developments is quite different than the management of a townhouse association. Governance of a mega-association with thousands of units is much different that governance of a five-unit condo building.
Something like 80 percent of new housing in the country is controlled by a homeowners association.
There are few checks and balances and separation of powers in a homeowners association--notions that are fundamental to our system of governance. Boards make the rules, interpret the rules, enforce the rules, adjudicate the rules, and meet out punishment. Efforts to rein in boards or to appeal a decision are so expensive, time consuming and lengthy that the board of the association has nearly dictatorial powers.
And to top it off, homeowners associations are created by developers (often at the insistence of municipalities) for purposes of maximizing profits. Community appearances and lifestyles are frozen in time, according to the desires, whims, and profits of a developer who has long since left the scene. And, as a result communities are often stuck in a time warp that makes change exceedingly difficult, if not downright impossible.
With all that said (and much, much more unsaid), I am not opposed to homeowners associations at all. I believe that there is an important place for these private pseudo government entities.
I believe that private governance through homeowners associations is still very much a work in progress--a grand experiment in contractual that requires continual monitoring and modification.