President resigned-board keeping it secret

I have no idea what's going on in your organization, but keep this in mind:

A Homeowners Association is not a government body.

So using the analogy of Bush resigning and Cheney taking over and not letting us U.S. citizens know is not quite the same.

Think of it more like Bill Gates resigning from the board of directors and the stockholders not being told.

It's not like the board can't operate without a president, but it would be silly to not share the information with the rest of the organization.

My guess is he/she not only resigned as president but stepped down from the board.

I guess we can only speculate the reasons, but it would be nice if everyone were notified.

Bob,

I certainly don't understand the reason to keep this a secret either. Surely your bylaws have a process for replacing a resignation. Most bylaws empower the BOD to appoint a member to fill the vacancy and serve until the term expires. Do your bylaws state the office must be filled immediately?

Bob:

1) Check your Bylaws.

2) Check with the Association Manager is your community has one.

There is no reason as why the board of directors have to keep this a secret unless they are covering up for something bad.

Let us know what you find out.

Gordon

The president is still a member of the board and if he/she resigned, then that is simply creating a vacancy. Probably, the VP assumed the duties and the board has been plugging along.

How do you know it's a "secret" and that they are intentionally keeping it from the Members. How would they have announced it? What would be the motive for that?

Gordon,
You are so right, the H.Os are entitled to know. Why is it a secret? Didn't anyone notice that he was missing from meetings? If I was on that Board, it would be my duty as well as the others, to replace him. I would call a special meeting asap. A vacancy on a Board is not acceptable especially when to fill a position is basically an easy task.

Everything was done legally within the Bylaws, believe me, if it wasn't I would been all over it.

The main issue here is this board keeps everything secret. They forbid community members from attending the meetings and have even consulted an attorney on it.
Unfortunately the laws are just too vague on this in CT.

The one thing anyone can do is view any and all docs at the management company office if they so wish with notice, etc. As far as I know, I am the only person that has noticed that in the bylaws and requested and been told i can have access.

The secrecy of this board is the problem, and I am doing what i can to change that, even at my own expense for a newsletter, website, campaigning.

I will keep you posted on what happens next, the annual meeting/elections are in December. I am confident we will have a good turnout as the board broke their code of silence long enough to announce an upcoming special assessment. Nothing gets people to turn out to an annual meeting like that does!

I'm afraid this has been researched by others far more knowledgeable than me and ruled on by the HOA's lawyer.
While it is not the way things should be done, there is no law mandating that meetings be open to the residents, at least not in CT
Many people gripe about it but eventually they just threw up their hands in defeat.
Some have been retaliated against even for their efforts.

All I can tell you right now is that I have set the wheels in motion to remedy this (LEGALLY and correctly!) and I will let you all know how it turns out.

What do any of these questions have to do with anything???
92 units

Not having heard from the other side of this situation it would be tough if not impossible to determine who is in the right or who is acting in a questionable manner.

Under our by-laws the elected Board members then elect the officers of our Board.

If in fact the President did resign the Board members could either vote someone else into that position or leave it open.

Under our documents the Board would not be required to notify the unit owners as to the departure of any Board member including the President.

Not trying to "keep it secret" just a decision to handle this matter in one way.

As for open meeting as discussed some states do not require them.
If they are not required why would the Board do otherwise?

After serving 21 years on our Board I would not welcome open monthly meeting.

Our property has been in existence for 26 years we have closed meetings and one annual meeting which owners can attend.

99% of the property owners are fine with that arrangement.

There are sometimes 1% who would like to question every action of the Board and micro-manage the Board perhaps after failing in their attempt to win a position on the Board.

If the Board were elected than perhaps you might let them do their job rather than seeking legal action to impose YOUR will on their actions.

As mentioned before is it necessary for the Board of Directors at Microsoft to allow any shareholder to attend every Board meeting? Hardly.

The Board is elected to manage the affairs of the property by the property owners.

I would guess this Board was so elected.

To the OP:

Other than being secretive about the claimed resination of the Board President what other issues do you have with the current Board?

How is their performance in other areas? Maintaining the property? Handling the finances? Maintaining property values?

How is their perfromance in regards to the effect it has on the property?

Have you sought or will you be seeking a position on the Board?

Again, our board meetings are closed as well, and they have been for the 10-12 years during which I've been on the board. As stated above, we have only ONE mandataed all-member "open" meeting a year. Some years we have more, but we are only required to have one.

It works well, and, as Jon indicated, as we and our members know no other way, it's not an issue.

But I think it's a stretch to say with what little we know that Bob "has a legitimate concern."

He may have one. But he may just have his antennae up over something that's not really that big a problem.

Also as I mentioned above, we wouldn't necessarily keep a board officer resignation secret, but then we wouldn't be tripping over ourselves to make sure it's announced to the membership. It would really depend on a variety of factors, budget being right up there.

He may have sour grapes, he may not. I don't know that, but just in his characterization of the events, and sort of reading between the lines, I just can't say one way or the other.

I do wish him luck though.

I would be curious to know what his documents say about whether board meetings (as opposed to membership meetings) have to be open or if they can be closed, and whether there are other things that he is unhappy with.

SusannaM:

From reading posts on the site I have learned that Florida and some other states require open Board meetings. NY and it would seem to be the case in CT do not.

After operating under our laws for 21 years I would NOT favor changing this in my home state.

As to your comment:

"And, you would not have stayed on the same board for 21 years. No way no how."

With all due respect.

Five years ago I was voted in as President of my association by my fellow Board members. Since that time we have increased our reserve accounts by more than 5X. We have funded nearly $300,000 in physical improvements to our 26 year old property and in this most challenging real estate market our property values have increased to all time highs up 40-50%.

Don't really see what open or closed meetings have to do with it.

In September I was up for re-election to our Board. The results showed that 80% of the unit owners voted for me.

One candidate who ran for a position on the Board making similar claims to those made by BOB regarding open meetings (just an attempt to micro-manage the ELECTED Board) and allowing unit owners access to all property records
(to uncover some illegal doings) well they received 4 votes out of 132.

Guess the vast majority of unit owners care more about the performance of their Board in regards to the upkeep and value of their property rather than the supposed claims of secrecy and questionable behavior made by those with little if any knowledge of what duties and responsibilites a Board needs to address on a daily basis.

Over my lifetime I have dealt with all types of people who have their own agenda and set of goals.

I have read all BOB's posts carefully, CT law does not require open meetings. BOB doesn't like that. BOB would like to impose HIS views of how the Board should conduct business.

BOB discovered he is entitled to inspect the Board records ( as is the case in many if not ALL HOA/CONDO properties) he was told he can do so. Seems open to me.

As I posed several questions which still remain unanswered, is the fact that the entire ownership was not notified by the Board as to the President's resignation BOB's main issue with the Board?

It may come as a shock to some with little knowledge of the duties required of volunteer Boards but there are many far more important things to be handled other than notifying owners when a Board member resigns.

It is always easier to make judgements from a seat on the sidelines.

Jon,
lets concede for a moment your are the most wonderful president that ever graced the head table. Not being sarcastic, but making a point. Is there anything in the above statement that bears on the credibility of any other president? You sound like you run a tight ship.........good for you if you can pull it off and the owners benefit under the covenants. Again, this does not mean everyone can run the railroad the way you can. If you lend support to your position that 90% of the people voted for you, you would have to consider the overwhelming number of states has decided open meetings are the way to go and those that don't; I bet you will find it is on the legislative agenda somewhere.

It is a fact it makes more sense to more people. You could run your association just as well if your meetings were open. What about an open meeting seems threatening? Certainly you can't hang your hat on your: "It is always easier to make judgement from the sidelines."
Nothing there speaks of closed or open meetings."

I am not promoting conflict, but hope to promote constructive discussion.

Jon,

Not all boards are concerned with communicating with the members and instead want to operate in secrecy. That, in itself, doesn't mean they are doing anything wrong, but oftentimes it's the image projected. Board transparancy in actions is a #1 priority to running a successful assn., and the reason some states have adopted open meeting laws. These laws aren't made for a few, but rather for all which means there will always be some BOD's who say, "we don't need that law" -- which seem to be your logic, Jon. There's a familiar phrase oft quoted on HOA messageboards, "Disaster is only one election away". Meaning, the current board may be operating quite nicely, but the next board may be made up of a bunch of dictators! Apparently, your board has open lines of communication with your members otherwise you wouldn't enjoy such a high rate of acceptance by the members. If NY were to enact a law requiring HOA board meetings to be open to members, how would that really affect the way your board operates?

Robert:

I don't have the information as to what states require open meetings.

My concern is NY and as of now the state law does not require our meetings to be open. That is the system the majority of owners have gotten used to and accept.

In my opinion open meetings would make our Board less productive. Most property owners (speaking for those in NY) elect a Board to oversee the operations of their property. Most do not want a day to day involvement in the property's mangement. It would seem that is why they have a Board.

If you are unhappy with the Board's performance then vote them out.

We have a mangement company open 5 days per week, a Newsletter that helps to keep the property owners informed, and one annual meeting per year it would seem to me most of the unit owners here find that sufficient.

Open meetings in my view would promote in some cases the micro-management of the elected Board and cause decisions and actions to be either be delayed or
put off until it becomes damaging to the property.

Open meetings don't threaten me but my opinion is they would hinder the operations of the Board. Simply put in my view open meetings would waste time.
We have one meeting per month at which to handle all the property's business some month's that is difficult to do.

Whether open or closed for me the bottom line is what type of job your Board is doing in regards to the condition, value, financial health and desirability of your property. Any of these and many more would be more important than my ability to attend a monthly Board meeting.

MaryA:

Hopefully this will be my last response on this topic.

Mary I can only speak for my property. I am sure there are many Boards operating in less then desirable ways. I have attended several CAI seminars and have heard about them and in some cases met them.

Mary for years our property was mismanaged. We wasted money, falied to do proper maintenance, and had a Board filled with once a month members.

In my life this property is my home and investment. I don't like to waste time or effort.

In answer to your question the meeting most if not all members of our Board least look forward to is the annual open meeting.

There we have a question and answer session when a small group of owners who have little if any knowledge of the issues facing our property get to sound off about "their" concerns. As I say often we have 15 buildings with 132 units so YOUR unit for better or worse is not the center of the universe.

No matter what decisions you make some question them, no matter what you do some wonder why and of course you have those folks in the event you stood on your head and spit quarters that to would not be good enough.

To open 12 monthly meetings would be unproductive.

Mary, in a short time I will become eligible for my pension from work at that time I have considered moving to another area in which to live. Speaking with another Board member recently I asked her in the event I were to leave what would she do in regards to the Board. Her answer was she would sell her unit and move because she understands the affect my leaving our property would have.

I have done my job to the best of my ability. Without I might add open meetings. They in and of themselves do not constitute a "good" Board.

Open or closed a "bad" Board is a "bad" Board....

quote "for years our property was mismanaged. We wasted money, failed to do proper maintenance, and had a Board filled with once a month members".

Jon: How the homeowners were able to know what was going on?

I am very convince that at one pointe the laws in NY will change. In the mean time enjoy your time. It is so sad to know that you support your system because it
serve you very well, at least until you leave your community for good.

It is so condescending the way you say that open meetings will be unproductive. It is also very disrespectful the way you express yourself about the homeowners who have little if any knowledge of the
issues facing your properties. How can they know what is going on?

What is wrong that some of the homeowners that questions the decisions of the board? How you ever wonder that you could be one of those homeowners?

Just because you are believe that you are doing the right things does not mean that is right for the community at large. Doing open meetings will give the membership
a better understanding of the decisions and concerns of the board.

Like I said before "Enjoy while you can"

Jon,

I'll be the first to admit that whatever works for your assn should be continued! If the state or your gov docs have no requirement for open meetings and the members don't have a problem with it, then I say continue what you're doing as it seems to be working. The only point I want to make is that state laws are enacted for the protection of all. There are many, many boards out there who don't want open meetings because they don't want the members to know what is going on. These boards have no communication with their members -- everything they do is done in secret. Sometimes the good boards have to "suffer" because of the misdeeds of the bad boards. Because of the nature of HOAs, the activities of the board should always be open to the members. Afterall it's the members who pay the assessments that run the assn. AZ is one of the states with statutes covering open meetings. Our state law not only says members must be noticed of board meetings but they also have a right to speak b/4 the board votes on any issue. Because we have this state law, members who are concerned about what is going on in their assn can attend the meetings and see firsthand what is going on. However, that doesn't mean every board meeting of every assn is "run over" with members. In fact, the opposite is probably more like the truth. There are 1,700 members in my assn and usually the only members who attend a board meeting are ones who want to meet with the board to discuss a violation notice. Incidentally, this is done openly and not conducted in the executive session. That also is a requirement of state law.

Jon, since our board operates our meetings much the way yours does, I see absolutely nothing wrong in your comments and your conclusions regarding open/closed board meetings.

I, for one, could not imagine having monthly open board meetings. And, as you indicate, it has nothing to do with "secrecy" or what have you. It's about productivity.

Our state does not require open board meetings. Nor do our governing documents. In fact, our governing documents do not mandate ANY board meetings at all. In fact, the ONLY regular meeting that is addressed is the annual, all-member meeting.

Regarding when can residents address concerns with the board. Well, the answer to that is basically 24/7, with e-mail and voice messages.

If or when a resident has a concern (that is not a complaint of a CC&R violation) they can contact either the board in general through e-mail and voice mail, or a board member in person by dropping by their home.

The board will then meet individually with the resident and discuss their concerns. If it is something that will require research, then a board member is delegated to handle/resolve the issue and he or she does any and all research required. Then the entire board will put it on the agenda of a future board meeting.

Sometimes residents request to be put on the agenda to speak to the board as a whole. We set up the time on the agenda, the resident comes and presents their material, we have a sort of Q&A and then we thank the member for their input. We seldom reach a consensus at that input meeting and the process of delegating the project to a board member for research and future discussion is initiated.

We always get back with the resident to let them know status. If it is something the entire HOA needs to vote on, we will then schedule a special meeting and everyone comes and hears the debate and then votes, if a vote is necessary.

But for regular HOA business, I agree with Jon. Open meetings would seem to me to get bogged down in micro-management.

I'm glad we don't have them.

That's all well and good, Robert, but my guess is you could accomplish the same thing by having regular all-member meetings.

To me, based on my experience with our HOA, board meetings and all-member meetings have two distinctly different goals.

As a board member, my goal in a board meeting is to address on-going business and move projects forward.

We don't care if others "see" or "hear" what we are doing, but they elected us to handle the day-to-day business of the organization. On our own we determined that monthly board meetings would be most productive. We don't care to spend 3 hours doing what we can accomplish in one.

We produce minutes from each board meeting and post them online or make them available to anyone who wants to read them.

In 12 years we've had one person ever ask to see them.

One.

The all-member meeting has an entirely different goal. We may have agenda items on which the entire organization needs to weigh in, and we may also have a status report on where many of the current, or ongoing, projects are. And we may also have on the agenda a Q&A period.

Whether we have one per year (our mandated annual meeting) or one every other month, as we did one year, or one once a quarter, we don't get any more (or less) attendance, the same homeowners show up each time, and there is no more or less "feel good" afterwards than there was before.

In neither case is the goal to be a "social" group or coffee clatch. It's just not the nature of our community, but, more importantly, it's not the function of the HOA, either.

We do have, from time-to-time, completely "social" get togethers, usually in the fall. We call it the Fall Festival, and we have a chili-cookoff. We have prize drawings (donated by local businesses), display a large map of the community on which people can place their "tags" (indicating their house), and we offer fun and games for the kids.

Even that event is contingent on volunteers to produce it and make it happen. Some years we just don't get any.

But back on topic, I would no more tell another HOA that their board meeting format is "right" or "wrong" than I would tell another company how to run its business, either.

Ours works for us, I can't imagine doing it any other way and being as productive as we have been, and I, for one, am thankful that we don't have open meetings "mandated" either by our documents or our state regulations.

Thanks, Mom.

(By the way, we don't have condos; they're singe-family, detached homes on 3/4- to 1-acre lots.)

MicheleD:

So I guess out of the millions of people who post here we now have TWO who see some value to having closed meetings..But lets not spread that around and it will be our secret!

I am amazed that some people are so unhappy with the state laws in effect in another state! How does that matter?

In my situation with the economic climate, the real estate issues along with a questionable future for this country and its citizens does is really matter if some other property in another state does it differently?

Certainly not to me.

Michele good luck with your meetings don't know how you can function without more input and opinions.....

Happy Holidays.......

Hi Donna,
I hope that folks don't get the idea we are critical of how their associations are run. I don't think that is our intent. The folks that support closed meeting here seem to be very active wonderful neighbors and are successful in their way of doing things. Just not for me and that don't make me a prophet or judge and jury. The obvious conclusion you have to make when considering the subject is: The membership has the right to participate in the management. How else do any boards get elected. I have also observed over the years, there is very little disruption of proceedings of associations. #1, the chair should not allow it and #2, I don't think any disruption of a meeting I have witnessed did not at some later time have a positive aspect. We had a pretty good one last year and when all was said and done, the wisest remark I heard was: "I was a wonderful tribute to the democratic process, just the way it is supposed to work." And good did come of it, at least IMO.

Actually Jon, I've been finding this whole thread kind of amusing. In my HOA we initially went out of our way to make the Board meetings open to the members. We found a location for the meeting that could accommodate an audience and might even encourage member attendance (meeting room in the back of a local coffee shop), we scheduled the meeting for a time that would be convenient for the members, and we tried to make sure everyone knew about the meetings by publishing the times and location in our newsletter and announcing them at any events.

No one ever showed up.*

So now we've said to heck with it and we have our meetings in the conference room at our management company office during business hours. This makes it easier for us to ask the management company to look up something if we need more info and as long as we have the meetings the same day every month we don't have to worry about scheduling conflicts with another group.

So now I've had homeowners complain about our "closed" meetings because they would have to take off work to be able to attend (and I don't?).

While my state also does not have an open meeting requirement, I just haven't seen a need to have the meetings closed. I can certainly understand why some HOAs might find it necessary to do it that way. As long as the membership has full opportunity to know what is going on, I wouldn't really have a problem with that.

* Not completely true. We had a few times when a homeowner would show up for a meeting to ask a specific question. But we would typically answer their question at the beginning of the meeting and they would then leave. We never did have any non-Board members stay for the entire meeting.

Jon,

It sounds as though your board does have a line of communication open to the members. Laws are generally made for the the bad guys, and this does not only apply to HOA laws. In far too many instances the board conducts business in secret and the members never know what is going on. There is no communication with the members whatsoever. This is most likely the reason some states have felt the need to enact open meeting laws.

Even with an open meeting law in place, a board meeting should be scheduled for the convenience of the board members. Afterall, it's a board meeting not a member meeting. I'm not surprised that the members of Dwight's assn didn't even bother to attend the meeting; that is the case in most assn's -- whether the meetings are required to be open or not. AZ has an open meeting law but there are usually no members attending our HOA monthly meeting. Only a handful attend the annual meeting -- there are 1,700 members in my assn. Some board members like to think this is an example of them doing a great job, but that's not necessarily the case. It's apathy, plain and simple.