Who "runs" your meetings?

What do your docs say? Ours say that the Pres will preside over board meetings! Board members have a fiduciary responsibility to the HOA where the responsibility of the PM is to his/her bottom line. If your Pres is unwilling/unable to preside, why don't you ask her to resign as Pres (not necessarily as a board member though) and elect a more competent Pres?

If she refuses you docs may spell out how she can be removed. Either way, I feel your fiduciary responsibility is being disregarded if you rely on the PM to conduct your board meetings and could lead to other [possibly serious] problems down the road.

But, yes, Donald I WILL check what our documents say about that. Good advise!

Anna, we Chair meetings only when asked to do so by the Board with the approval of the President. Bylaws generally state the President is to be the Chair except when they or the Board appoint someone else to be the Chair. Perhaps your current President needs an education on running a meeting or else needs to step down and the Board elect a new President if other Board members agree with you.

Anna,
Our president, myself, runs our meetings. We adopted parliamentary procedure as a "guide" for running our meetings. One part in there states, "To keep order, one person is chosen to PRESIDE over the meeting. This person enforces the rules and designates who is to speak at any given time. The presiding officer may be elected specifically for the meeting, and is then called the chairman. More commonly he or she is the president."
I interpret this to mean you CAN, if your board chooses, to elect someone other that the president to chair a meeting. Whether that person should be someone other that a board member....??? If there is nothing in your docs and the rest of the board agrees, I would suggest you do whatever you need to do to "work out satisfactory solutions to the greatest number of questions in the least amount of time." (Robert's Rules or Order)

I personally, as president/chairperson, would call for our board to elect another chairperson for a meeting if I didn't think I was maintaining control. Hope this is pertinent info.

I would go this route first. Simply because it may mean an additional charge of the P/M does it. . .

Chairing meetings in place of President is one of the VP duties. . . (granted, usually when the Prez is absent, but the prez could call the meeting to order, then turn over the meeting to the VP to chair as a formality.)

Excuse my typo's. I'm a tired old lady............

Anna,
A tired Old Lady is no different than a tired Young Man. Maybe the job of chairing a meeting is to much to either of them. But, that is not the question.

I have not heard of a PM chairing meetings, would not attend a meeting that was chaired by anyone other that a member/shareholder of the organization. If a court orders something like a "receiver" you do what the judge says. I expect and would demand that our Association meeting to be just that. Attendance by invitation only and that includes the P/M. In fact there is some school of thought that would have the annual meetings chaired by a member not on the Board. The annual meeting at our place anyway is just that, an annual meeting of the members. Board Meeting are Board meeting that should be open meeting by invitation to the members. The Board clearly has the authority to exclude the membership under certain circumstances, but if your documents are current that does not include excluding members from a board meeting. In progressive boards they are even invited to make limited comments but do not participate in board business. Which again, if a meeting is chaired by a non Board member, it is not a legal meeting and I suspect, any change made to this would have to be a State Statute change, if there is indications in the statute and that restriction got en bedded in the documents when received at turnover.

Has anyone given any thought that what you decide today will also be a requirement in the future.
I believe it was the English philosopher and poet, Coleridge (sic) that said: FOR IN TOMORROW, WALKS TODAY.

It's been my experience that when the "younger crowd" is moaning about the geezers, they're really moaning and complaining about the restrictions to begin with.

They are usually the ones who are getting "caught" violating and would prefer to blame "nosey old busy-bodies" than simply do what they agreed to do, respect the governing documents.

Now, if the makeup of the community is indeed changing, and there are elements of the CC&Rs that they feel no longer are relevant or don't care to maintain, then they are more than welcome to do what needs to be done to get the restrictions changed in such a way that better reflects their lifestyle.

However, it's highly likely that the majority of the neighborhood likes the restrictions just fine the way they are, and what you are hearing is just the Vocal Minority.

Well, that's sort of one of the points of my post.

It's really less about the age of the residents, and more about the attitudes.

Those same "younger ones" will eventually grow into "older ones," but their attitude of "quit looking in my backyard" will pretty much remain the same.

Well, that is until they are getting closer to the realization that they want to sell their unit and then they'll suddenly get "HOA religion." (the recognition that how others upkeep their properties impact the return on their own investment)

Anna,

Returning to your OP:

By my count, you have a 5 member BOD? I don't mean to be harsh, but if you think you need an outside nanny (the PM) to moderate your BOD meetings, perhaps you have more broader problems than a "softie" Prez? Such as, for instance, a pair of competing, inopposite 2 member factions with the Prez as a swing vote?

I'd suggest you need a kumbaya sing-along, straighten out the differences then ease on down the HOA BOD road.

Also, serving Scotch is our (3 member) BOD's solution to calming the waters.

John, I may be speaking out of turn here, but it's not board members that Anna says is causing the problem at the board meetings.

Apparently residents in attendance are hijacking the meeting and the President lacks the skills and/or backbone to take back the reigns.

Even with 5 board members, if they don't speak up, or step forward to grab control back, which it sounds like they are not doing, then perhaps a third party, with no "neighbor" attachment to the members, would be a good idea.

It doesn't have to be the PM, but it could be.

Still, though, having a president who is capable of maintaining control would be the preferred option. But that doesn't appear to be able to happen here.

Anna, I can assure you that in FL the board cannot "wash their hands." Your board can be sued by members for incompetency and neglect.

"I seriously doubt that having a PM handle the meetings rises to the level of neglect or incompetency worthy, much less of the level worthy of a lawsuit."

Why not Michele? You have a board member(s) with fiduciary duties passing off their responsibilities to someone with responsibility to their bottom line or their company.

Well, I’m certainly not bored and I agree with much of what you say but I still feel it’s neglectful to pass your duties to someone with different priorities. You need a different board member (or HOA member) or you need some educating to board members.

Maybe it might clarify things a little to consider the requirements for a Recall Meeting or a special Meeting. I believe it to be correct that in either instance the President or any member of the Board need not chair the meeting. At the start of the meeting any member present can request that any member of the association be allowed to chair the meeting. If by acclamation it is so ordered the Board would step down and the appointed member would chair the meeting to conduct the business as called for in the special meeting or Recall Meeting. I am also confident that this process is correct under an Annual Meeting of the HOA/Condo members.

Granted the later would be a hell of a mess but the option is there.

What say you Joe and George and Glen and Donna and Susan and all.

Michele, you make some good points and they are well stated but trust is not the issue here. I checked our documents and they say:

“The President shall preside over all meetings of the Board of Directors, and the Secretary shall keep a minute book of meetings of the Board of Directors, recording therein all resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors and all transactions and proceedings occurring at such meetings.”

Although it seems at times that attorneys like to get wordy (perhaps the understatement of the day), I don’t believe that paragraph was inserted because someone wanted to lengthen our documents.

Michele,
Maybe you can paste the duties of your president here and we can compare.

In addition, the below is added for clarification of why I do not agree a non-board member can chair a Board meeting.

Section 1. Number. The business and affairs of the COUNCIL shall be governed by a Board of Administration (herein sometimes referred to as the “BOARD”), all of whom, shall be Owners at all times during their term. From and after the date of the first annual meeting of the Council, there shall be five (5) members of the Board. Each shall be at least twenty-five (25) years of age and any qualified person may be re-elected. Each person shall hold office until his death, resignation, retirement, removal, disqualification, or his successor is elected and qualified.

***************************8

I suppose if you do not believe there is any significance to the "governed by the Board of Administration" or believe this directs the Board to select who they want to run the Meeting, you could select the UPS delivery man to run the meeting. And in this particular case, might be an improvement.

Levity aside, is seems logical and by direction if the President fails to conduct the meeting to please the Board, the Board must select another Board member to chair the meeting. Logic should be weighted because our documents state also if the President is there he/she will chair the meeting. Nothing more. Logic says the Vice President is the next choice, then secretary, then treasurer, then other Board member. I suppose Robert's addresses this in detail. I will check my old copy and see.

Michele,
I enjoy the discussion but this is not here for my enjoyment. When anyone chair a meeting, they have the gavel to conduct the meeting. As such they can restrict, allow, rule and remove any person in the room for cause of their interpretation. They rule, no question about it. Now, maybe you are proposing something out side this authority, such as a parliamentarian, who serves, I believe, to advice the gathering on correct procedural process. I do believe that is proper.

In any event, as much as I like the interactive conversation, I am ready to agree if this association can only run their meeting with the P/M chairing them, I wish them good luck and much success.

I doubt very much that movie would show in our theater.

Yes. Just as it is our prerogative to "hire out" someone to take and record the minutes. We do that. The secretary oversees it, but we still pay someone to do it.


No. Because I don't believe it "taints" the board. This is what I implied earlier, that obviously some of you are holding such an extreme position because of our own filters regarding PMs. BOD, good. PM, bad.


I only "agree" that that determination is best left to each HOA BOD, and no one is served by the claim that delegating the running of the meeting to the PM (or anyone else for that matter) is indicative of some sort of incompetent or negligent behavior, in and of itself.

I will type this slowly, so it's easier to understand: Not all HOA or BOD dynamics are the same.


Again, your "filter" is coloring your reaction and making it blanket for all HOAs. No one is taking the HOs' horse away from them by delegating the running of a meeting.

Michelle, I'd say you know nothing about FL condo living, ownership or, FL Statute 718. Your beliefs, opinions, and statements are based on your experience in KY. Don't know what part of FL Anna lives but I can assure everybody here that from Orlando down South condo lawsuits are rampant.

Donna, point taken. However, it's not finger pointing. Some threads have so many posts that you have to refer to the specific poster.

In the case of FL 720 (HOAs), I guess you were confused because it does allow for general powers Proxy. Conversely, FL 718 (condos) mandates "limited" Proxy for all voting purposes, except BOD elections. NO Proxy allowed to elect BOD members. Must use ballots.

Donna, recently, an off-topic thread initiated by Mary (Democracy) was removed at my request. Or, so I think. Michelle had used nasty language. You may want to advise your pal that she does not "rule" this forum.

For John:


You're probably right.

However, my position (and subsequent discussion with both Robert and Donald) was more as a result of contesting the claim by Susanna that allowing (or delegating) the PM to run their meetings would result in a lawsuit against the board for incompetence and negligence.

I simply felt that was an extreme over-reaction.

The rest of my discussion with Robert and Donald was just fleshing that out somewhat.

Personally, I would not be favorable to it, but preferences aside, there is still nothing inherently incompetent or negligible about doing it.

That's all my point was.

... and "may" is still an over-reaction and extreme position in light of the issue.

Why don't you go ahead and slap "liar" on me, while you're at it?

Oh,

Are you a licensed CAM??

Or an attorney??

MaryA,
I say again this authority in the By-laws is only effective to that association and only if it does not counter State Statute. I strongly believe this is a function described by State Statutes.