Why the apathy?

It is not an easy job and it will not just "work out." You must push and work hard to get people there. Right now it sounds as if the Formality of the "Owners Meeting" may turn people off. Who knows why you all are not getting a response. But don't negate the fact your association is not that much different than any other association, and other associations can get some folks involved. you just need to punch the right buttons , and work hard. It can be done, mainly because if you all can't do it, you are going to have more trouble and expense, than if you do form a BOD. You really don't have much choice. The OP, at this point can throw up their hands and walk away, but, they are not walking away from the trouble. Trouble will come to you and all other owners, unless you sell out and leave, and that ain't gonna happen, probably.

Aside from the usual responses, does anybody ask the question "Why?" owners are so apathetic in general? Why don't owners see their own self-interest in protecting themselves from the future costs of non-participation? Do they not see the financial risk to themselves from their lack of participation?

Are owners so ignorant (or, yes, even so stupid) that they do not see the cost of non-participation? Is it simply or just a question of education?

Simply to say that owners are lazy does not answer the question. It says that they are willing to pay an exceptionally high price down the road for that laziness. Are they aware of the cost? Or, do they indeed, make some sort of unconscious cost/benefit analysis that says to them that the cost tomorrow is a fair price for the laziness today?

Is the message being communicated to them not getting through? Is the proper message being sent? If so, why is it not working?

Is there something inherent in the basic concept or structure of a homeowners association that causes (or encourages) individual owners not to recognize the importance of their own participation (at least executing a proxy)?

What drives this culture of non-participation that is endemic to homeowners associations?

It becomes a problem of homeowners associations when there are not sufficient attendance at meetings (in person or by proxy) to achieve a quorum. No quorum is mandated in a civic election. If only one person voted, it would be valid.

A very thoughtful and intelligent observation, Don. Thank you. What you suggest--what I infer--is that there is an endemic problem with the concept and structure of homeowners associations that does, indeed, encourage a "culture of non-participation."

If so, then we may have a chance at a solution.

I wonder what others think. . .

George,

The problem of apathy is not found just in HOAs. It took a very well oiled machine and 21st century technology to elect our new President. Totally outside of the box, they went to every known means of communicating with America but included the grass roots approach of going door to door.

We all know that for 30 or more years, things were changing from our core values and turning into a "ME ONLY" society. This is the same with HOAs. Let someone else worry about the duties that make us function as a society or a community. "As long as I am okay, I don't worry about the rest"

Again I say, it is not just in our HOAs but in our everyday thinking. We have not done our children any favors by allowing them to think the same way that we do either. Lets just hope that they can figure out that they must be involved in ways that better the world and that then will include themselves and those around them.

It seems to me, then, that (1) the requirement of a quorum of members (in person or by proxy) at a members meeting should be eliminated entirely and (2) there should be no quorum requirements for voting to elect board members. Elections will be based on a majority or plurality of the actual number of votes cast.

If what we are dealing with is a far broader cultural/social/civic virtue issue, then the bylaws, structure and organizing principles of the homeowners association ought to reflect the conditions of our contemporary society, rather than continually be plagued with a Utopian notion of participation that cannot, realistically, be obtained.

One may conclude, then, that we should throw out entirely the notion of volunteerism when it comes to the governance and management of homeowners associations.

Thoughts???

Disagree with both eliminating quorums and throwing out "volunteerism."

Homeowners are aware of the HOAs at the very least when they have to pay that first assessment.

Eliminating quorums will most definitely draw out power/control members. I view the quorum requirement as one check-and-balance control.

I also see no reason why board members should be paid, and I can assure you that myself and at least one other board member has put in untold number of hours over and above other board members or resident members.

Again, if you want to draw out power/control people, just pay'em and eliminate the quorum requirements.

Buh-bye to what controls the resident members do have.

Regardless of what we may think, to the majority of people in an HOA, they already know the restrictions and are quite comfortable living within them, and having a board or someone else ding those who don't.

They just want to enjoy their homes and it's not a "career" for them to be thinking about it everyday, or even every quarter.

"Get back to me when you have something that I think I need to know, until then, zzzzzzz."

It truly is a "what's in it for me?"

That is why MOST HOAs don't see the resident members wake up until some crisis is near.

Once the crisis is abated, they will go back to their own, INDIVIDUAL lives.

They are not a "collective" regardless of how much we want to make them think so. They are individuals with individuals lives.

If I were not on the board, if I did not have specific things to which I wanted to attend or preserve, I wouldn't show up at one board or membership meeting.

That's just the way it is.

Oh, for the record, our local council members (alderman, commissioners, whatever they're called in your areas) hold Monthly Dialog meetings (as does our Mayor).

Average attendance? mmmm, in our district about 20 people. Of that 7 are usually Neighborhood Leaders (i.e., HOA board members in the district). Our district has roughly 30,000 people.

For the Mayor's dialogs? SELDOM over 40 or so. Once, when a munitions depot was being discussed about 200 or so showed up.

That's out of a population of about 1.2 million people.

Michele writes:

>>>If I were not on the board, if I did not have specific things to which I wanted to attend or preserve, I wouldn't show up at one board or membership meeting.

That's just the way it is.<<<

And, I'd add, just as it should be as that will always be the case.

Either we've (BODers or active Members) got an agenda, or don't. Either we're willing to invest the time to accomplish our goals, or don't.

This is pretty simple human dynamics. Where's the (MY) beef? No beef for me, then "Adios, Casablanca" (as Peter Lorre noted in the movie).

Throw all the pseudopsycobabble at it that you want. Wring your hands all you want. Nothin's gonna change.

In my opinion it is truly ignorance. People absolutely do NOT know what they're signing on for when they buy into an HOA, and realtors or the seller's are not going to sit there and explain to everyone exactly what ownership in an HOA is. Then surprise, surprise, when someone breaks a rule and hears about it it's all "news" to them. That sets the presidence for how people "care" or "feel" about their association.

The others are those who "know" they have to pay maintenance fees for the "upkeep" of the property. If it goes up a few bucks every year, so be it. So does everything else.

Everyone has extremely busy lives and their home is their castle. When they leave work or when they're done shuttling the kids to and fro the LAST thing they want to do is go to a meeting.

Most people don't know that they have a DUTY and an OBLIGATION as a member of their association to be active and vote. Again--plain and simple---being uninformed.

It disturbs me that someone who is now a board member claims that if they were not on the board they'd have no interest in the "goings-on" of the association. Most of us who are now board members are those who DID attend meetings and did not like what we were seeing. We've had former board members who were the same way....which only proved they had their own person agenda for wanting to be on the board.

I'd LOVE to take a year off from my board. But I know there are bad people waiting in the wings to sit and use their position to abuse the power and association funds. I can't let that happen to my neighbors. But because of my neighbor's apathy it COULD happen. But would I quit going to meetings? HECK NO! I'd be watching every move they made.

Anna,

Good for you. I wish more people went to the meetings. I will be resigning from the board but will attend meetings to see what is going on. A neighboring hoa had funds taken from their accounts by a bad PM and I intend to see how "our" money is being spent.

If volunteering and participation is so vital and essential to the health of a homeowners associations, why is not more said about it in the declaration of covenants?

Why not require by covenant that each homeowner (1) contribute so many hours of work/participation per year and (2) be required to attend meetings and vote or face fines?

Covenants regulate behavior in other areas such as nuisance, noise, parking, pets, etc. should not participation in the affairs of the association also be mandated?

I understand the whole "apathy" question, and it is amazing that only people attend when a crisis arises.

In my neighborhood, the first meeting after the lawsuit against our HOA was announced, the meeting more than double the attendance... still not many (maybe 50-60 out of 900 homes).

Maybe it can be looked like this...

If only 20% of the neighborhood is participating and volunteering, maybe the other 80% desires that there be no Association. Majority rule?

Why should a minority make the rules and operate the Association. Even if there are attempts for community outreach and efficient notification of meetings, proxies, etc., and participation is still low, then why try to force an Association on people who simply do not want it (or appear to want it).

I know not all Associations are like this, but for those that are, maybe the BOD should put things on hold and wait until the people want them around.

My also respected comrade John,

To ignore a jury summons can result in a contempt of court judgement or so I am remembering from someone who tried it. But I also know that showing up for the pretrial interogation as I call it, can find some very creative excuses as to why one cannot serve. I guess that having HOA participation from the members might be stretching it a bit. Are we just grasping at straws because there should be an solution but we are unable to find one? More than likely.

My honored and courteous ally Donna,

Try this. Pass a resolution that any Member showing up at the Annual gets an (insert $ amount) dues credit. Might work because it's fair, possibly productive, applies to all Members. Might not work because some (many?) still wouldn't want the hassle/burden of parking their arses in a chair for an hour to endure hearing about things they figger will be taken care of eventually by others.

In our HOA, I doubt $25 would make a dent. $100 might, but then our tiny, tight budget would take a hit we'd have to make up for by cutting back on necessities.

I still think proxies work best on a functional basis.

It seems to me that a whole lot of expectations and rights are being asked of the Members.

("Geez - all I did was move into a neighborhood. I know the rules. Now you want me to run the whole thing, too? Let those who want to, run it. Why do I have to find the leaders to run it?. Delete quorums. Whoever shows up at the annual meeting is good enough. Let the place run itself. I won't hold you up. I'll let you know when I am interested. That will happen if you hit my kids or my wallet"