Resident Conduct Policy?

I am curious as to how many of you are in associations with a written resident conduct policy.

The declarant controlled board of our 55 and over community passed a policy titled "Owner and Resident Conduct Toward On-Site Association Representatives". This policy provides that any resident who treats an association representative in a "uncivil, discourteous, or inappropriate manner" can be referred to the Covenants Committee (homeowners appointed by the declarant board) for a hearing and possible sanctions including fines or suspension of use of facilities.

This policy was recently invoked for the first time. A resident appointed to the board and serving as association treasurer filed a complaint under this policy because of a resident's emails. The emails raised questions about several line items in the 2009 budget. The board member responded by brushing off the questions ( she referred the resident to the management agent who never had responded previously and has since been replaced). When the resident's next email emphasized that the questions were directed specifically at the treasurer by capitalizing the word YOU he was accused of "shouting" at the board member and summoned to a hearing. It should be noted that the accused resident operates an independent web site used extensively by community members to exchange information about community governance issues.

A large number of residents showed up to support the accused at the hearing. The board's attorney announced that the committee would go into executive session to hear testimony. Despite the accused waiving his right to privacy and requesting that the meeting be an open session, the attorney insisted and the session was closed. So a resident was grilled by a committee appointed by the board, with a board member present (the complaintant), supported by the board's attorney.

After reconvening in open session the committee announced that no violation of the policy had occurred.

At the subsequent board meeting the attorney stated that many of the associations represented by her firm have such a policy. None of our residents who have lived under HOA's elsewhere had ever seen such a policy. Do you have a policy like this in your association? Is it used to shield board members from criticism by members? Is it used as an intimidation tool as was the case in this instance?

I would appreciate hearing about your experiences.

No we don't have a policy like this at our association....and quite frankly I don't know how anyone could. This sounds more like some type of policy one may have at a workplace or place of business. But at people's home? Doubtful. We do have policies in place for "behavior" during meetings, etc. but that's about it.

I agree with Donna on this one. You can't control people's personalities. Which once again proves one must have a strong backbone to be a board member. After all....sticks and stones may break my bones...

This is the scourge of owners associations. Consider the absurdity of what the board has done. Here you have mature adults who are being told by their power-hungry neighbors how to behave. Of course, they never write rules for their own conduct.

Some board members are people who believe they have superior knowledge, but worse, they want to impose their ideas on others. Gross abuse of power. They want to sit at the front of the room. They are not good listeners. Board members are to serve the members and protect their rights. They are emboldened by members not strongly opposing such nonsense.

Famous sayings of Lord Acton include "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The disease is everywhere. In the legal system, it is called "black robe disease". In law enforcement, "badge heavy". "Little corporal" is another term. Through the power-hungry board members out. Organize a recall vote.

This abusive behavior is the result of not having democratic principles in the governance of CIDs/POAs, which include separation of powers, checks and balances and other safeguards to prevent abuses. We have to persuade our legislatures to write democratic legislation for CIDs/POAs. The first article should be a Statement of Rights.

On the technical matters, board members have no authority to prescribe the conduct of the owners/members. The CC&Rs "run with the land" and are not personal. The internet provides the legal basis. Beware of any CC&R that states the authority to prescribe the conduct of owners/members except on the common property of the owners association.

Homeowners Associations are not "governments," mini-, pseudo-, or otherwise.

They are corporations.

The "checks and balances" are there in the form of the CC&Rs and By-laws, ultimately, the resident members' (stakeholders/shareholders) voting block.

Use them.

I posted the following on the residents' discussion forum on a website maintained by the accused resident:

I have been thinking about this policy alot. I have concluded that I don't have a problem with the board establishing a policy that protects employees or association contractors from abuse by residents. After all, these are not symmetrical relationships. A contractor cannot respond in-kind to abusive treatment without risking loss of a job or other disciplinary action by the employer, even if the response has been provoked by bad homeowner behavior.

However, I do have a problem with such a policy being applied to resident board members. Resident board members are not owed any deference due to their position on the board. They are not royalty, entitled to subservience merely by virtue of their lineage or position. They are like every other association member. If they feel abused by another member, they should deal with it themselves. If they are not comfortable doing that, they shouldn't volunteer for a position that may subject them to residents displeasure. The policy is blatantly asymmetrical - a resident who has been treated disrespectfully by a resident board member has no protection under the policy. In my opinion, that was the case for (named board member's) brush off of the legitimate questions asked by (name of resident) (in an e-mail).

It was also unfair for (name of resident) to have to defend himself against the accusations of a board member before a committee appointed by the board and which serves at its pleasure. Nor should the association attorney have been allowed to intervene in the process.