Cops called at last board meeting

Started by RuthF1 • 49 replies • 2638 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

RuthF1 (Washington)
Posts: 117

Posted:

OK, so much for keeping things calm (grin). Some of you know the back history so this is actually an addition to the story.

I was able to get 10 owners to show up at this last meeting. They all promised they would not yell or cause a problem. The President met three of them a few mins before the meeting was to start and tried to tell them this was a closed meeting. Of course they all just sat down and said "try to make us leave".

The PM as usual was late due to "stuck in traffic" so we started the meeting. The president again started to tell everyone that we only had 10 mins to listen to them, they would then have to leave so we can discuss business. Again didn't go over well but the owners stayed calm and asked some very relevant questions.

The hot button for the evening was a Golden Lab that has been allowed (by the PM) to stay at the complex. This has been an issue for 6 mos and people are very upset that the dog isn't gone. The PM breezed in during this conversation and without asking a question to determine where we were in the conversation said "that dog has been approved to stay by the BOD" which of course we did not (another story). Then the PM said to the owner who said the dog had knocked her 80 year old husband down, "What do you want me to do? If we make that owner get rid of the dog are you going to go around and tell every other owner that has more than two pets they have to go?"

That was directed to me as I have 3 cats that never go outside, never has had a complaint of any kind and the only reason she found out is one of the BOD's in her pocket told her.

Then an owner who has a HUGE issue with the PM sighed loudly (I didn't hear it and I was sitting one persona away from her) The PM loudly said "Britt you need to settle down"... of course the entire group turned to the PM and said "She didn't say anything you need to stop".

Now the Jerry Springer episode:

Meeting ended nicely... we started the ES.. The owner who the PM had "scolded" stayed back after everyone left and asked if she could ocmment on the dues increase. Before she got her question complete the PM starts yelling at her then told her she had to leave. The next thing I know I am in between the two trying to keep them from hitting each other.

The president gets up and starts poking his finger in the face of the owner and accidently hits her. I am thinking OMG. Realize I am a 3rd degree Black Belt but this guy is 89yrs old. I finally get the owner out of the room all the time the PM is yelling a swearing at her. A few minutes later the owner gets her husband who comes in the clubhouse yelling "who hit my wife". I turned to the Secretary and said "call 911" and got between the BOD and the owners asking them to please stop. Of course the PM is screaming at them again while I am asking her to stop. The cops come and escourt the owners out (I am sure laughing at the entire episode) while the PM is ranting at me that this is all my fault because I wanted to get the owners involved and I don't like her (another long story). She also threw in what she does at every meeting "I should just quit then everyone would be happy"....

Welcome to our litte Peyton Place. Grin...

I had 2 BOD come to my home the next day with flowers and apologies that they took me out as President as their eyes have now been open to the PM. I am having them each write up what they saw and I will be calling the corporate office to bring them in the loop.

Crossing fingers that the next meeting is actually going to be productive (smile)

SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202

Posted:

thanks for posting this: I needed a good laugh today.

ya just can't make this stuff up!

DanaB1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 319

Posted:

Susan,

I'm with you; I mean, where do you even begin to disect this one? An example like this makes us all take pause and appreciate that "our" little Peyton Places(spelling?) aren't as bad as this.

Dana

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Dana,

Number one--the P.M. gets the boot. Number two, you must relook at E.S. Probably against your State HOA laws to have them for the reasons that you do. We hired a County Sheriffs deputy one time when we knew that we would have a possible uprising at a meeting. 84 members, split on pick-up trucks. Most all of the younger studly do rights had trucks. All of the little ole folks did not so the odds were in favor of the dudleys in case of a fist fight. The mere prescence of the law made a huge difference and the $25.00 spent to hire him was so worth it.

But your 's is a bigger mess because there are too many people who don't seem to know what is allowed at meetings and who's in charge.

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

OOPS!!, Should have addressed this to Ruth. Sorry Dana

AnnaD2 (Florida)
Posts: 960

Posted:

#1....the first thing Donna said.....Your property manager should be FIRED, ASAP. That person doesn't run your Association; the Board does! If our property manager acted as yours did, that person would be DONE on the spot.

RuthF1 (Washington)
Posts: 117

Posted:

Donna, you are sooo right. I wish I had the presence of mind to turn my phone on and video taped it so I could show the management company how the PM acts. this is not new. What is new is the fact that she did it in front of so many people.

I like the idea of having the Sheriff on hand. Believe it or not the reason they got there so fast is their office is in our Clubhouse (laughing). These guys knew us. I think they got a pretty good chuckle out of it but understands just how serious it is becoming.

My goal now is to get the PM replaced. I had already talked to her corporate office in February before all the bru ha ha had started. This is going to the be the trigger to get her removed.

r

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Ruth,
Grab the bull (P.M.) by the horns and get her gone. You don't need a reason, you don't need proof. You hire her and you certainly can fire her. It is the Boards' responsibility to keep order and control of the meetings , the association and the employees.

But you also do have a problem with communications with the members. Florida, California and many, many other States require that all Board meetings must be oen to the membership. Your E.S to "discuss business" would be an illegal meeting in these States. Only meetings concerning litigation and meetings with your attorney should be considered E.S or closed to the members. I would look into your State laws on this because most of your problems could be worked out if the members knew what was going on. Yelling aside, members should be included in meetings to a point.

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Ruth,
I remember some of your last post and as bad as it sounds, nothing like the mess you are in ever gets solved easy. I am concerned because of a few things that you said and the way you said them. I'll just pick two. Your reference to contacting the management company so they can discipline the manager. Why would you contact the management company. Don't allow the manager on the property at all...............that ends that. Then let the M/C find out how they are going to live up to their contract and if they don't, fire them. I guess I am too simplistic about this but when you mention you hope the next meeting won't result in what the last one did, some one has lost control. If you as a Board member would even consider you are going to have to face this kind of craziness at a business meeting, I would do what I believe you should have done all along. You have to get support and this support has to demand and insure there will be a peaceful meeting. You should have a record with the cops now, and if nothing else let ever owner know individually what went on. Ask for support at the meeting. Get this support to force the President to put this mess on the agendas. Surely you have some written documents that allow for the members to converse with their elected representatives. Either at a meaning or outside a meeting, demand that you will have civil conduct at your meeting.

All this crap lies directly with the president. No question, next comes the Board, the M/CV or the PM have no say in members discussions...............none at all......tell them to leave the room, this is an owners discussion. If they, he/she whoever don't, call the cops and arrest them for trespassing. You do (the association) own the property, don't you? And I think I would back away from trying to solve this problem yourselve, use your support out side the meeting, don't try and do it all and let everyone know what your support is doing. I just talked to our president that just came from a Board member seminar discussion. Want to know what nearly all presidents or Board member said was their biggest problem.......communication! You place could be the Poster child.

Then you can get to the problem and that problem must be addressed. You must be protected when you attend a meeting, I don't care what it costs. You must put on the table the conduct and direction of the the owners and the board. And you must resolve this issue before any other.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

I am stunned with the inference that "this is what happens when you let residents attend meetings"!!

ExCUSE me??

This is their organization!

DOH!

The PM is not the organization, and is the "hired help," so to speak.

This is not her organization!

It belongs to the homeowners, who pay her!

Wow.

Wish I lived close enough to attend your next meeting!

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Michelle,
You, me and maybe Mary go and I'll bet that we could show them how it's done.

Like you, things as simple as this get so screwed up by a few people who get on Boards and don't have a clue as to laws and Statutes and their own documents which probably spell out how to conduct meeting without the Hatfields and McCoy mentality

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Donna, Mary and Michele,
Would you all agree that until this out of control conduct is settled, there is nothing to be gained by conducting any business at a Board meeting? Would you suggest that a special meeting OF ALL OWNERS be held to resolve this misconduct? Would you eliminate all non members from meetings.

What steps should be taken now.

Should their lawyer to retained to conduct the meeting? Maybe a Parliamentarian? Should an outsider as I mentioned be given the right and authority to right the ship?

I honestly don't think this bunch that contributed to the last mess should be allowed another trip to the plate.

Maybe their lawyer could help by being brought into a resolution, maybe the courts?

Please advise Ruth and also Sidney. Lots of advise (mine included) but let's give some clear direction. Fact is, you three are not going to attend this meeting and from what we can see they really need some outside help or some new help from the membership.

JonD1
Posts: 2,350

Posted:

Folks:

Perhaps it might be helpful if you were to read Ruth's other post regarding the fact that WA state does not require open meetings under state law.

It is listed at the bottom of the first page of posts.

To be brief ( if I get any facts confused Ruth can clear them up) Ruth was the Board President she was voted out and replaced by some of her fellow Board members.

The current President who was voted in is AGAINST open Board meetings for whatever reason good or bad. Ruth is attempting to force open meetings on the Board including the PM.

So now we have the last meeting, the cops were called, the main focus was the dog allowed on the property. When and how will the Board function?

(One curious point about the dog suggested to me that owners are allowed a maximum of two animals when Ruth suggests she has three.) But that's another post.

In response to my questions Ruth stated that about 30% of the property owners attend their annual meeting and perhaps 5-6 owners attend the monthly meetings.
(out of more than 100)
So in the name of open meetings we have 5-6 owners attending, the need to call the police and more problems for the Board, its members and the property.

The purpose of the Board is to conduct the business of the property in a timly manner. Not to become a circus for everyone to persue their agenda.

In her last posting under the first post on this matter Ruth suggests SHE is going to try to make open meetings the norm at her property with perhaps guest speakers etc. to draw owners to the meetings. I would suggest this is NOT the function of the Board nor the Board meetings.

GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491

Posted:

Jon, I too was appalled at how Ruth tried to force the issue. But having H/O's attend the meetings and even speak does not make for disruptive meetings; childish behavior does. We allow H/O's to attend the meetings and after the business is concluded they are allowed 3-5 minutes to address anything that was covered in the meeting, hardly disruptive or time consuming. If they want to discuss a specific item they must contact the MC five days before the meeting to be placed on the agenda, again not disruptive. Although BOD meetings are like sausage making in that you don't want to see how it's done just savor the result, BOD's that are secretive in how or what is going on are the ones most apt to go rogue.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions

KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665

Posted:

Assuming you have the votes to do so, I would move to place a call to the management company and tell them that the PM is to never come to the property again.

Also, unless you are actually discussing something private, you should have an open meeting.

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

JonD,
Are you questioning if Ruth is part of the problem or part of the solution? Hang in there for a moment Ruth.

I submit, that is not the issue, nor is the New President wanting closed meetings. No matter what the Law says, if the owners want open meetings they should have them, the law just says they don't have to be. The President might declare closed meetings, where are the other Board members, where are the members? Ruth seems to want to take the world on all by herself. Let's establish that she can't do this, she is one member, just like the President and any other Board member or any other member. If she hopes to move mountains she will need help.
I further suggest we don't even address any issue that was discussed at this last fiasco. I suggest they handle this out of control association and each shares part of the blame for letting it get this way. Makes no difference who agrees, who doesn't, if you accept they are in trouble, and they are. They and they alone must fix it, and they better start with recognizing their part, all of them.

Do I expect, all will suddenly turn around and start paying attention.........won't happen. But enough, how ever many that is better agree they better right the Boat. We see this all the time on this site, it just takes the right people to step forward. Ruth, as much as we admire her concern have to measure her success. So far he record is not all that good. Not Ruth's fault probably, but she and the association need some direction. Use your lawyer, hire a professional and give the them the reins, or go to the courts and ask a judge, but do something than make the same mistakes again. Ruth has vast knowledge, a big plus for change if put to the right use. The Board is intact and they also are suspect but they were elected and deserve respect and civility, as does Ruth.
Can anything be gained from open town hall meetings with a free exchange from both sides? I don't know, but it can't harm, if controlled, and we don't normally act like this last episode or continue on a track that builds destruction. Something is wrong, a new way of doing business must be established.
And don't forget, if any owner wants to sue anyone at that meeting or maybe even those not attending, they have an absolute right to petition the courts to protect their investment, not to mention the fiduciary responsibilities that are attached to being a Board member.

JonD1
Posts: 2,350

Posted:

Posted by Ruth:

"Thanks Jon: I agree apathy is an issue but when the owners have been shut out and silenced then they do get a "What good does it do" attitude.
My goal is to change that. One of the ways is to get them more involved. By having fun events and informational speakers on different topics come in we get the sense of community back.
Nothing will change if nothing is done. I am going to be the one who at least tries."

My question would be what exactly is the purpose of the Board? To manage the affairs of the property or to increase participation of the owners?

WA state does NOT require open Board meetings. What is law or policy in other states simply does not apply or determine what state is doing it right. As we see with many posts here there is more than one side to each story.

To suggest the existing law is overridden by the wishes of the owners is nonsense.
Ruth suggests she has 5-6 owners who now attend HER open meetings and those 5-6 members now overids state law? Hardly. The Board and its members should work together for the betterment of the property not FORCE their individual ideas of what should and should not be on Board or the property owners.

From the results detailed by Ruth regarding the latest meeting I would question just what positive has come out of all this? And in the end what positive will come out of this?

IMO in today's world there are many other more important issues for Boards and their members to take on. Rather than having each Board member persue their own agenda. Under these circumstances not much gets done.

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

JonD,
If you are referring to my post or Ruth concluding that she is trying to change the law, you may be right, I don't know. Does the Law state the Board MUST have closed meetings? I would guess not. I do know that there are some states that don't address the issue and Boards tend to conclude from this they must have Closed meetings. SC is one, but it is a Board preference, which by the way, in the end, is an owner preference......by vote if majority is reached for amendment. But all these things are not helping the situation now or in the past. Of course Statutes must be followed. In this case I don't think Ruth and a few other folks are looking to usurp the Board. I think they want to have an effective management, they haven't been very effective in reaching their goals. On the other hand, neither is any of the recent past boards, and the conduct of the present board is suspect if for no other reason than they had the watch during this last Board meeting.
It is true that if it is not broken, don't fix it, this hardly applies here.
How do you think Ruth and her band should react Jon? What can they do? Do we say Boards are like making sausage, you don't want to know about the process, just the result? Think that will fly in this case or any other, if someone questions the process? Isn't that what this post is about? The process and the end product?
Donna suggested that a couple of the right people can right the ship.
Do you agree?
Also, we seem to ignore the other members. Now if the other members know the story and conduct of their leadership and don't care, is that a mandate for the concerned folks to back off? I don't think so.
But you wisely point out that too much extrapolation from our own situation and trying to force our covenants on a association that could well have different laws is not the way to go.I really think that is sort of a given, no one is suggesting anyone break the law.

We just give opinions, that's all. Like all opinions , you have the election to pick and choose anything or any part of the the others opinion.

RuthF1 (Washington)
Posts: 117

Posted:

Lots of information to digest here.

The great thing that has come out of this is the other BODs have figured out the PM has had a strangle hold on the board for a long time now. Four of the Five BODs are now writing a letter to the management company to ask the PM be replaced. The questions on the finances are now coming from them instead of just me. The Treasurer just informed me today that we are indeed in financial trouble. We have convinced her to schedule a financial meeting with all the BODs to see where we stand.

For those who would say "Ruth is at fault" the fact that the PM was out of control, calling one of the owners a Bi@#$ and kept the drama going when everyone else was staying calm, was the comment I heard the most from the BODs. It was a real eye opener for everyone involved. Luckily most of the owners left before the fireworks started.

I don't believe getting our lawyer involved is the answer. I feel this blow out was what was needed to get the owners to care about what is going on. Apathy can be broken if you can show them that this affects their bottom line.

This isn’t about whether or not the meeting should have been open or closed, they always have been open even though WA State law doesn't require it. The complaint from the board was no one ever attended. The reason they stopped attending is they felt they weren’t being heard. The fact that the President wanted to close them because questions were being asked about how the PM was running things is what I believe started the conflict.

Now we can start moving forward. We already have two events in May to bring the community together.... something I am told hasn't been done in 5 years.

I am feeling good about the direction we are headed.

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Ruth,
I am sure all of us posting here are pleased in your latest post. Everyone that posts here has probably been through of at least some of what you are experiencing. I hope you are correct about your new found reasons for expecting things to turn around.
I, like, others, I imagine, read your post with a critical eye. We say fire the manager, fire the M/C, etc, etc. and you think we don't know how hard this can be or it is different in your place. Granted all this is difficult and never ending, but believe me, the way to make change is to take charge. For my money, your board is still vacillating about your Manager and the conduct. You have heard, don't tolerate this, you response you have gotten around to asking the M/C to remove the manager. Try writing them a letter and telling them this manager is forbidden to come unto the regimes property. Let them figure out how they are going to bill you for someone not fulfilling the contract. I can't imagine the Board would decline from having their lawyer involved. Hard to believe.
I am sure all here would agree, you are way out on a limb, you better find out how to get back to more stable ground.....legally.

There is no one here that is not rooting for you and your efforts, in fact several of the regular posters are still cleaning up the messes from past mishandling at their Regime.

KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665

Posted:

Jon,

Just because the law allows you to do something does not make it the right thing to do. In this case, just because the law allows closed Board meetings doesn't make them right. When a Board closes its meetings the first question will be "What are they hiding?" It is our nature to distrust those who hide a process. And often for good reason.

But Ruth's point about the PM is very right. The only thing I see wrong is that 80% of the BOD is "asking" for a replacement PM. The BOD should demand a new PM. If the company through which you have contracted doesn't care to listen, then speak by canceling the contract at the first available opportunity. And also file a complaint with the BBB. And let CAI know of their style in case they belong or later want to join.

SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202

Posted:

A motion should be put before the Board as to whether or not they want "open" meetings. Since your state law says you don't HAVE to have them, then the motion would be the policy followed (until changed by another board)

Quick release of minutes of the meetings to all interested members should suffice if anyone wants to know what the board is doing.

All these issues are getting mixed up in each other and need to be sorted out. But everyone should speak civilly to each other, and an employee that can't should be let go.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Susan:

The board already had open meetings.

The new president had intended to start "closing" them by going into Executive Session if the homeowners got to "question-y."

Thus chaos ensued.

I'm picturing a Lucy Episode in the Twilight Zone.

It's clear the PM is part of (if not the focal point of) the problem.

I think the dust up was probably a good thing, in the long run.

There was "some" good that came of it, the PM's behavior was seen as not just the imagination of one person (Ruth), as has been implied by the PM and the "new" president.

It's not a personality conflict of those two (Ruth and the PM). The PM is clearly threatened by a board that wants to take back control of it's HOA.

The letter to the management is a good start.

But, Ruth, you and the other directors need to be very careful how you play this from this point.

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Kirk,
I support your position 100% about Open meetings. But we have argued this a bunch of times here and this assumption that if it is not written then the BOD can interpret this to mean the meeting must be closed is suspect.
But you turned on a light it your latest post. If available would CAI step in and for a fee set this train on the right track? I don't know if that is possible or not. If it is, it could be a quick fix for this disruption they are having. I really think they would benefit from a good strong outside evaluation. I still see them heading down the same track as before, but, they seem to have multiple Regimes under the same M/C, I'm not sure how that structure is tied together. Ruth is a blessed soul to be taken on all this but in the absence of any good mumbers support in the regime, this present board is walking all over everyone, and you sure have to wonder why, and not doubt the Manager should go and go for good, no apologies, no good-byes.......out the door.

Anyway, they need some hands on impartial direction, IMHO.

What do you or anyone else think.

SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202

Posted:

It's still not clear what "open Meeting" means to Ruth. Are members to observe only? or have full participatory rights, maybe even voting on issues? do they have a resident's forum where they can speak?

Running a HOA is not mass rule and the board needs to conduct business. How can that be done when there in an audience that also participates? While the president went into ES for wrong reasons, it sounds like he was having difficulty leading the meeting.

I wonder what the other board members want.

RuthF1 (Washington)
Posts: 117

Posted:

That is a good question Susan. Open meeting to me is the first 1/2 hour of the meeting is open to the owners. This is where they can ask questions about agenda items, bring to us any issues they have to get them documented and handled, and give suggestions for events they want to see at the community.

This is what I call participation. Not that they get to discuss every decision we make but at least know what is going on and why.

We have had "open" meetings in this sense since they formed a board 15 years ago. Because the PM dismisses everyone and their complaints were not being addressed people stopped coming to the meetings. The WA State law does NOT require us to have closed meetings. What it says is we don't have to have open meetings.

After this 1/2 hour is complete, the board receses to discuss business such as deliquencies, projects that need to be done etc.

When I first came on the board as president in February, I started walking around the property encouraging people to start attending the meetings again and let us know what they would like to see the community look like. There was excitment about this because the owners felt they would now be heard. Realize most of them haven't really known who was on the board the last 5 years. When the board decided to remove me as President the community was in an uproar because the new President wants to keep everything status quo where the PM runs everything. They are also upset because they weren't told about the dues being raised until a month before it happend. Everyone I have spoken to about why the dues was raised is ok with it now that they have the information. My belief is you give them the information so they can make an educated decision. Communication also means less drama. We are always going to have those few that are always complaining, however if you keep the masses informed those can be handled much easier.

RuthF1 (Washington)
Posts: 117

Posted:

Susan I forgot to answer your last question about what the other BOD want.

Speaking with 2 of them personally the day after the issue they are still afraid to get rid of the PM. This is understandable because they don't know what to do if there is no PM. The third one I haven't addressed the issue with yet so I only have hearsay of what her views are. She has been a friend of the PM for 5 years now and is hesitant to get rid of her.

I had already spoken with the PM's corporate office in February because the PM says she is going to quit at virtually every meeting. I wanted to be prepared. The Corp office said that if she quits they have another PM (agent) who can take over immediately.

It may sound like I am dragging my feet, but I want to be very careful on how this PM is removed because there are some who do like her and don't realize what has been going on. Like I said I have already spoken with corporate and the owner kept that conversation private so the PM doesn't know. I will be talking to the owner today to let her know what transpired at our last meeting as I know the PM won't tell them.

I truly feel this is going in the right direction. I didn't realize it at the time as it wasn't planned but the blow up is working in our favor as several people I spoke with want to make sure they know who is getting on the board going forward.... Something they really didn't care about before.
r

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Wow, sorry to get in on the tail end of this, but I decided to sleep the whole night through instead of getting up in the middle of it! LOL

At any rate, I agree the PM has got to go. Hopefully the majority of the board will agree to this and can now see that some changes need to be made. First of all the Pres should be able to maintain control of a meeting. WHen the PM first came into the room with the obvious chip on her shoulder, the Pres should have been "man" enough to silence her immediately. The fact that he/she can't is obvious to me a change in that position needs to be made also. Regarding open meetings: WA does NOT have an OML therefore the board may open or close meetings at will. The whole board needs to make this decision, not just the Pres (another reason he shouldn't be the leader, like the PM he thinks he can single handedly run the show). Ruth has been trying to take baby steps in calling for change, but some times baby steps just don't work. It may now be time to step into second gear and start demanding some change. With two other board members now on her side hopefully she can get that ball rolling. The members also need to be informed that if the board decides meetings will be closed that's the way it will be and anyone who objects and trys to start problems will be asked to leave the meeting. Allowing them 10 minutes or so to speak their peace b/4 business commences may be all the majority of the board wishes to do. This is an issue for the majority of the board to decide but I hope they will not take into consideration what happened at this last meeting. If it weren't for the actions of the PM I doubt it would have gotten so out of hand.

Hang in there Ruth, hopefully better days are ahead.

JonD1
Posts: 2,350

Posted:

Ruth herself states that 3 members of the Board still are not quite sure what to do with the PM.

There are many facts given out by Ruth that I find most interesting.

Ruth joined the Board in February as President. Really???? You join the Board and assume the lead position and then suddenly, I would assume, the same folks that voted you in as President then voted you out? WHY?

Now Ruth has contacted corporate headquarters for the MC to have a "private" conversation with them as to one of their PMs.( or at least she was told this would be private, would I believe that?) Was she directed by the Board to do so? Does she represent the entire Board?

I missed the part where the Board's position was explained. Except for the part where Ruth tells us 3 Board members still don't feel the PM should be let go. Ruth feels she should be let go. 3 versus 1, I think most times the 3 wins.

Why would a Board vote in a new member as President?
Why would they then vote her out a short time later?

Replacing the PM with another from the same company might not bring the desired change some might hope for. In that event you would now need to find another MC to take over your property.

Change for change's sake is NOT always a good thing. And someone with more than 3 months on the Board better have a real good plan to deal with all this.

I once had a new Board member who thought getting rid of the MC would be a huge savings to the property. When I asked her what services they provided and how those would be covered with their departure she had no clue. Just in her mind this would be BETTER.

Obviously,there are many issues facing this property and its Board good luck to Ruth AND the other Board members sorting this all out.

RuthF1 (Washington)
Posts: 117

Posted:

Jon it is hard to come in the middle of the drama but let me recap.

At the 2009 February annual meeting the PM and the president called for Volunteers to be on the Board (there was no nominating process) and when someone asked what the duties were the PM said “nothing really.” At this point one of the Owners spoke up and said “that isn’t true” a BOD is an important decision making position.” Next when the 5 volunteers were at the table the PM said (though she denies this - we have several people who will confirm) “what positions does everyone want?” I have been told by previous BOD that this is how it has been done for the last 5-6 years. It wasn’t until I actually read the bylaws that I realized we did not follow SOP. NO discussion was made at that time that we would be voting on our officers at the first meeting (which in the bylaws state should have happened within 10 days of the annual meeting, however the first meeting did not happen until April 2, 2009. Nor was I told in the those two months when I was giving out flyers to owners stating each of our positions on the board that I was Pres Pro Tem.

One of BODs who is very close to the PM decided that because I supposedly wanted the PM removed(which I did not; the PM and I had spoken and I thought we had agreed to give each other time). Couple that with a complaint by the same BOD that I was overzealous on getting things done, planning community events like a spring clean up, community garage sale, talking to residents to see what their issues are, ideas on setting up an email tree, a website for the community, bulletin board outside where everyone could see what was going on, to name a few, he felt I would not be a good president.

At our first meeting; which again, didn’t take place until April 2nd due to the PM being on vacation, and the BOD deciding not to have a March meeting (which should have taken place with the PM’s temporary replacement. Realize I thought I was president so I was getting the word out to the owners who they could contact and what neat events we were planning. I was told by at least ½ doz residents that they haven’t known who was on the board for 5 years because I was one of the first BODs that had ever given out contact information) Out of the blue at the first meeting the Treasure made a motion that one of the other board members be elected as the president, he then listed who he wanted for the officers and that I should be member at large because I was the “idea” person who they need but being president would hold me back.

This shocked 3 of us as we didn’t see it coming. I of course stated I came on the board to be President, had no hidden agenda and would prefer to stay as Pres. I also stated that I thought we had made that decision at the annual meeting just as it had been done in the past. That is when the bylaws started being quoted by the Treasurer; I was told I was President Pro tem and that at our first meeting we vote on officers. After a 2 hour discussion because 3 of us were pretty sure we were the positions we had been for 2 mos, we voted and it was 2, nay, 2 yay and one abstaining (the person he nominated for pres because she felt she didn't want to take sides). The motion Failed. So I thought the issue was done.

I also asked that this motion and results be reflected in the meeting minutes.

Because the PM couldn’t make it to the April 2nd meeting, (due to traffic) we moved to have another meeting with her present to make sure we covered everything. At the meeting on April 7th the Treasure again made a motion that HE be president and lined out who he thought the other officers be. I stated that I thought this issue was resolved at the first meeting but was told because it was a tie it wasn’t valid. The PM at this time told the BOD that she and I had spoken and though we had our issues that she felt we could work together. She then proceeded to plead her case about everything that she has done for us.

I feel that it was unprofessional that the PM was in on this discussion as she had a vested interest in the outcome. This time the discussion was pretty heated because I supposedly wanted to see the PM and the management company gone (confirmed by the PM, though I then interrupted her and said I didn’t say the management co) At this time the person who abstained on 4/2 was adamant that the PM stay and decided that I needed to be replaced as President. I did explain that I can’t remove the PM without a BOD vote. There were so many other pressing issues that we needed to address that I conceded and decided to move forward.

The PM leaned over and told the Secretary that she didn’t need to include the minutes from our previous meeting. This I know is incorrect so I again asked that last meetings motion and results and this motion and results be reflected in the meeting minutes.

This may look like I am trying to be a trouble maker. I am a firm believer if you feel something is going wrong you either do something about it or shut up. I have been like every other owner and gripping about the situation for 4 years. Now it is time to change. And none too soon as our reserves are dwindling and our property has been neglected for several years now.

I hope this gives me some credibility in your eyes Jon. I truly am not trying to ruin anything but the PM is a big issue here. She threatens to quit at EVERY single meeting because the drive is so long. She is always late or doesn't show up to meetings. None of the BODs knows where we are financially and just sign anything she puts in front of them. Education is needed here and unless we get the PM situation under control that will never happen.

SteveM9 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 3,699

Posted:

This would make a good sitcom. You should make a pilot. With so many people in condos and hoas, I bet a ton of people would watch it.

KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665

Posted:

I don't see what any of this has to do with a PM who acts anything like described. I would make a motion to get a new one sent over. Waiting until the person quits is just a bad idea.

JonD1
Posts: 2,350

Posted:

Ruth:
Thanks for taking the time to recap some of the events. I would now like to offer my opinion on some of the happenings on your property. I would first like to say I admire your willingness to put in the time and effort many don't have this same level of interest. Now I will give you my observations regarding your recap.

"It wasn’t until I actually read the bylaws that I realized we did not follow SOP."

So Ruth in your case we have a new Board member willing to accept the position of President who has yet to read and possess a basic understanding of the property's by-laws and documents. Hardly a good thing. In my opinion a new member should never be asked or allowed to hold any of the elected offices on the Board least of all President. As President you are supposed to be capable of making decisions and judgements on numerous issues how can you do so when you haven't gain an understanding of the process or requirements on the Board?

"Couple that with a complaint by the same BOD that I was overzealous on getting things done, planning community events like a spring clean up, community garage sale, talking to residents to see what their issues are, ideas on setting up an email tree, a website for the community, bulletin board outside where everyone could see what was going on, to name a few, he felt I would not be a good president."

Ruth as to the opinion expressed by this Board member can you see any valid reasoning on their part? Is any of what they suggested true? It would seem you did have an agenda and to be honest IF everything else on your property was in order then perhaps some of these ideas might then be important. But in my opinion when your property is facing financial issues none of which the Board understands, comprehends or has a grasp on to now begin work on the items you listed above it reminds me of making music selections for the band to play on the Titanic as she sunk. In my world there are more important issues to work on and once the hole or holes are repaired, that might potentially sink your ship, only then should we be working on what the band might play next.

"the Treasure made a motion that one of the other board members be elected as the president, he then listed who he wanted for the officers and that I should be member at large because I was the “idea” person who they need but being president would hold me back."

So would it be safe to assume you rubbed someone the wrong way? And your removal as President was discussed and decided between other Board members and agreed upon.

"I of course stated I came on the board to be President, had no hidden agenda and would prefer to stay as Pres."

Again Ruth, please understand I mean no offense,but how do you come on the Board to be President? What qualifys you to take the lead position on a property with so many problems? I would suggest your property could perhaps use someone WITH expierence, and an understanding of how things work and why.

"There were so many other pressing issues that we needed to address that I conceded and decided to move forward The PM leaned over and told the Secretary that she didn’t need to include the minutes from our previous meeting. This I know is incorrect so I again asked that last meetings motion and results and this motion and results be reflected in the meeting minutes."

Ruth your ship is sinking or nearly sunk and you seem to be focused on votes, positions, minutes and making the process more appealing. Perhaps finding the leak might be most important right now.

" I have been like every other owner and gripping about the situation for 4 years. Now it is time to change. And none too soon as our reserves are dwindling and our property has been neglected for several years now."

Lets get to where the rubber meets the road. Your property's problem is not the PM. Your property's problem is clearly the members of the Board and the unit owners, yourself included. The PM does what you allow her to do. The fact that meetings were postponed or cancelled do to her attendance is ridiculous. The fact that your Board can't function enough to hold a meeting without her represents their inability to operate in any fashion in regards to doing their jobs. Your Board's inability to do their job has allowed the PM to gain the authority to lead your property in whatever direction SHE determines. The tail wagging the dog sort to speak. I have stated before if you give away your authority as Board members you didn't deserve to have it in the first place. That also goes for unit owners.

"I hope this gives me some credibility in your eyes Jon. I truly am not trying to ruin anything but the PM is a big issue here. She threatens to quit at EVERY single meeting because the drive is so long. She is always late or doesn't show up to meetings. None of the BODs knows where we are financially and just sign anything she puts in front of them. Education is needed here and unless we get the PM situation under control that will never happen."

Ruth these words just proved my point. When she makes threats what has your Board done? Nothing. When she arrives late what does the Board do? Nothing. The members of your Board don't have an understanding of your property's financial situation. That would seem to be more problematic then any of the issues you listed on your agenda.Fix the leak that might kill you THEN turn your attention to those items that just might make things NICE.

One last question, you are right the Board members need to be educated or to be more blunt told they need to start doing their job or move along. WHO IS CAPABLE OF PROVIDING THAT NEEDED EDUCATION IN YOUR SITUATION.

I hope I get this quote right " The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

You need to determine what poses the greatest threat to your property and resolve that first and not allow your time to be used up making changes that in the end won't prevent the sinking of your ship.

Either lead and do your job or get out of the way....................

Good luck Ruth

KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665

Posted:

Quote:

... So Ruth in your case we have a new Board member willing to accept the position of President who has yet to read and possess a basic understanding of the property's by-laws and documents. Hardly a good thing. In my opinion a new member should never be asked or allowed to hold any of the elected offices on the Board least of all President. As President you are supposed to be capable of making decisions and judgements on numerous issues how can you do so when you haven't gain an understanding of the process or requirements on the Board? ...

This is pretty situation normal to me. The sad fact is that most of those who have read the documents before the election are running for office. And often times there is some assumption that the previous regime has in fact followed the rules. And thus one is familiar with the process but not the rules. Guess what? This happens in government as well.

Now I do think that Ruth has perhaps moved a little too aggressively. You won't turn the situation around overnight. You need to go about it more methodically. I am sure the speed at which change was sought is why the Board pulled back and moved her to member at large. Learn and move on is what I would say.

As to the moving a board meeting, I personally remain neutral on that. There could well be a good reason to delay while the PM is on vacation. Certainly they should be able to meet without the PM present, but there could be a good reason to delay a given meeting until the PM could be present. But be sure, your PM thinks he or she is in charge and the Board is in some advisory capacity. My "spidey senses" tell me that you will never change that while this person is in the position. Send them along their way and get a new PM. If the person has a good history, the management company will re-asign them. If not, well that really isn't your problem anyway.

As for the whole open meeting, while the residents should have only a limited amount of time to speak, I personally see no reason why they should not be able to view (silently) the whole meeting outside when discussing a given unit's finances. (Well the deliberation portion of how to punish a rule breaker should probably also be in executive session) while the outcome is voted publicly.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Also, Ruth admits to having an "agenda." There is nothing wrong with having an agenda.

Hers apparently is to get some things moving in the HOA in terms of working WITH the homeowners, instead of against them.

We all have an agenda.

Otherwise, why bother being on the board?

The point is she didn't have a double-secret hidden agenda.

She clearly stated she doesn't have a hidden agenda!

It was pretty obvious for anyone with eyes and ears. She wasn't slinking around to residents' homes in the dark of night.

Did she move aggressively?

Perhaps.

But people of action usually do. I think that might be one of the learnings she takes away from this.

I think she was taking her position seriously (the one she thought she had!). Because it was in such stark contrast to the way board members have worked in the past, it may have unsettled some people (on the board) and made them suspicious.

Regarding reading/knowing the docs:

From what I can tell from her description, she wasn't the only one who had not read or understood the governing documents before stepping up to the plate.

It's apparent that at least the board members for the past 5 years are in the same boat.

This all gets back to the fact that the PM neither "owns" nor runs this HOA.

She seems to have worked out quite a cool deal for herself - complete control over a decent sized HOA with a nice little budget.

That doesn't necessarily mean she has to be dismissed, but she does need to come to an understanding of what her role is . . . and what it isn't.

And, if she can't adjust her sails to that new direction, perhaps it is best that she be replaced.

I know for one thing, I would be demanding an apology letter from her and her management regarding her behavior at the meeting.

She has no business responding to a homeowner that way, regardless of the buttons that may have been pushed.

There are grown-up (mature) ways of dealing with situations. She should be made aware of them.

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Kirk,
To address this open meeting business.
Personally.......all meeting open except ES and then spelled out specific reasons.

But we have lots of Board members posting here your post sort of brushes the issue I have.

I really would like to see members come to the Board meetings with specific questions and be given time at start of meeting to voice them.
I would like to see more tune in or visit for the whole meeting. If the board discusses a specific AGENDA item and before they reach a decision I would like the president to open the floor for pertinent comments. That could be an expert opinion, a better way to do it, or clarification. Members would have one shot to voice opinion. Other than thank you the president need not respond, the individual board members should be asked if they want to respond. A response by the Board should be just that and if necessary specific questions could be asked of member. A members question could be assigned to a Board member for a private discussion and brought back to the Board when necessary. All this must be allowed and MUST be controlled by president.

Now, what say you all about what Board members should do to make themselves visible and available to the members? Shouldn't that be included in a mission statement of any Board........or not?

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Good synopsis Michele.

In general do you believe, as I, that a good stirring of the pot once in a while makes a better HOA?

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

By the way, for what it's worth, I think Ruth will be an excellent HOA leader.

For one thing, she's not afraid of admitting when she doesn't know something, and is also apparently not afraid of making course corrections (in herself) if need be.

I think she has the energy and drive to be a good leader.

I think she also instinctively knows that it's about the homeowners, and not the board.

You don't find many board members, much less board presidents, eager and willing to go door-to-door, if necessary, to meet and talk to the homeowners of the association.

She can learn the governing documents. She has support from a group of people willing to give her good and frank advice (HOATalk members). I think she's got great potential.

By the way, it's my understanding that her board meetings have always been "open" to the board members, with the first half of the meeting dedicated to "dialog" between them. It's apparently only in recent years (the last 5?) that attendance has dropped off due to either boredom, lack of interest, or simply bad leadership at the meeting (from the PM?).

I think an energized group in attendance for the first time in a long time is what was the "last straw," so to speak, from the PM who didn't want her boat rocked. My guess is that the PM thought she could just render Ruth impotent and deal with her by working the board members. She obviously didn't expect there to be homeowner involvement/interest to deal with, on top of that meddling Ruth.

But that's just my "spidey senses" at work there!

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

CORRECTION:

By the way, it's my understanding that her board meetings have always been "open" to the homeowners [not board members], with the first half of the meeting dedicated to "dialog" between them. It's apparently only in recent years (the last 5?) that attendance has dropped off due to either boredom, lack of interest, or simply bad leadership at the meeting (from the PM?).

JonD1
Posts: 2,350

Posted:

One thought for those feeling the PM needs to go.

You have a group of Board members unable or unwilling to control or lead the property and PM. They have passed off all their authority willingly.

So now we decide to replace the PM who or what group will now establish the "new" rules of operation? Who will set the guidelines under which this property and their PM will now operate.

You would be asking people to do something they have shown to be incapable of doing.

You have to fix the root cause not the consequenses of the Board failing to do their job.

As to open meetings. Ruth has 5-6 owners attending their meetings each month out of more than 100 units. I would suggest their participation does little in the way of improving the work of the Board. In order for a Board to successfuly do their job DOES NOT require everyone to have the opportunity to express their opinion. By all means when required by law you can do so but then you might spend your entire meeting discussing the dog that is allowed to live on the property as in Ruth's case.

The Board is elected and given the authority to manage the operations of the property. You either can lead the property or take time to double check with each and every owner as to THEIR opinions and viewpoints. This process would be to slow and unproductive for me.

If you want to be involved then run for the Board. But in some cases people with all sorts of ideas don't have the interest to do the job but are more than willing to micro-manage those that do.

Something needs to be done we can either talk about it endlessly or do something about it. I prefer doing something.

Streamline the process don't expand it.

SteveM9 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 3,699

Posted:

Post this on the door of your next meeting. Just in case.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

But Jon, Ruth was trying to "do something."

And she got denigrated for it.

Plus, I'm not necessarily saying ditch the PM. But, the fact is, even if they ditch the current PM, the management company has already said they would provide a different PM.

This PM is clearly not PM Gold.

No one is saying 86 the management company, only the PM.

Now, this comment: "As to open meetings. Ruth has 5-6 owners attending their meetings each month out of more than 100 units. I would suggest their participation does little in the way of improving the work of the Board."

So?

They (the homeowners) are (have not historically) been "involved" in the board meetings.

I read her description to mean they pretty much just had a dialog with them the first part of the meeting. Doesn't sound too disruptive to me, even if only 5-6 show up.

But that was her point, the meetings used to be better attended...meaning, to me, more than the 5-6 that showed up in recent past.

But because the meetings really are boring (even for those of us who are on the board sometimes!), the membership stopped coming.

Listen, I have no skin in the game re: open/closed meetings.

We do not have an open meeting requirement/statute here in KY.

Our board meetings have been closed from day one. But we have quarterly all-member meetings (some years, fewer) and have one mandated homeowner meeting annually.

We (the board) just want to get in, get it done, and get home when it comes to the monthly board meetings.

Which is why we also hold the "all member" meetings a few times a year. This gives us the opportunity to hear from the membership (what membership participates!), and gives us an opportunity to communicate some things that are coming down the pike.

As long as members get the sense that the board is not a "ruling class," that it works with and for the membership, and that it listens, then we figure we're doing a decent job.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Jon,

To comment on your last response to Ruth. What you don't seem to understand is that Ruth did not have the support of any other board members when she was first elected to the BOD. There was no way she could propose, much less make, any sweeping changes in the modus operandi -- pretty hard to do with only one vote! Our advice to her was to go slow; this is what she's been doing and she has made a lot of progress. Now she has the support of at least 2 other board members. Once she and her supporters represent a quorum, perhaps they can begin to make the sweeping changes you (and she) think necessary.

Frankly, I think many of the board members need to go along with the PM. It's a toss up as to who should go first.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

It's apparent that Jon is not a fan of open board meetings. He thinks members shouldn't have the right to attend, much less say anything because it's the board's job to run the assn. He also thinks that by allowing members to attend means the board ". . .might spend your entire meeting discussing the dog that is allowed to live o the property. . ." That would only happen if the Pres can't exercise control of the meeting meaning the same thing could happen with only board members present.

I happen to live in a state with an open meeting law which, in fact, goes so far as to require any member in attendance to have the ability to speak to any issue before the board votes. There are 1,702 members in my assn and if even 1 attends a monthly board meeting we're lucky. And, even when a member(s) does attend they usually only stay long enough to discuss the issue that brought them to the meeting. Last month one member attended and she stayed until the BOD adjourned into executive session. That's a rareity, even though the Pres always tells them they are welcome to stay. The board meetings at my former assn (49 homes) were usually attended by 6-8 members. Because we were a small assn we allowed anyone present to speak whenever they felt like it. I don't recall a board meeting ever dragging on and on because the members wanted to speak. All public body meetings are open; I see no reason why board meetings of a private HOA can't be also. In fact, the members of the HOA should have that right as they have even more vested in their HOA than a citizen may have in their city or school district. Remember, an HOA has the power to foreclose on your home!!!

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Michele,
I have no intention to be critical and I am certainly guilty of this issue and many others. But this open Board meeting thing deserves an impartial comment. We (in general) talk about the Board does not need micro-managing of their efforts to do the associations business. We hear the Board cannot get their job done with homeowners attending Board meetings. Yet, two many folks at a board meeting is never an issue by a poster. We have had many complaints about a single disruptive person and discussed ways to control the meeting and again we refer back to micromanaging.
With Ruth's case the PM should be gone. What seems to be stumbling block is the number of separate associations within a big association or something like that. She still should be gone, the C/M suspect.

So we take all this stuff and try to micromanage it. You, I, Jon and many others are really micromanaging it. A bad thing the board says, but like here the Board has the option of disregarding any of it. If we had a referee on this site, maybe they would say to us, "don't micro-manage". Our efforts on Ruth's behalf is full of Micromanaging and in this case, at least, micromanaging can have some attributes, among them is the OP don't have to do it, what ever "it" is at the moment.

That is why, in part, I posted earlier how review of the situation is a helpful post, it cuts out some of the micromanaging.
I just hope Ruth doesn't go done the same path as before, I suspect she won't, and as good as they can be, a job as PM is not a lifetime contract. In my work life, I was never on a even keel as far as production, more full of ups and down than one long period of sameness.

RuthF1 (Washington)
Posts: 117

Posted:

Steve I am going to download that picture and bring it to the next meeting (laughing).

Things are moving forward in a VERY positive way. We are going to have a meeting this week to discuss the unprofessional behavior of the PM (not suggested by me (grin). Three of us have already determined there needs to be a change but we want the other two to have a say.

Again, I have already spoken with the Management Company and they are willing to talk about changing our agent/PM. It is just getting a consensus from the board (which I now have) to make it happen. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but that PM is gone! We want to keep the management company because they are one of the largest and we don’t believe they really know what is going on.

Things are moving forward faster than I thought they would. Some of the BODs realized that night could have ended badly and the PM by fueling the fire put us all at risk. They have had a few days to digest the entire thing and as I keep hearing "have had their eyes open."

RuthF1 (Washington)
Posts: 117

Posted:

Yep on all accounts. Meetings have ALWAYS been open.

The PM has done this in the past with owners who just slink away to lick their wounds. I finally decided to grab my shield and stand firm. She did not expect that and to this writing still thinks she has "won?" if there is anything to win.

We are going to take it slow so we can deesculate the drama that went on last Thursday. But we are not backing down this time. The other 2 BODs realize you have to take a side. You can't want things to change and do nothing about it.

I asked the BODs to write down what they saw without talking to each other. This way you have 3 different and honest views of what happened. I am a big one on documentation. I did talk to one of the Owners of the Management company to let her know what went on. Again, the PM was the one who was out of control. And as one BOD stated put us in danger. If she had either stopped yelling or removed herself from the situation everything would have been fine.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Ruth, sounds good.

Just keep in mind, if you have 2 board members who are not in agreement with you at this moment, you do not have consensus.

Remember, a consensus is an agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole.

You may ultimately have consensus after the meeting this week, meaning the other 2, for whatever reasons, agree that the PM needs to be swapped out.

But until then, all you have is a slim majority.

At this point, until the other 2, or at least 1 more, sign on to your direction, then it is still touch-and-go.

Reaching consensus is important, though it's not always needed. You may be able to move forward with 3, depending on WHO those 3 are, and how committed to the decision they are.

That's why building consensus is generally better, since the judgment or opinion reached by the group as a whole is one that they all can buy-into or support, for whatever individual reason they may have for doing so.

At the first road block, or bump in the road, your 3 may scatter like cockroaches.

Just sayin', don't presume anything until you're holding it in your hand.

RuthF1 (Washington)
Posts: 117

Posted:

And there lies the rub. I am not making any moves until 4 of the 5 are in TOTAL agreement. Like they say "it is time to pick a side" and stick with it.

KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665

Posted:

I don't know that I would wait for four of five to be in total agreement. I would suggest that you wait until you have at least a majority in total agreement. And work to warm up at least one additional. It is at least a possibility that the Board needs to experience a turnover. There have been other cases of Board slowly forgetting what it is all about.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here