Annual Meeting Agenda

What ability do members have to discuss issues at an annual meeting in CA? Is there an open forum where issues can be brought up, or must issues be noticed as part of the meeting agenda (if so, how many days in advance of the annual meeting?).

Susan,

1363(e)of the Davis-Stirling Act says: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, notice of meetings of the members shall specify those matters the board intends to present for action by the members, but, except as otherwise provided by law, any proper matter may be presented at the meeting for action."

In view of the above, IMO, a member should have the authority to bring up any issue, whether it is to be voted on or not. An open forum at the beginning or the end of the meeting is the normal procedure for bringing up topics not included on the agenda.

That is the only reference to meetings of the members that I could find in the D-S Act; however you may want to check out the statute. All assn members and especially board members should be familiar with the laws of the state in which they live.

RobertG,
I expect the reason would be that if the Comments sections are listed as agenda items: the members would have some sense of when they can properly bring issues before the board. There also could be a real time issue, if the topic the member wants to comment on (new topic) comes up during the meeting, members know they can reopen the issue at the end of the meeting. Also, as a courtesy to members pressed for time (have to get to work) they know they can attend the meeting and get their comment considered at the beginning of the meeting, or arrive later and be heard at the end of the meeting.

Mary,
I don't recall any being mentioned on this site, which means nothing at all. I do imagine there are some HOA's that might do this. But in another thread where cai (and I am not defending them or passing judgment)was taken to task, I would speculate that cai endorses open comments sections at annual board meetings, am I wrong about this?

Richard,
In view of what has been posted here and we stick to annual members meeting, I think you are getting bad advice from the PM. Why would you ask the PM what you can present at your meetings? To hide your announcement and not utilize your web site or e-mail blasts to announce procedures and time and place of your annual meeting is suspect. Why would you want to do this, you have already conceded that you can't get a quorum, do you think that has something to do with it. If you hire a employee, do you expect them to do the minimum required or the maximum to do a good job.

Robert

Based on the numbers from 2006, there are at least 80,000 HOA's in the United States. I see about 20 individuals that post here on a regular basis, based on the number of their posts. I think in the back of your mind, you try and defend all the HOA's out there based on what you would do and what you believe is right or legal. That leave about 79,980 or so HOA's that may or may not be run correctly or run based on the agendas of either their BOD, PM or Leagl or all or part of all three.

I happen to be in the 79,980. Why do people go to the PM for anything and everything, because the BOD doesn't want to be bothered. If we send to the BOD through the PM we have no idea if it goes through. I happen to have the BOD's email addressees and have emailed them, NO RESPONSE. At our Annual Meeting in November, because quorum wasn't met, the BOD, PM and Legal canceled the meeting, the election and the right to adjourn to a new meeting with a reduced quorum as our governing docs allow. When I question the legality, they had the lawyer censure me. This board has violated the Open Meeting Act, violated what can be discussed in Executive Sessions, having a board member who is not a member, and the list goes on. We have 5 Boad members who have never been elected, they have all been appointed over time.

I called a Special Metting for Jan 18 to make changes to our By-Laws to reduced quorum requirements for elections and annual meetings. If that is successful, then the next step wouuld be to recall the board, seat a new board, fire the PM, fire the attorney and start the process of running an open HOA where if individuals don't feel they left their rights at the entrance to theikr property. I tried to get involved and it has been nothing short of a disater. No I see why others choose not to get involved.

What would be ideal is for long standing people on this post to somehow put something together on what a well run HOA looks like. Do a WebEx or Webinar for people to get together and discuss. I have a problem with Board Members who volunteer to get involved and do nothing to educate themselves, allow an outside agency to govern us and then when challenged hide behind a lawyer.

RichardP13,

We are one of those HOA's that really put our PM to work. It is NOT because we don't want to be "bothered". It is mainly because there are only 3 of us on the BOD and very little interest from other homeowners to help out or get involved. 3 people can only do so much! I keep an eagle eye on everything they do and demand prior approval for most decisions.

Our BOD normally prefers all correspondence outside of meetings to be made through the PM for record keeping and consistency, not because we are trying to run a closed HOA. I know some homeowners who do not attend the meetings may see it that way, but other than spending a bunch of extra time trying to "convince" people we are doing good, I am not sure what else we can do.

We do allow an open forum at the end of each meeting for people to express their opinions, debate issues, etc.

I am sure there are some poorly run HOA's, but on the other hand many of those "poorly run" HOA's are just the perception of some uninformed or disgruntled homeowners. IMO.

Robert

I would never imply that you or the others would even try and cover up other HOA's. I would say that more of you folks need to be running our HOA's. The HOA problem is a mess that probably never be cleaned up. What I think needs to be cleaned up is the number of HOA's out there and the size of them. But that's a topic for a diffent discussion.

RichardP,
Your topic for a different discussion has been broached on this site many times.
We seem to end up at the same point you have. The Problem is a mess and needs to be cleaned up. The simple answer to who benefits from all these HOA's is convoluted and amorphous. The answer seems, it depends. Branch out a little and ask is there a minimum number of units needed to form an HOA and a condo, again, results on the books seem to say, it depends. Sure the real critical changes has to be state, and even federal regulation, that puts us back to herding cats, how are you going to get the states together. Meanwhile, life goes on and people find this site and post here and through some higher power(I don't know what else would do it), for what it's worth this site does some good, actually on the wrong end of the stick. We would like to change or interest enough people that they will take an interest in their association because that is where the soldiers are to fight the here today battle.

Richard as I remember your posts on the aborted second meeting you had less then 30 out of 317 homes respond to the original meeting either in person or by ballot and I would assume that you required 159 to have the first meeting and would need 80 for the second. This is probably why the second meeting was cancelled rather than some nefarious scheme to prevent your election.

Are there malevolent BOD’s out there? Of course there are but they are the minority not the majority and if you read the HOA news feed most of the stories there are not about bad BOD’s but BOD’s who for whatever reason made a bad or stupid decision. Usually the complaints we get here about out of control or dictatorial Boards are from H/O’s who assumed that the CC&R’s didn’t really apply to them and are outraged to find out they do!

You have to remember that the BOD are unpaid volunteers and it is not unusual to use the PM as a buffer. If you’ve ever received a phone call in the middle of the night because someone is having plumbing problems or wants you to call the police because their neighbor is having a party or worse wants you to come over and deal with it, you’d understand.

Glen,

Exactly who determines that a second meeting can't take place, the BOD, the PM or the Attorney. Do you disregard your governing docs? Should be a closed shop? I know why the meeting was canceled and it had to do with keeping someone out, pure and simply. They perceive me as a threat, this is what I have been told by others.

I don't buy that unpiad volunteer nonsense. If they need a buffer, then step down and let the PM run the show. Most owners would not know the different. IMHO, many of these problems that BOD think they have are brought on by themselves by not being qualified to be in the position in the first place.

Robert please don’t put words in my mouth; I never said that: “you proclaim about nmembers not nunderstanding the Board because they are not a Board member.” Although that is undoubtedly true. I said I can understand a BOD using the PM as a buffer. While our BOD posts their numbers, I can understand a BOD member who is elderly or living alone choosing not to. As to my assertion that most of the postings are about H/O’s violating the CC&R’s and getting caught, perhaps you could point me to the posts of malevolent BOD’s out to subjugate the homeowners and Richard’s doesn’t count because he’s yet to prove his Board is evil.

Glen

You have the numbers correct, but the facts are a little off. Our BOD couldn't find their bottom with two hands and a flashlight. The attorney, with some bogus reason, canceled the meeting, not the BOD or PM. The attorney did so only after they knew I was already prepared to gather proxies for the next meeting. When I questioned the election to the BOD they had me censured. I made the case the attorney was wrong and what she did and its out there for all to see. I knew what the rules were, played by them and they changed at the last minute to suit themselves. I could just walk away from this as most people would, but this time I will stay and fight and see this through. If you want to see her letter I can send the link if you like. Let me know.

Glen,

There are other ways to handle this and I have chosen to do that. Filing a complaint does no good as she can just say that is the way she interpreted the law.

HB

Didn't say PM didn't know anything and I got 25 different individuals from attorneys to PM to verify not that I waa right but they were wrong. I spent a lot of time researching the issue and not just making an idol comment. I thought governing docs were there for a reason. Do a better job, Absolutely!! I guess you have to see it first hand.

HB

I will let you take a guess at the question. I have attached our By-Laws for you to read. The information on elections in in Section 5. We have 317 homes and for argument sake all are in good standing. 39 ballots were received, which didn't make quorum. Including the BOD, there were 21 members present at the annual meeting. According to Davis-Stirling, governing docs prevail.

If you were a BOD, would you have allowed a second meeting if the members present voted as such?

I can't attach the file. The website is http://mtnglen2.org/document/214188mountain_glen_ii_bylaws.pdf?4741

Apples and oranges.

Section 5.7 Quorum. The presence in person or by proxy of a majority of the total voting power
of the Association entitled to vote at any meeting shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of
business. The Members present at a duly called or held meeting at which a quorum is present may
continue to do business until adjournment, notwithstanding the withdrawal of enough voting power
to leave less than a quorum. In the event any meeting of Members cannot be held because a quorum
is not present, the Members present, either in person or by proxy, may adjourn the meeting to a time
not less than five (5) days nor more than thirty (30) days from the time of the original meeting date,
at which meeting the quorum requirement shall be twenty-five percent (25%) of the total voting
power of the Association; provided, however, if after adjournment a new date is fixed for the
adjourned meeting, notice of the time and place of the adjourned meeting shall be given to the
Members in the manner prescribed for regular meetings; provided further, that in the event the
quorum requirement becomes twenty-five percent (25%) of the total voting power of the
Association, then the only matters that may be voted upon at any meeting actually attended in person
or by proxy by one-third (113) or less of the voting power are matters of which notice of the general
nature of which was given in the notice of meeting.

All I see is members, members, members

Wow

Apples and Oranges. . . painting them with the same paintbrush doesn't make them the same entities.

Members in our HOA are those that are on the recorded grant deed. They also have to be in good standing as of election time. We do have a Board member that is not a member of the assoication. According to our docs, boad members must be members of association. All of our BOD have been appointed and not one elected. Good chance that will continue.

Robert,

What would you do? I've always started a process. I don't take having the BOD and PM send a lawyer after me because I questioned what they did at the election. At times I heard on this discussion board, if it ain't broken then why bother try to fix. On the surface it appears ok, but you open your eyes and educate yourself, you see problems that should be corrected, just because they should.

Here is a link to my website that has more of the detail if you care to read.

http://www.mountainglen2.org/newsupdate.html

Your website is very nice looking! I can see your point of view, but I also can see why the BOD would not want to call a second meeting. I interpret your documents to say that the BOD has the option to call a second meeting, but is not required to. I probably would not have done so either especially if I prepared the agenda for this meeting and reserved my personal time to handle association business. Calling a second meeting when not enough people showed up to the first would be last on my list of things to spend my time on . . .we have many other things to work on. Spending hours trying to convince people to get involved gets old fast.

I thought it a little odd that they would post the meeting notice at the pool. I really prefer mail. You would think mail would get more of a response, but we had ONE homeowner at our last meeting and we sent out notices almost 2 weeks in advance and then posted it on our neighborhood email.

This wasn't the first time we only had one homeowner show up out of 83 homes and it really has bothered me. I find it difficult to make decisions without some discussion with people present. I enjoy a healthy debate of the issues. I have had to learn to move forward with business and hope I am making the best decisions possible for our neighborhood and not dwell on the fact that only a few people show an interest.

HB,

Actually if you look at Section 5.7 which deal with the quorum it's the members present either in person or by proxy may adjourn to a new meeting. Remember, this is a member's meeting and the same language is in almost every HOA I have reviewed and I have reviewed better than 250 so far.

I have worked in Election Divisions for the City and County of Los Angeles and know how to get things done. Once I knew quorum was not going to be met, I drafted a proxy, ready for a second meeting, which I and others would have gotten. It was then, and only then, that the election was stopped. I realize I will not get everyone involved, but I believe I can double our attendance and participation within a few months. You have to give people a reason. I built the web site to hopefully give some transparency to what association goverance is. I know its just a start, but I believe change takes time and someone willing to make the effort.

Richard, after looking at the actual quorum section I find myself agreeing with the attorney. It says not less than five days nor more than thirty, however the D-S Act requires at least 30 days of balloting from the day the ballots are sent. If the BOD & PM by some Herculean effort managed to get the new election information in the mail the next day that would still mean that the earliest the second meeting could be held was in 31 days which is outside the boundaries set in the documents.

As I said before I applaud your efforts to get the quorum reduced and whether the H/O’s approve the measure next year you’ll know to get your proxies before the first meeting.

Glen,

Read the letter from the attorney. She says she canceled the meeting because the members would cast their ballot by mail were supposed to be at the meeting to vote to adjourn.

The link to the letter is attached. http://www.mountainglen2.org/Law%20File%2003243-001.pdf