Removing a board member

Started by NancyM2 • 33 replies • 9013 views

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

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

NancyM2 (California)
Posts: 249

Posted:

Dear Freinds at HOATalk

Last May we had a spirited election with two new board members elected to our board of five members.

They were elected because they promised to ask some tough questions about excess spending and possibly reducing our monthly dues.

This was not popular with the existing board members (three) of them ~ They have so far refused to answer any of those tough questions.

Now there is a rumble they want to remove one of the newly elected board member's as they don't like what she has been doing or asking.

If the homeowners elect a board member ~ Who can remove them ?? Can members of the existing board (three) of them remove a board member ?? without the people say in it??

If so , on what grounds can they be removed?

NancyM2

DanielH1 (California)
Posts: 482

Posted:

It depends on on your Bylaws and CC&Rs but, yes, generally, a simple majority vote of the Board can remove one (or more) Board Member. Afterwards, the majority of the Board can vote to appoint whomever they choose.

If you want to get rid of them, you'll have to hold a special meeting (or wait for a regular meeting) where you can vote to replace the existing problem Board Members with new Board Members.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By NancyM2 on 02/01/2010 11:10 AM

If the homeowners elect a board member ~ Who can remove them ?? Can members of the existing board (three) of them remove a board member ?? without the people say in it??

If so , on what grounds can they be removed?

NancyM2

It depends.

You have to look at your HOAs governing documents regarding who can recall a board member and the grounds stated therein.

Then you would also have to look at any state laws California might have to address the issue.

In some HOAs in some states, the board can remove officers from their officer position, with our without "cause," but cannot remove them from the board.

In some HOAs in some states, the board can also remove board members (directors) from the board, with or without "cause."

In some HOAs in some states, only the general membership can remove board members or officers, with our without "cause."

There is no "one-size-fits-all" policy/procedure/guideline for this question.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Nancy,

There may be some HOAs where the BOD may remove a board member from the board but, frankly, I've never heard of it. Usually a board member can only be removed from the board by the membership; however, the BOD may remove an officer from his/her position on the board. Your bylaws should state the procedure that is required to be followed to remove a board member from the board.

Normally a board member can be removed with or without cause.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

Nancy,

As I read CA law (and I am no expert in it), the Board may only remove a Director for very specific reasons:

Directors may remove fellow directors from the board under the following conditions:

1. For Cause. The board may declare vacant the office of a director who has been declared of unsound mind by a final order of court, or convicted of a felony or, if at the time a director is elected, the bylaws provide that a director may be removed for missing a specified number of board meetings. Corp. Code §7221(a)

2. Disqualification. The board, by a majority vote, may declare vacant the office of any director who fails or ceases to meet any required qualification that was in effect at the beginning of that director's current term of office. Corp. Code §7221(b)

3. Appointed Directors. If the board appointed a director to fill an empty seat, the board can remove that director with or without cause:

Unless otherwise provided in the articles or bylaws at the time of designation, any director so designated may be removed without cause by the designating person or persons. Corp. Code §7222(f)(1)

Replacement of any director removed by the board, must be in accordance with the association's bylaws. Normally, this is by appointment by the remaining directors but some bylaws may require a special election.

However, the Board may call a special meeting of the membership for the sole purpose of removing the member from the Board. The Board would present their reasons why, the member would be able to respond, questions asked by the membership and finally, a vote would be taken at the meeting and the decision would be made.

Tim

MichaelT6 (California)
Posts: 46

Posted:

"However, the Board may call a special meeting of the membership for the sole purpose of removing the member from the Board. The Board would present their reasons why, the member would be able to respond, questions asked by the membership and finally, a vote would be taken at the meeting and the decision would be made."

Provided, of course, the quorum is reached, isn't it?

Also, what kind of vote that will be - by a ballot? In CA ballots are required to be mailed 30 days prior to the election.

Our HOA is in the middle of its first election in 6 years. During the last 6 years all board members got elected by acclamation - without elections. Now, when we have an actual election, we expect a problem with a quorum - there might be not enough ballots received, the elections will be postponed until the next HOA meeting, and so on.

If that's the process for removing a board member, it's not that easy at all. To get elected - by acclamation, to get removed - by vote. Interesting.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Michael,

To be elected by accalamation also requires a quorum. The quorum is required in order to conduct the meeting. If there is no quorum, there cannot be a meeting. For the last 6 years, the BOD did not have to be elected by accalamation. If there was no quorum to hold a meeting, but no other candidates, they could just remain in office because there was no one else to fill their seats. AZ state law states a board member shall remain in office until replaced.

To remove a board member would most likely require a special meeting, the quorum for which may be higher than a regular member's meeting. Check your gov docs for a special meeting, the quorum requirements for member meetings and the process required to recall a board member.

MichaelT6 (California)
Posts: 46

Posted:

Mary, in our HOA board members have been elected/re-elected on the annual meetings. The CC&Rs/bylaws require to hold an annual meeting, so the management makes sure the quorum is reached by proxies. These proxies are blank, their sole purpose is to guarantee the quorum. Therefore, those who want to be on the board - they don't have to do ANYTHING at all, just raise their hand at the meeting. With the lack of interest from other homeowners in the past 6 years, all board members were "elected" by acclamation.

Now, to remove a board member by a special meeting the proxies are not blank - they are essentially ballots. Not only the quorum (by # of ballots submitted) should be met, the board should make a substantial effort explaining the members (not during the meeting, but prior to ballots being even mailed) why a board member should be removed. This was my point: there is too little effort by a candidate to get elected (quietly, by acclamation), there is too much effort by the board to get someone removed. It's not that easy at all as Tim suggeted:

"The Board would present their reasons why, the member would be able to respond, questions asked by the membership and finally, a vote would be taken at the meeting and the decision would be made."

Not even remotely close - very very far from it.

Michael.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Michael,

In AZ a petition is required to remove a board member. The petition should state the reason for the removal. The size of the HOA determines how many signatures are required on the petition. So a good many members know why the board member is up for removal however, I do agree the reason should definitely be made known to the membership b/4 the special meeting.

The fact that your assn has elected board members by acclamation so many times is an indication of a lack of interest in running for the board. Frankly, if there are 2 vacancies and only 2 members running there is really no need to cast ballots -- electing by acclamation is the most efficient way to go. I get the feeling you think there is something wrong with electing board members in this manner -- I assure you, there isn't.

MichaelT6 (California)
Posts: 46

Posted:

"Frankly, if there are 2 vacancies and only 2 members running there is really no need to cast ballots -- electing by acclamation is the most efficient way to go. I get the feeling you think there is something wrong with electing board members in this manner -- I assure you, there isn't."

Mary, I couldn't disagree more.

I will give you an example. In our HOA there have been pretty numerous discussions on the forum where residents criticized the board (there is a lawsuit involved that I don't want to get into details). This was during the election time, and despite all this criticism nobody wanted to run for the board. Sounds very typical: people have families, people are busy with their lives (so-called "do-nothings" as Daniel had put it). So the president ran unopposed, and obviously got elected by acclamation. In his letter to the residents he thanked everybody, and - this really touched me the most - said this was a clear indication that homeowners do support the course that the board had chosen.

I can assure you, Mary, had the president ran against a ficus, he would have not written that.

Here is more about ficus electiion in April 2000:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0426-09.htm

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MichaelT6 on 02/04/2010 12:04 PM
In our HOA there have been pretty numerous discussions on the forum where residents criticized the board (there is a lawsuit involved that I don't want to get into details).

Here we go again.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Michael,

Frankly, I don't see your point. Since there was no opposition, if there had been an actual election, wouldn't he still have been elected?. In most (if not all) assn's the only requirement to get elected is to attain the most votes. I know of no HOAs that require a certain % of the votes to be elected. Perhaps yours is the exception??? Tell me what the point is to require the members to cast ballots if only one person is running for one open seat?

Regarding the "ficus" story,all I can say is that some people have way too much time on their hands!

KarlA1 (Florida)
Posts: 84

Posted:

I don't see the reason to be a board member to ask these questions, which are obviously of financial nature. As far as I have found out, most states, if not all of them require the books to be accessible for every H/O in reasonable time or times.

Which means even a H/O can request to be able to look into the books at any time and the board of directors has to grant access to said documents. If the board refuses or does not provide requested documentation, you should report your board to the state authorities. This sounds very much like fraud to me.

Cheers
Karl

MichaelT6 (California)
Posts: 46

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MaryA1 on 02/05/2010 1:42 PM
Michael,

Frankly, I don't see your point. Since there was no opposition, if there had been an actual election, wouldn't he still have been elected?. In most (if not all) assn's the only requirement to get elected is to attain the most votes. I know of no HOAs that require a certain % of the votes to be elected. Perhaps yours is the exception??? Tell me what the point is to require the members to cast ballots if only one person is running for one open seat?

Regarding the "ficus" story,all I can say is that some people have way too much time on their hands!

Mary, the point is that someone elected by acclamation can not claim he has the support of the homeowners. The homeowners voted neither for him, nor for "None of the above" - they did not vote at all.

Sorry you didn't like the ficus story - I think it makes this point great.

MichaelT6 (California)
Posts: 46

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MicheleD on 02/04/2010 6:49 PM

Here we go again.

I know, Michele, I know... These lazy "do-nothings" (so-called homeowners) just don't have anything better to do than to criticize the board, let me tell you... They just don't get it: the board is ALWAYS right.

Lord bless the board!

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

Mary,

To try and answer your question I will give an extreme example.

Facts to be used in the example:

20 members in good standing all cast ballots

As you said, to be elected usually only requires a simple majority of the votes cast.

Current President is running unopposed.

Write-in candidates are allowed

Even though no member ran against the current president, there are strong feelings within the membership against the President.

Only one Director position is open for election

Ballots are cast as follows:

President votes for themself

5 members have second thoughts and write in their own name

10 people abstain

The four board members think it will be a funny joke and all vote for there neighbor Jane who did not volunteer to run.

In the example above, Jane would have to be asked if she wanted the job because she had the majority of the votes cast.

If Jane turns the job down, there is then a six way tie for everyone else who got one vote.

Granted, the above example is the extreme and will probably never happen. However, there are disgruntled voters who make a protest vote by casting for a write-in candidate. I know for a fact that in the 60's Archie Bunker received votes during various elections. Using the example from Michael, if there were enough protest votes, at least the existing president would have gotten the message that there is disgruntlement in the membership.

This is why, in my opinion, a written ballot should always be cast.
Additionally, some State laws require secret ballots.

Tim

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Tim,

If there are write-in candidates then, I agree, there should not be a motion made to elect by acclamation. Otherwise, I don't see a problem.

I agree, your scenario is a bit far-fetched!

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Michael,

If that's your only reason for not liking an election by acclamation, all I can say is -- get over it, it's not worth worrying about.

MichaelT6 (California)
Posts: 46

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MaryA1 on 02/05/2010 2:47 PM
Michael,

If that's your only reason for not liking an election by acclamation, all I can say is -- get over it, it's not worth worrying about.

Mary,

"election by acclamation" - this is a fundamental concept of HOA model.

HOA is a business, the board is needed to run it as a business. The interests of the association are first, not the homeowners. Election in HOA model is a major flaw. Uneducated homeowners (and troublemakers especially) might elect someone based on their interests, not the association. The solution for this is either to allow the candidates present their business qualifications ONLY, or - much better - make election by acclamation. The first one is very hard to achieve, the homeowners (those troublemakers especially) would start asking candidates questions, and end up voting for those who would represent them. In other words, HOA might get shoehorned into a government, with representation, accountability, transparency, etc. - things HOA model is not designed for, and, of course, the attorney wouldn't like as well.

Acclamation, acclamation, acclamation - everything should be done for its sake. Again, this is a fundamental concept. This is not about me liking it or not.

Unlike the story with the ficus, elections with unopposed candidates in HOA are very wide-spread. In fact, it's the opposite - actual HOA elections are very rare.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 1,767

Posted:

Mary

If a Board appoints 3 new members (not elected) until the Annual Meeting and Elections and no one steps up and runs against them, I have no problem. I do have a problem, as others do, that if a 4th person ran against them and they we retained by acclamation because quorum wasn't met. even though the 4th person had 3 times more votes than the others of the ballots than were cast (if their number is correct). Then they block any attempt to reduce quorum requirement through a vote of the membership by having their attorney block usage of special meetings and proxies.

The way our current works is that anyone trying to get elected to the board has to do all the work to get enough owners to vote by mail or proxy, while the three board member sit back and relax knowing that 2 or the 3 jobs are safe if quorum is reached or all 3 if quorum is not reached. I think that is 100% fair and not worth worrying about.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Richard,

In the case of your HOA, the problem is not in electing by acclamation, it's that you have an errant board that doesn't run the assn properly. First of all, because there wasn't a quorum there couldn't be a vote by acclamation. IMO, what really happened was that the 3 board members kept their seats simply because there wasn't a quorum which precluded an election from taking place -- there was no vote by acclamation. I agree they should have rescheduled. Sounds like you should be working on a recall!!

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Michael,

I agree elections in "some" assn's do leave a lot to be desired.

I don't understand your statement: "The solution for this is either to allow the candidates present their business qualifications ONLY, or - much better - make election by acclamation." Exactly what are you saying? Acclamation can only occur when there are NOT more candidates than positions open.

It's apparant you are not a fan of HOAs. It's a shame you bought into one run by a BOD that certainly doesn't appear to be a poster child for how HOAs should be run. Not all assn's are run like yours and not all HOA elections are flawed.

MichaelT6 (California)
Posts: 46

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MaryA1 on 02/06/2010 6:35 PM
Michael,

I agree elections in "some" assn's do leave a lot to be desired.

I don't understand your statement: "The solution for this is either to allow the candidates present their business qualifications ONLY, or - much better - make election by acclamation." Exactly what are you saying? Acclamation can only occur when there are NOT more candidates than positions open.

Mary, what I meant is that the HOA elections are either:

1) with more candidates than than positions open. In that case the candidates should be allowed to run solely based on their business qualification - nothing else. Promises to represent interests of the homeowners (in ANY way) should be strictly prohibited. A candidate can not walk door to door asking neighbors to vote for him/her because he/she would do something for them (e.g. interpret governing documents differently).

2) with not more candidates than positions open. This is the preferred scenario because it eliminates the restrictions on the candidates I mentioned in 1). These restrictions are very hard to enforce, they are nowhere in CC&Rs, they probably even unconstitutional, they violate freedom of speech, etc. Therefore, elections by acclamation is practically mandatory - this is what HOA is based upon: make the position of a director to be as less desirable as possible. Who would want a job without pay, attend every monthly meeting, be obligated to enforce restrictions on your neighbors, etc., etc. - very very few people would agree to do that. That's why "election by acclamation" concept works so well. Most people are like you, Marry - they think "election by acclamation" is just a convenience - without realizing that this is the actual HOA foundation.

" It's apparant you are not a fan of HOAs. It's a shame you bought into one run by a BOD that certainly doesn't appear to be a poster child for how HOAs should be run. "

Oh no, Mary - my HOA is perfect. From the prospective of what HOA is meant to be - mine IS a poster child for how HOA should be run. There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. As a business my HOA gets A+ from me.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Michael,

I do believe you have somewhat of a warped view of HOAs. To say that election by acclamation is ". . .the actual HOA foundation," is simply not true. In my assn most years there are only enough candidates for the positions open; however we have never had an election by acclamation. Mail-in ballots are a requirement (in fact now a state requirement) so casting of ballots must take place. If what you say is true then how would voting by acclamation take place? I believe the only time this happens is when the majority of the actual voting takes place at the meeting. The Pres may call for a motion to elect by acclamation; or he may not. In my former assn (b/4 the state law was passed) this happened a few times but not every time. Just because this has happened most of the time in your assn doesn't mean it's the norm for all assn's. That may be your basic problem; you think what happens in your assn is what happens in all assn's -- believe me, that isn't true.

I also do believe your last statement was made tongue in cheek!

MichaelT6 (California)
Posts: 46

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MaryA1 on 02/07/2010 10:05 AM
In my assn most years there are only enough candidates for the positions open; however we have never had an election by acclamation.

It seems to me the word "acclamation" confuses you. "Election by acclamation" - this is the term I used. If you are confused with it, here are some clarifications for you:

"Election by acclamation" = "elections with unopposed candidates" = "elections when homeowners do not vote" = "elections when the votes of the homeowners do not matter" - did you catch my drift?

"In my assn most years there are only enough candidates for the positions open" - did you mean the candidates were unopposed, the homeowners could not choose and their vote did not matter? I thought it's only in the HOAs where I have lived, definitely not in AZ ! ;-)

"Mail-in ballots are a requirement (in fact now a state requirement) so casting of ballots must take place."

So how does it work? Are you required to vote even if the number of candidates is equal to (or less than) the number of board positions open? In the last case - will your vote even matter (or the election is just a formality to comply with the state law)? Can you vote for "None of the above" ?

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Michael,

I certainly am not confused by the term "acclamation". Simply stated it means a vote by voice. Legislators (state and federal) do it all the time so how can it be wrong!! Look it up in Robert's Rules of Order, you'll find it's an accepted form of voting when the candidates are unopposed (only one person running for one open seat). You're the one who is confused by saying it's "elections when the votes of the homeowners do not matter". I asked if your bylaws require a candidate to obtain a certain % of the votes to be elected but you have not answered. That would be one time when election by acclamation may not be used, the other time would be if there were opposing candidates. This procedure is used ONLY to prevent not having to go through the process of casting and counting the votes because the outcome would be the same -- the members on the slate will be elected. If any member present does not want to vote for the candidate(s) he can say "nay" when the members are asked to accept the slate by acclamation. How you can say it means the members' votes don't count when the members are voting (albeit a voice vote)whether or not to accept the candidate(s).

But, I do see where you're going. By voting by acclamation you feel your vote doesn't count; but that is NOT the reason to have a vote by acclamation. It's only to save time by not having to vote then count all the votes. You should quit trying to make mountains out of molehills. I know you have problems with your BOD but it doesn't do you or anyone else any good to pick apart every little thing they do. IMO, this is what you are doing by not accepting their decision to elect by acclamation when there are only enough candidates to fill the open seats. But don't feel alone, this is what many HOA members do when they have a dislike for the BOD -- no matter what the BOD does, it's wrong! That is a very unhealthy attitude to have.

Regarding the AX state law, yes we are required to vote even if the slate only contains candidates for the number of positions open. State law requires that ballots be mailed in; there is no vote taken at the annual meeting -- the ballots have already been counted. If you don't want to vote for any of the candidates you can choose not to send in your ballot or vote for "none of the above".

Now I think we should put this thread to rest. I'm not changing my opinion and I know that no matter what I say you won't be changing your. So, we should just agree to disagree. And, I'm not intending to be nasty, but I really do think you need an attitude check.

MichaelT6 (California)
Posts: 46

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MaryA1 on 02/08/2010 8:50 AM
I asked if your bylaws require a candidate to obtain a certain % of the votes to be elected but you have not answered.

There are no such requirements in our bylaws. I wonder where an HOA with such bylaws could possibly be - in AZ? You can get elected to the Congress with zero votes when you run unopposed (the ficus story) - why any HOA would put a restriction?

Quote:

I know you have problems with your BOD but it doesn't do you or anyone else any good to pick apart every little thing they do.

I wonder where did you get this from??? I told you plain and simple: I give A+ to the board at my HOA for how they run it as a business. Please quit making things up.

Quote:

IMO, this is what you are doing by not accepting their decision to elect by acclamation when there are only enough candidates to fill the open seats.

Mary, again you put everything upside down. I do accept all their decisions, I give them A+. Election by acclamation in our HOA is an automatic process, there are no decisions involved. Please quit making things up.

Quote:

But don't feel alone, this is what many HOA members do when they have a dislike for the BOD -- no matter what the BOD does, it's wrong! That is a very unhealthy attitude to have.

Here we go again, Mary - you just can't stop making things up, can you? Unhealthy attitude - what's next?

Quote:

Now I think we should put this thread to rest. I'm not changing my opinion and I know that no matter what I say you won't be changing your. So, we should just agree to disagree. And, I'm not intending to be nasty, but I really do think you need an attitude check.

I agree we should end it. We simply talk about two different things: I talk about unopposed elections being the foundation of HOAs, you talk about what the term "acclamation" means. Besides, you keep making things up and shifting the subject to my attitude.

DanielH1 (California)
Posts: 482

Posted:

Who's the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who argues with them?

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Michael,

I'm finished with you!

KennethM4 (California)
Posts: 2

Posted:

In California the CCR's would have to be checked on the removal of the board member.

We have a x president..on the board.. that wants the HOA to remove handicap parking spaces that are near his townhomes because they block his exits from his back gates and he wants the HOA to pay for them.
He also wants keys to the pool equipment area to set the temp of the pool to the satisfaction of him and his family at the HOA expense...along with the keys to the tool sheds so he can use the HOA materials to work on his private homes.

Can anyone tell me how to remove this person that is blatant about the abuse of his position....He runs the property with disreguard of sexual preference and race and feels the board can not do anything about it.

Is there a HOA attorney out there that can help with this?

JonD1
Posts: 2,350

Posted:

Why did you respond to a post nearly one year old?

Perhaps it would have been better to start a new post.

As to your question you remove them when they are up for elections. You work to get enough votes to replace them. How did this person get on the Board?

Were they voted into office?

As to the part about sexual orientation I don't understand what exactly you are speaking about perhaps some clarafication would help.

KennethM4 (California)
Posts: 2

Posted:

Sorry Jon...thought it would have been moved to the front of the line. Yes He was voted on....also sexual preference..he makes remarks of other board members on sexual preference and race.

JonD1
Posts: 2,350

Posted:

No reason to be sorry just better for you to get a response if people don't have to wade through all those old posts and comments.

If what you say is true sounds like perhaps you have a bully on the Board who may see the Board as a source for his benefit.

Where are the rest of the Board members? How about the rest of the owners?

As to his suggested comments about what someone does in their own bed well IMO that speaks more to his own character rather than anyone he might be speaking of.

Ignornace and stupidity is certainly not dead nor is it limited to property ownership outside an HOA.

I would ask where are you getting all this informaton? Do you serve on the Board?
If this person is as big an ____ as you suggest you can either show him the door by working to have him removed. My suggestion in an election. Or learn to deal with his behavior.

DanC6 (California)
Posts: 1

Posted:

I just found this website today - excellent. I hope folks check it on a regular basis!

Our problem is involving the removal of our Sectary from our Board. We must have the smallest board on here (3 members). I am the treasurer. The president and I have discussed in length removing the sectary from our board after one year of service (she has one remaining) and here are some of the reasons:

1) Failed to call into a scheduled board meeting and executive session (we do not have a lot of meetings to begin
with and all members agree to the dates months in advance).

2) Hangs up on conference calls when confronted/corrected.

3) Held up the budget on the evening it was to pass due to her concern that money had to be allotted for some flowers.

4) Does not have proper priorities. Her importance is on the wrong things.

5) Takes on assigned tasks (or ones she volunteers for) and does not complete or follow through (ex: Washtek, hatch on the roof, even calling her mother for the letter when I was working on the legal issue with E.D.C.O etc, etc)

6) A BIGGIE - Does not return calls or respond to emails in a timely manner especially in time sensitive or urgent matters. Leaves the ball for us to deal with.

7) She throws out obstacles with an almost intent to block issues from being completed. (ex. The most recent paving project she had nothing to do with that I spear-headed. She wanted to change the dates since it was to close to a holiday weekend.

8) Volunteered to do a newsletter each month and never continued.

9) NEVER has taken minutes at a meeting.

She is a liability more than an asset to our organization.

We are located in southern California. ANY ADVICE/EXPERIENCES WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED!!!!!
We have elections for new members next month and need to deal with removing the sectary asap.
We actually have several owners who are interested in serving and could get it up to 4 officers.

We do not know the laws in CA.

🎯 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