Local directors and outside directors

I think that since you know then it isn't a secret and if it isn't a secret then it probably isn't "illegal".

Well, since an HOA is a privately held corporation, and not a publicly held entity or government of any kind, I think the HOA by-laws can pretty much design board eligibility anyway it wants, within local and federal (if any) guidelines.

I know of no federal law that prohibits HOAs from allowing non-residents, non-owners, or non-members of the association from being on its board of directors.

Unless California has one (which I doubt), then there is nothing "illegal" about it, again, as long as the by-laws do not restrict eligibility to owners/members.

My own HOA allows for the election/appointment of non-HOA member directors.

We just don't have anyone who is not a resident or owner in our development in the least bit interested in piddling with our association. Why would anyone not a member want to be on an HOA board? It's boring and has no paid or compensatory benefits.

The only time we officially had non-members on the board was when the development was still under declarant control.

After that, we did have someone request once if they could run. It was a gentleman from a county council voting district adjacent to ours and he wanted to have on his "resume" that he was a board member somewhere! We were like, "Really?! You want to use being on OUR association board as an item on your political resume?!"

We couldn't stop him because he is eligible per our documents, but he didn't get any votes. That was about 8 years ago. I've yet to see his name on any local elections ballots, either. I guess you have to give him credit for creativity.

Anyway, I do have one more question about your initial post.

Your math is not making sense to me at all.

You say you have 5 local directors and 6 outside directors, which totals 11 directors by my Kentucky math.

Then you go on to say that means 6 directors that own property in a hoa and 7 that do not -- which adds up to 13 directors, total, again by my Kentucky math.

So. . . . do you have 11 directors, or 13?

By the way, you also mention that the directors (who do not own property) have full votes and do not pay assessments.

Well, that should not necessarily be an issue, except the non-members do seem to outnumber the members on your board, but then, your membership voted them in, right?

But my point is, the full votes they have are not votes that affect the covenants, and should only be votes that affect the administration of the association. The full membership should be the only votes eligible for things like amendments to the covenants, assessment increases over a certain percentage, etc. It would be a rare HOA that would allow for amendment changes and assessment increases (above a certain percentage) to be voted on solely by the board of directors and thereby anyone not in the corporation.

Hi michelle,

I forgot to mention re: full votes on assessments and amendments to the cc&rs and bylaws. Those changes the homeowner votes on and any major expenditures to the common areas are also voted on. full votes meaning any votes that the local director and outside director have is a vote.

Tom keeps saying the local government formed this association. That has to be addressed, is the local government involved in managing the association. Tom says he volunteers there............do what Tom? Who are the residents of this association? Are all owners or is this some kind of government subsidized operation or may a trust or some kind of endowment. If there was outside money used to keep the operation viable their could well be a government Board of some kind.
Be a little more transparent and describe the operation as you observe it to be, is the whole thing under a foreclosure order or any other kind of court control. Isd it licensed by the state, is it an HOA or condo?

Sorry, Tom, you are wrong. An HOA is not a government and has nothing to do with "democracy" per se. HOAs have been created for the sole reason to perform the administrative functions of the association. Period. "Fairness" "democracy" these have nothing to do with the creation of HOAs. Bills need to be paid. Common areas need to be maintained. Covenants need to be enforced. That is generally the sole function of an HOA.

An HOA is a private corporation, and it is GOVERNED by the documents that created it and to which the members agreed to when taking title of their homes.

In addition, the "outside directors" do not have the authority to raise or lower the assessments. In fact, none of the directors can raise the assessments higher than the minimum percentage prescribed in the controlling documents. Anything higher than that (in our HOA it's 25%) the entire membership votes on.

And in those cases, and on amendments, etc, the only directors that can vote on those items are the directors that are members.

The only items that directors vote on are administrative items that the board handles, such as selecting vendors, etc.

Glen is absolutely correct. The HOA may still be under declarant control. And I agree with him re: the extent of the "local government" involvement in setting up the HOA.

Robert, I'm thinking this guy is confused and has either bad information or information that he doesn't understand and is interpreting it in a way that he can understand it.

For all we know, the local government that was involved in setting it up may well be the Zoning Control Board in some fashion. I know that all developers in our area have to have all their development plans approved and developed in accordance with the local Zoning Board. Our city has a 20-year plan for residential and business development and certain restrictions AND requirements apply to both.

OK let’s try this again, while an HOA is technically a democracy (actually a representative democracy) it is not a government but is a corporation (usually non-profit) with all of the rights and responsibilities given to it by the State and its charter. Nor is it communism where the State controls all; everyone there chose to purchase there and be bound by the Covenants; they weren’t assigned a home and told that they must purchase it. They can sell and move away or even purchase another home in the same HOA. Not to climb too high on a political soapbox but you say: which sounds to me similar to communism, whereby goverment controls your daily lives in some fashion how pray tell is that any different that the government we currently have, except that we elect our political taskmasters and prefer the word regulate over control?

Tom since it is public knowledge that there is a mixture of public and private interests in the HOA I seriously doubt it is illegal. I would imagine that the newspapers and TV investigative journalists would be on the story like a duck on a June bug; not to mention the investigations by politicians out to make a name for themselves as a crusader. Again you need to read, actually physically read the charter to know what the purpose of this is; you have access to the controlling documents, we don’t. It could be the local government trying to prevent the collapse of a failed HOA rather than absorbing its problems or something else entirely like some form of government subsidized housing.

While I am fairly knowledgeable in HOA matters, I have not seen the Supreme Court rulings you referenced nor do I remember them being discussed here. If you would be so kind, could you please post the names of the decisions so that we all can become better informed? Also are you talking California Supreme Court or Federal Supreme Court?