Terms for Board Members > HOA Forum

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions

Subject: Terms for Board Members

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

LindaL

Posts:0

02/15/2006 11:25 AM
Our CC&R's state that board members have staggered terms. I don't have my documents in front of me but basically they aren't supposed to remain on the board for more than 2 or so years. However, basically the same people have been on our board for the past six years and every time somebody new wants on the board they find they are outnumbered and if they have different viewpoints aren't welcome. Consequently homeowners have even told me that they have given up and can't fight it. What good are these laws if the same people stay on the Board year after year? Linda

KathyS
(California)

Posts:142

02/15/2006 5:29 PM
Look at your docs again. Our docs say they aren't suppose to hold the same position for more than two years. Our prior Board stayed in office for ten years playing musical chairs. I have read a lot of governing documents from different homeowners associations in California. I think there must be some book out there that tells the lawyers to "write up the following" because they almost all say the same thing. The difference usually lies with the CC+R's and if it's a condo or single family association. The Board part usually reads the same.

LindaL

Posts:0

02/15/2006 5:37 PM
Will do and will post exactly what it says. Thanks. Linda

LindaL

Posts:0

02/15/2006 5:41 PM
I forgot... a new law in California takes effect next year and we will be required to hire an overseer to oversee the election and we will be "forced" to conform the the CC&Rs. There must a LOT of crooked elections for this law to have passed. Linda

KathyS
(California)

Posts:142

02/16/2006 12:28 AM
I could tell you all about illegal elections. The law goes into affect July 1 this year. CAI is fighting it. They want the date changed in order to give the Boards time to comply. There's probably more to it than we know. Seven months should be enough time from January 1st to figure out how to send out two envelopes instead of one.

LindaL

Posts:0

02/16/2006 12:31 AM
Why on earth would CAI fight this law???? Crazy. Linda

EdR
(Texas)

Posts:170

02/16/2006 8:50 AM
Once again, the CAI is for the MC. Last year, our MC opened all of the "secret, handwritten ballots" before the annual/election meeting. I was a director and officer at the time and I asked the agent of the MC at the board meeting, "where were these ballots opened". He stated, in front of a hundred people--they were opened here at the clubhouse! After retiring to the kitchen with four election judges chosen by he and the president (cahooters), and by the way we had never had election judges before but these four had been involved with the politics of overthrowing a board for the sake of one's husband who had been involved in a defamation campaign and couldn't get out of trouble--he returns to the room and states that he was mistaken, the ballots had been opened at his office earlier. I am sure he went out back and called his attorney from his cell phone. Anyway, when this years Minutes from that meeting were distributed--no mention of that "ballot" discussion (the agent prepares the Minutes), but other ridiculous stuff was recorded. This is what I am referring to about illegal elections, favoritism and cover-ups. These kinds of things have to stop and where do you go to get the ball rolling on this? EdR

LindaL

Posts:0

02/16/2006 8:55 AM
Now I get it; it explains what's going on in our association. What a mess. Linda

KathyS
(California)

Posts:142

02/16/2006 9:10 AM
Our last election, the manager refused to open proxies handed in by people who wanted to replace Board members. They only counted proxies they knew were in their favor, handed in by a woman on their side. Her proxies had been changed. If there was a vote for anyone but the sitting Board members, it was crossed out and remarked for the sitting Board. Despite the uproar from the members of the association at the meeting, the election stood. Present Board members were reelected.

MarnaR
(California)

Posts:27

02/16/2006 9:12 AM
Our community has also had its issues with shady elections. 3 years ago, a group of us ran on the promise of looking at removing the MC and getting a better one. I look back at that and am embarrassed at how naive we were. We found out some time later (from a board member who agreed that the MC needed to go) that the property manager and three of the board members had opened the ballots prior to the election and therefore knew how many votes they still needed to get to achieve quorum and win. The law taking effect in CA this year will insure that this won't happen, and I am THRILLED that it is in place. In my opinion, the MCs and thus CAI aren't because 1) it creates more work for the MCs which they can't charge more for until they renegotiate their contracts and 2) machinations like those listed in my post and the one above can no longer take place, which in some cases puts the MCs income in jeopardy. We still have a long way to go in CA, but it's encouraging to see that the spotlight is on the shady dealings.

EdR
(Texas)

Posts:170

02/16/2006 10:13 AM
Marna: This is exactly what is going on with the current MC. The reason the president wanted to keep them is that they provide donations and sponsorships to select interest groups that the president wanted them to. In defense of some employees of MCs, there were two employees--one was an agent for our HOA for a short time; he was apparently let go because he was too honest and helpful. In fact, the MC made up the story that he'd run off with his girlfriend to another city. I have contacted him and found out that was not true--he was fired for helping people like me on the board. He had revealed a lot of information to me that was true. For instance, one evening at a board meeting, I saw him with a gift bag and asked him what was the occasion he said, "its a thank-you from the swim team (ST)". I said "for what?" He said, "for the money we donated to them". I said "well, don't you think that's a conflict of interest and something that you should stay out of?". Well, you see--the ST never asked the Board for permission for the ST to use the pool for practice, meets, etc., in fact, they were asked to provide a copy of the insurance, roster and schedule and asked not to interfere with homeowners' use of the pool and facilities. They did none of this. In a sense, the ST should be thanking the homeowners for use of the pool (it's our pool) but they not only didn't ask permission, didn't thank, and didn't invite the board or an outsider of ST to the end of year big party bash--as though they owned the place. This guy (former agent) who told me all of this got in trouble for telling me about it; I was a director/officer for goodness sake's; why should I not know what was going on? Now the ST has taken over the board and the association. We exist for their sake; our pool was renovated at over $150K for their sake, our clubhouse is charged to us after two uses for their sake (their are 30% outsiders on the ST); our ELECTION is skewed for their sake; our landscaping is to showcase our pool for their sake. And of course you know who is paying for all of this---all of the rest of us! I know it's soapbox time again, but the current agent of the MC is running the show now and helping the board to allow this, and the rightdoers can't get hold of their assn. again. Could someone provide this forum with a copy of the ELECTION law you are talking about? I am anxious to see if we have this law in the works in TX. Would you believe we have a 9-member, staggered, 3-year term board--talk about impossible to deal with? EdR

MarnaR
(California)

Posts:27

02/16/2006 10:20 AM
Ed, What a nightmare!!! Here's a link for a site that not only has the entire Davis Stirling Act, but also a lot of useful information. They operate in frames, so I can't send the actual link to you easily. When their homepage opens up, the table on the left will take you to the Davis Stirling Act. You're looking for section 1363.03.

MarnaR
(California)

Posts:27

02/16/2006 10:20 AM
D'oh! Here's the actual link, sorry! http://www.davis-stirling.com/index.html

SharonD
(California)

Posts:39

02/17/2006 7:14 PM
We have the same propblem. Two men who are a "couple" are presdient and secretary on the board: 7 years later..they are still running the board.It was my understanding that if they own more than one property that got that # of votes for association items but not both getting two votes on the board. Right or wrong? I am the black sheep on the baord and have been trying to get this board in compliance for years. They attack me instead of complying...

RogerB
(Colorado)

Posts:3701

02/17/2006 8:19 PM
Do both men own two properties or each own a separate property? I don't know if it makes any difference but if they each own separate properties there is no question but that they each can vote. If the two properties are owned jointly and each member was independently elected to the Board then I still believe each is eligible to vote as they chose. Of course this would depend on your Bylaws. RogerB

Roger Borcherding Official HOATalk.com Sponsor DARCO Property Management (Colorado) (303) 925-0150 *See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Terms for Board Members