Who is our Advocate?

Here's the deal with HOA once and for all. Homeowner's associations are really "Sales tools" for developers/builders. No one here can tell me that it did not sound "attractive" to hear that whatever happens in the community is shared and controlled amongst all the owners. The owner's will have control on how their community looks and is run. Plus, the owners can share in such amenities as pools, clubhouses, tennis courts, lawnmowing, or any kind of special services for a small monthly or yearly assessment. The assessment amount considerably MUCH MUCH lower than if you owned the amenity yourself. What better attraction was there to think that "Hey, I have a say in what my community does and I have to pay little to contribute and have amenities that I want".

Developers and builders do NOT and I repeat do NOT make money off of having a HOA. They want out of the HOA business as soon as the last nail is put up and the house is sold. Developers/builders do NOT make any money off of a HOA setup. If they did, do you think they would EVER turn it over to the homeowner's to run? Do you know of ANY developer/builder who has NOT promised to turn the community over to the owners in some type of time frame? They NEVER say they never will turn it over now do they? There is a reason for this.

Here's how the developer/builders make money. They make it from the INITIAL setup and development. For example: They buy a piece of property for $100K. They then break that up into 100 different lots. They sell those lots at $20-40K a piece doubling or tripling their initial investment. The owner may have the builder build a $100K house on that property. The builders real (materials) cost may only be $60-$80K to build that $100K house. (The additional costs are labor, financing, profit). An amenity like a swimming pool may cost only $20K to install. A clubhouse is only maybe $60K. Other amenities really aren't that expensive in the overall picture. IF the developer is already doubling his profit from the sale of the lots, he's not losing much by adding common amenities to the punch list of the community.

Management companies is the next hot topic. The initial MC is hired by the developer/builder to manage the project. The developer/builder need to hire someone to handle their money since they are busy handling the building. It's much like their accountant. When a developer/builder leave, they may allow the MC to get the contract with their assigned board members during the transition period. Just to help with the transition. MC's are contractual and will work with anyone willing to pay them to manage their funds. They work for the BOD and are paid from the HOA funds.

The MC relations with the owners is different than the one with the developer/builders. That's because many homeowner's don't understand or care to run their HOA. They depend on the MC to be responsible. That's when the trouble lies. The owner's forget or don't realize their MC is at their command and are paid to handle the duties they need them to handle. HOA BOD's are so inexperienced at running any type of business they they lose sight of what their purpose is. They then tend to lean on the people they see as the one's with the expertise. This is where MOST owner's frustrations lie. They don't realize that the HOA is really setup to be run and governed amongst themselves just like the Developer said it would. It's just the dependency on a MC can be soo great the big picture is lost.

A HOA truly is created to be run by the homeowners. It is "Majority rules". However, due to soo much owner apathy or distrust, this doesn't happen. Owner's don't understand that they do really govern themselves and that there really is no "they or them" in a HOA, but "Me and You". It all breaks down to neighbors relations. Although the sale pitch said you can have a say and vote in your community to control it, no one likes to be controlled. Especially, by your neighbors. Which is often the case of complaints about their HOA is with the neighbor's opinions. You can't possibly get 5 or more neighbors in a room that will absolutely agree with each other. It just so happens those 5 neighobors may be your board members with whom you voted to represent you on a daily routine in the HOA's business.

So stop blaming outside sources for your HOA's problems and issues. The problems and issues truly lie within. There are successful HOA's out there. That's because they know and understand it truly is a government amongst themselves. In a HOA, you really do sleep and eat in the place your mouth spreads the "do" at. So spread it nicely!

Developers receive monetary and tax incentives from municipalities to build things like storm water retention basins and dry wells that service city streets along with beatification tracts of land along city roadways that are maintained through HOA assessments. I'd bet that the majority of the HOA dollar overall is spent on things like this as opposed to real member amenities. Not to mention that CC&Rs lighten the load on city services like the code compliance division.

Really what HOAs are is a paradigm shift of financial responsibility initiated by government.

Dear Former HOA President:

Tell me, who wrote the documents that committed every homeowner to servitude? Certainly not the homeowners and once the Management companies, the Board of Directors, the HOA Attorney realize they are all powerful because of the documents, they will never change them (unless the change will benefit the Board, et al).

But you are right about one thing, they are called Homeowner Associations, but the emphasis is only on the homeowner when they are denied access to records or wish to speak.

Pat

Pat, you have it backwards. The manangement company, Board, and attornies have not vote when amending (changing) the documents. The "they" to whom you refer are only the members of the association, of which you may be one. So what are you doing about changing things you don't like? The Board and as desired, their authorized managing Agent and attorney, are responsible for enforcement of whatever are in the existing documents.

RogerB:

Where did I say anything about the Management company, the Board and the Attorney's having a vote?? Please reread carefully.

My point was (and you obviously have missed it) that those who have the POWER are the people who can change the documents and your first hint was it isn't the Homeowners.

And just like the others in POWER you have chosen to ATTACK rather than discuss the huge problems facing the homeowners and if vendors such as you continue to simply ignore or "talk down" to the homeowners this "flawed experiment" will eventually seek to exist.

You ask "so what are you doing about changing things you don't like?", well Roger...I have lived in my community for 13 years (by the way it wasn't disclosed that I signed an adhesion contract or that I lost the protection of my Homestead Exemption), I have served 3 years on my Board of Directors and during that time brought the Board back to "professionalism". I was responsible for 3 elections that changed 25 different sections of our documents....and every single change protected the homeowner. The homeowners overwhelming voted to pass ALL! Since I have left the Board NOT ONE single change has been introduced as is badly needed.

But let me ask you and Melissa one question....you both claim that the "homeowners" are the ones responsible to make the changes and I would agree that homeowners need to be more involved, if only to attend every meeting to be informed. The critical question is, HOW WOULD YOU SUGGEST THAT THE HOMEOWNERS CAN BRING ABOUT CHANGES TO THEIR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT A MUTINY WHEN IT IS THE BOARD WHO CONTROLS WHAT GOES ON THE BALLOT???? And I doubt the MUTINY would even work!

And NO, you have it wrong Roger....the "they" I refer to is the Board of Directors who are advised by the Management company who is advised by the HOA Attorney. See the ugly truth now.

Pat

A FORMER BOARD DIRECTOR AND VICE PRESIDENT

Melissa,

Whoa.

First “It's documents are to be created and controlled by the homeowners.” What the ? are you talking about? The documents are created by an attorney appointed/hired by the developer. The developer doesn’t give a good “you know what” about what the attorney’s opinion is on harmony for the development. He is just going to build some houses. The developer understands that he will install many utilities that relieves the burden of the city/county to do so, which he gains from. Plus it’s just easier while he’s there to control construction, scheduling, cost etc. It is highly unlikely that he realizes that, in some cases, it takes up to 90% of HOs to change the governing documents!

“Why keep changing documents?” Because like you said they need to be reviewed periodically. PatH4 appears to be aware of that fact or of the fact that the documents in place require/d revision for the life-style of the community. Where do you come up with “It's expensive and mostly unnecessary to change the HOA's documents every time a rule is violated that a minority of people may have violated.”? If an HO requests a change and the majority of the association votes for the change then it must be necessary or at least desirable/acceptable. If the majority of voters think it’s so important then they are/should be willing to pay filing fees, if necessary (it is not clear if we are talking about rule or CCR changes from the OP).

“The HOA is run by MAJORITY VOTE of members”. This has degrees of severity. This can take anywhere from 51% to 90%. In other words, it can be a “simple” a majority or an “overwhelming” majority depending how the attorney, who wrote the documents, was feeling the day s/he wrote them! However, what ever the voting requirement a change [vote] is no a minor fete to achieve.

No one ever mentioned “mutiny”. That’s all you girl.

“If the power was somewhere else in a HOA, it wouldn't be called a "Homeowner's Association" it would be called: "A group of people who got together to make my world a living "L" Association". You apparently haven’t read any of my posts because this is exactly what my BOD is called (and that’s not just my opinion) and you are just out of line. I am happy that not all BODs are like that but there are still too many! They think that getting elected to the HOA BOD gives them entitlement to run other people’s lives or force their own agenda. But it doesn’t. Manage the common areas and enforce the CCRs [protect property values]. That’s enough for a volunteer to do.

Pat served the BOD, seems to understand the rules and apparently since leaving the BOD sees that nothing else is being done to improve/protect values the community. It is called a homeowners association. And whether or not you understand the rules, are a first HO or BOD whatever . . . it is an association for the homeowners. Not an association for the BODs, the MCs or attorneys.

Whether or not your are an advocate for the HOs. The BOD responsibilities are to maintain common areas, if any, and enforce the CC&Rs/property value. Period.

If any one else wants to get back on track to the OPs original pose, I’m sure that would be appreciated.

Best regards.

This just in:

After 14 months of trying to get my fence issue resolved, 3 requests for mediation, answering their complaint, a motion to strike our preliminary defense, our request for discovery documents, answer to motion, a motion hearing scheduled for later this month, court ordered mediation and pre-trail settlement conference and a few thousand bucks later . . .

The BOD held a close session meeting to discuss the status and ideas to “overcome” [resolve] this law suit. They gave my husband a “courtesy heads-up” because he is on the BOD but asked him not to attend. However, NOW they would like to “talk” to us about reaching a win-win resolution. Whatever!

I also see that I have some words to eat about a "mutiny". Mmmm, yummy!

RogerB - It may "easier" but not always appropriate for the Board to initiate a proposed amendment. Please read and re-read this carefully:

IMHO it is never appropriate for the Board to initiate a proposed amendment unless the amendment pertains to an update of local, state, federal law and the Board feels it's best to formally recognize the amendment and get it written into the association documents and historical records. Perhaps some of you will think that a controversial opinion. It may be hard for some to imagine a Board that simply performs its fiduciary duty to budget, and govern according to the meat and potatoes of the by-laws, rather than spend time and money on fluff and drama. I'm not going to debate my opinion on and on. However I will say that a Board should exercise it's authority prudently since it, as a governing body, is at the front of the table, has a captive audience through election and dedication to volunteer, is elected by the people to represent the people, and not the special interests of a few who seek to amend. In my HOA, and COA, there are matters written right into the Homeowner's and Condominium Association By-Laws by the Developer's ATTORNEY (all caps for those who don't quite grasp the origin of the original HOA of which the developer is the Board in the beginning). Some of these matters in my HOA and COA are a change to voting rights, self-management, maintenance responsibilities of the common property, material changes to insurance coverage, etc. defined as those matters that require a percentage of eligible mortgage holders to amend.

The procedure, and reason for amendment proposals are important to me, more so than the vote/outcome. It is my belief that amendments proposed and or implemented on a board level, unless to comply with local, state, or federal guidelines/updates are only appropriate if it is proposed from the required percentage petition of unit owners to the Board as outlined in the governing documents in an association where it requires such. Meaning the means must justify the ends.

It is a contradiction when any group writes or believes they represent the best interests of the entire community, yet simultaneously make an agenda item for approval to amend that accommodates or make exceptions for a few. If during the course of a duly called open meeting there is an appeal to the Board to accomplish an amendment to the governing documents, than that would be an appropriate process to justify a discussion of an amendment. It seems that many matters in different associations throughout the country are on a different path of implementation that originated from the machinations a few.

RogerB - My post is not focusing about amendments of cc&r's. PatH4 wrote, "The critical question is, HOW WOULD YOU SUGGEST THAT THE HOMEOWNERS CAN BRING ABOUT CHANGES TO THEIR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT A MUTINY WHEN IT IS THE BOARD WHO CONTROLS WHAT GOES ON THE BALLOT????" Your response to her post was "It is easier for the Board to initiate a proposed amendment." However, changing the word from "may" to "shall" is a big deal. You're right, you don't know how many amendments I've been involved in getting passed, the relevance of your comment is to... what RogerB? Cast into doubt the validity of my post or Opinion (capital O for stress). To pacify your question, I was Board liaison to our ARC charged with the responsibility of developing a relaxed set of rules that will permit small scale condo owner landscape improvements (flower pots, approved plantings in approved locations, etc.) The source of the responsibility was from a request by unit owners to modify at a duly called open meeting of the community. In other words, the source was from the community, openly. I can speak with expertise that I am familiar with the process and implementation of amendments to benefit eligible mortgage holders and protect the assets and interests of the Association.

For a long time now I've worked with associations in amending their documents. In all cases, it was initiated by the boards. There were numerous reasons, too many to list here. But over the years, I've worked out a system that gets the job done with a minimum of legal expense and a pretty good shot at first-time passage (and in my state it usually takes at least 2/3 of all owners to approve a change, not just those in attendance at the meeting). The process worked like this:

Once retained, I would sit down with the association attorney and review which sections required amending to bring them into compliance with all current laws. This usually took about an hour. These would go into pile A. Tese were absolutely needed.

I would then meet with the board, or their designated committee and review with them those sections that they felt needed to be changed. These could range from out-of-date sections (i.e. many of the documents in our state that were drafted in the '70's or copied from them, specified that only automobiles could be parked in the association. Nobody anticipated SUV's, crossovers, nice pickups, etc.), to ones they just disliked. These went into pile B, either to be changed, or removed. These were considered "likely to be adopted".

If the group felt that new sections were needed, we would draft sample language and put them into pile C. These were the "who the hell knows until we talk to the owners" sections.

My part in this process was to ask questions about the need for this change, what kind of limits would be put into the language, etc. To get themto talk about whether or not we were dealing with a real issue or just something one of them thought "might be nice". We would also discuss how it would be enforced, since it didn't make any sense to propose something they had no intention of enforcing. You'd be surprised how many of these came up.

When this was done, we would draft a letter to the owners, outlining the process up to then, giving them the changes being considered, along with an explanation, and inviting them to comment on the ones in the document, or to propose additional changes they thought were needed. We usually gave them a month to do this.

When the time had passed, we would take the comments, additions etc. and put them into a new document and send it back out, along with the announcement that a meeting would be held to discuss them. This would be an informal meeting, no votes, just discussion and "straw polls". Based on the feedback, we would then decide whether to go through another round of communication and meeting or to move onto the final draft and vote. Based on these communications and meetings, decisions would be made as to which sections would be put to a vote. A third letter would then go out with this, letting the owners know the why's and wherefore's of the decisions, and letting those owner's know that if their recommendations had not been followed, it was because there didn't appear to be enough support for them. They were then given at least a month to round up that support through the petition process.

The attorney, reps from the board or committee, and I would then meet with the attorney again, to draft the final language, being careful not to mix up the "may's" and "shall's". This also took about an hour since we were careful in our drafting.

The next communication would be the notice of the formal meeting to vote on the proposed changes.

After the meeting, the attorney would file the approved changes and a revised set of documents would be delivered or sent to each owner.

The process isn't perfect, but in 20 years I've never had a proposed change rejected. We knew, by the time of the vote, what the owners wanted and what they wouldn't tolerate. As with everything, the key is communications. A long way around of saying that, done right, the board can, and should, be involved in the process of amending documents. After all, they're going to be responsible for dealing with them to a great extent.

Joe

MelissaP1 - Where do you come off saying something that is false as if you know it's true, laughably as if it comes from other points of view. I most certainly have held office, have been a board member, and am still very actively involved in my community as a volunteer. You are wrong and must apologize for your post. Just because you or others don't agree with my opinions, prefaced as opinions, does not invalidate them. Is it so hard for you to imagine a board member, or HOA resident holding opinons different than yours? You, who admittedly does not live in an HOA anymore? You by your own post above you do not post anything positive, instead falsehoods and character assasinations.

Maybe I was lucky in finding pretty good boards (after all they were smart enough to bring me in as a consultant to help, although they probably saved some legal fees), I think the proof is in the vote - if 2/3 didn't agree, it wouldn't have passed. The board often considers things owners don't, like how a bylaw is, or isn't enforced. Since they didn't write the originals, but now have to enforce them, I can see why a board would often be the faction pushing for change. Often they would be removing restrictions simply because they were badly written, or unenforceable or whose time had passed.

I guess since the board members are also owners (most of the time), I don't see why they should be excluded from having a good idea now and then just because they have the checkbook. Not all board member grow horns when they are elected. And they were elected to spend the money wisely, not keep the assessments low. Its not always furthering their agendas.

And I know that a lot of boards don't act as appropriately as we or some of the owner would like, but that's why this board is here

Joe

To all,
Has the question be asked: Many associations have been in existence for years and years. A good number have done nothing constructive about updating and changing the documents. Very few, it appears, have any political clout as an Organization. There seems to be renewed interest in thee power of these folks behind the association walls. Some states are indeed making changes. All of the above has to do with making "change".

The procedure for developing "Laws" of associations is flawed from the start. If not, we wouldn't have all this misunderstanding. The present system don't work and unless changes are made, we are going to lose all that talent that resides within the associations and their potential will be wasted. I understand there are associations that operate effeciently. My person exposure is that they all suffer to some degree because of their "Laws and Procedures". My gut feeling is if associations are operating smoothly and effeciently, they have to do it, in some part, outside the Documents, or change the documents. The process of electing the BOD allows for "throw the bums out" if they don't produce. Every asssociation has unique problems and no cookie cutter set of documents that were written to allow the developer to do what he wants is going to suffice, when he moves on. This bad tendency to accept the written word because it sounds offical and is written in lawyerease only leads to cconfusion and distrust. The BOD must be flexible enough to know their document problems and try to get them changed through the membership. They also have to be just in doing this. Accepting all that, one question is: who has dropped the ball since the establishment of the association?
After living 17 years in the same association and not, at this time particularly unhappy with the ways things are going, I have some blame to share, but, I have never heard a Board member admit to anything but doing a splendid job. If my observations are correct and we, as an oganization are still floundering around and mired in the difficulty or getting to the point of a well run and secure association, then, something is not working.

RobertR1,

I think that your post was "on point".. we do have "brain drain" of resources in HOA's as represented in all levels of legislature. There are some good (and bad) points about some of the "national" management companies, which lobby nationally and locally for legislation regarding community managed/based communities. Honestly, the practice is to go where the money is... and often that is not the community's forte - or even a allowed option (funds are limited).

What I think has occured (and is a social issue as well), is that a small percentage of special interest (SOME management companies, SOME agents, SOME educational recources) have taken lead on legislation as affecting community based/management communities. The same thing occurs in the steel manufacturing, coal mining, service industries, and just about any other service/product driven capitalistic entity - those with the funds dictate changes. There are good and bad laws on the books - just like there are just as many outdated laws on the books.

Unsure of "hard data" statistic on the percentages of regular homes, versus those in community based/managed communities - but I would guess that the "tipping" point (either in raw numbers, or number as represented) does not (yet) warrant a huge outcry or interest in just how we as Americans live. Think of it like the board-member "Republic" set-up in most communities - select few make decisions on behalf of the majority.

I think that some of the recent "abusive" practices of those on the skewed end of the spectrum, has "awaken" many of what an HOA/POA, etc really means to your investment (i.e. your wallet). I think that some of the recent "backlash" is a result of this - sometimes you need to "agitate" things for them to get better (remember that the agitater in a washing machine is the part that "gets the dirt out...").

On a personal note, as a HOA President, it is my position that I just do not have the time to get involved in local/national efforts towards legislation affecting HOA's. Having to "legislate" within an HOA is a task in itself - much less thinking of moving up the food chain towards local, state, or even federal laws. And there is that complex "paradigm" again... I would consider raising assessments so that our community could "hire" a lobbying firm to represent our interests - but then, would the community down the road be doing the same, and paying their equal share...? Sorta like HOA issues, on a larger scale....

RobertR1 no offense taken, but I am male... (sexist comment approaching), men are forever "jaded".. because women have Oprah to vent... smile!!!

First off the documents didn't come down from the mountain carved on the back side of the Ten Commandments, that's why they can be amended.

I guess I would start asking questions. In your opinion would a yes vote have a positive or negative effect on the association and/or owners and why? Background reasons for it being proposed don't necessarily mean it would have a negative effect.

Secondly, don't get too caught up on the less than wide-open method of proposing it, sometimes good ideas come out of the least expected places, just as bad ideas can come from well-intentioned, open boards.

For myself, possibly I would rather see it amended to allow board-appointed, non-voting officers from the non-member group, but keep board members to owners. Most associations allow the Treasurer, Secretary, or any officer other than the Pres and VP to come from off-the-board. That gives the outside group a voice, but not necessarily a vote. This is without knowing the the community and I can't tell from your post if the amendment would qualify as material or non-material.

As for the beginning of your post, I would respond simply that times change. What might have made sense to the developer and the first purchasers 30 years ago may no longer be appropriate or useful. Things along that line would be the cars-only rule, prohibiting solar devices (not all states have solar laws overriding the docs), allowing xeriscaping in arid regions vs the requirement to maintain a weed-free green lawn, requiring hurricane shutters to be put no more than 48 hours before a storm when half your owners are snow-birds, consideration of religious displays from all religions and what that could mean, flag poles, and I'm sure others could come up with more.

Remember, most of the laws that are now being imposed by the Feds and states are a result of associations refusing to either bend with the times or not using common sense, i.e. fining someone for not watering their lawn during a drought. All of the above items I mentioned above are being considered (or have passed) for laws in many states, basically to override HOA docs that associations don't amend.

The problem with the board using association funds to sue vs. the owner having to use his or her own money, I guess I would ask - where is it any different? If you sue the municipality, county, state, federal governments, IRS, the Red Cross, your church, any corporation, etc., you would still have to use your own funds and they would use the organizations. That's the legal system in this country.

We're a federalist country, we elect others to govern us, but because there's no way to copy the "executive/legislative/judicial" checks and balances within the vast majority of small community associations, people have a problem. Community asociations are, at least for the time being, companies. If you get a bad car from Ford, you first have to go to them to fix it, and then, if you're not happy, initiate a lawsuit, out of your own pocket, to correct the issue. The problem isn't the the method, but the cost and length of litigation in this country today. That isn't the association's fault.

One of the things I'm seeing more and more of is the attempt to somehow separate the association from the owners, as if its some kind of rock sitting in the middle of a road blocking the path to happiness. For good or bad, it the people who bought in and the people they elected to govern - a living, breathing and constantly changing group. You can't separate the people from the association - you really can't speak of it in the third person. IT can't do anything on IT's own.

Joe

Let me pose a question. The vast majority of problems I see in the news come from HOA's. Although I can't prove it, I would be willing to bet that 90% of the problems in community associations today are born in homeowner and property owner associations, not condominiums. Why? The governance is similar, the document structure is similar. Is it simply because most states have condo laws and don't have HOA/POA laws? Possibly, but that hasn't really been the case in Virginia (and possibly some other states) that have laws for both groups.

I would think that the closeness of condo living, the thinness of shared walls might produce more issues. Is it simply that people who buy into HOA's and POA's have a stronger "my home is my castle" mentality, than condo owners?

Florida has its condo problems, but I think that has more to do with retired seniors having too much time on their hands and wanting to do something, anything, to show they're still alive. They seem to have just as many HOA problems.

'Tis a puzzle

Joe

JoesephW1 - My community is a combination of single-family homes around the perimeter of the development and townhouses on two long boulevards and 4 cross-streets in the middle. The HOA and COA By-laws are basically the same word for word except for a few areas on threshold Don't concur on the 90/10 percentage of more HOA vs.COA issues. but nothing empirical to base that on, just a gut instinct, and knowing what I do from my community and the majority of issues and those who volunteer being COA. Townhouse owners belong to the COA and are part of the larger association HOA. COA residents can join the HOA Board, but not vice-versa. Now that would be an interesting study. You would think that more single-family free-standing house owners would want to join the HOA but in reality only three have ever attempted election, all were not voted on and the 1 single-family owner that is now on the HOA was appointed by the HOA Board to fill a vacancy that occurred. Why is it that there are more condo owners interested in running for the Board and volunteering in general than there are single-family owners?

TracyT - 2/3rd's is not an absolute, rather I believe there should much more than a few. I don't mean to sound high and mighty here, not my purpose. Your question, " If a single or simple majority of the BOD can place a measure on the ballot then why do I have to get 2/3?" Almost sounds like if they can do it why can't we? My answer is no one should be able to, in and of themselves. The Board should set the tone by a high standard of governance, and impartiality that is an example for the community.

IMHO I don't believe a single or simple majority of Board members should be able to get an amendment, stress on amendment, measure on the ballot when the measure requires a percentage higher than their number to pass. To me that is putting the cart well before the proverbial horse. The same as I don't think a member of the community, or a few should be able to get an amendment measure on the ballot either. I don't think a Board member should ask anyone but themselves to champion their cause and yes they should drum up support as if they are not on the BOD and recuse themselves from the vote on a Board level(if it's something the BOD can decide upon by themselves without the vote of owners). I believe there needs to be impartiality.

I admit these are high ideals, but they are ones I live by and that I have governed by as a Board member in my community. That is why I got an overwhelming majority of those to vote for and support me.

For Jadedone,
I wan to assure you I have no difficulty in differentiating between the sexes, if I can see them a give the proper attention to a few critical points. Although I owe you an apology, I don't feel bad enough not to continuie to seperate them as I half done for a lot of years. I still would welcome you and others on this site to my community.

For Joe's request: I feel very strongly if I were a board member and knew that there would be any attempt to amend the documents for the stupid reason some board member wanted his wife on the board or for any other kind of personal reason, I would scream as loud as I could an do all that I could to stop the action. I don't believe in ignoring the memebrs and pleasing the BOD for any reason. How a thinking person could justify this I don't know. But, I don't believe that to be the problem, I believe the problem is with the board because all things equal the checks and balances of a well written by-law would provide protection. When I see boards get up at annual meeting and announce votes on the board as being 5-0, and 9-0, or 3-0, I am ready to hit the ceiling if this happens time after time to prove to the community the Board stands together. Bull.....I say, I don't want my representatives to side with the board if they have a dissenting vote. I have heard, I have not been directly involved that some Board presidents think this is the proper thing to do do. Why? I believe it is because this raise or exaults the board in the memberships eyes..........crap!

I feel I am not being as responsive as I should but from my eyes this is cut and dried...........don't allow it.

To everyone,

In my situation there would be no way that a member could surmount all the difficulties of getting the 2/3 required votes. Especially if the Board disapproved of it. But I will also say this for my place that there are maybe 10 of us that if we felt the way to go was through the board and force the issue, we would take a crack at it and we may be able to pull it off. However, we think the way to go is by attrition of board members and maybe, if necessary, take some action that would be threatening enough that a board member might resign. We would rather get in the ring with the Board members and let them know clearly what are issues are. It takes time and you win some and lose some but you move a step ahead once in a while. The Board also knows we have the apportioned votes to call a special meeting. I don't mean to say we are trying to intimidate the Board, but more just to show we can play the game. We suffer from absentee ownership, way too many renters, a few difficult Board members and owner apathy, so we also try to make a big noise. We have two new Board members out of five. So, right now we are in a state of flux but for what ever reason work that needs to be done is moving along, and there are signs that the Board is going to be much more involved.

A word about HOA and Condo differences. A well run condo, with the smarts to understand, has one main responsibility. Nearly every thing that needs to get done is dictated by; "Whatever is for the good of the real property." The board is charged with the management and well being of the Real Property.
If the Board decides they have to spend money to fix a roof that is in need of repair, it is a no brainer, you have to fix the roof. Where the problems arise is when the Board and also the owners don't understand this and want to waltz around trying to finagle personal agendas. The HOA don't have this direction and they have to manage people as much as managing property. What I am advocating doesn't seem to catch to a lot of folks but give it a little thought and it makes sense and makes the Board load a little lighter if they would let this principal guide them more.

Incoming..............here comes Melissa.

RobertR1 - I did achieve a 56% turnout for approval by spearheading an enhancement that was, for all intents and purposes free but did require owner vote. To say there was Board disaprroval would be an understatement. The distaste for the enhancement was unparelled excet for that of movements in biblical record. Most thought the enhancement was unachievable, unheard of to get a builder to do something it never inteded. That it was accomplished the right way according to the By-laws exhausted me considerable time, and energy. So yes, a 2/3rd's turnout is a high-mark to achieve, not impossible depending on the topic I suppose, but difficult.

Dear Posters: Thanks to everyone who posted thoughts on Who is Our Advocate?
Alas, it is clear that we are in this together and we will have to find our way around our problems, or ultimately, OUT of them by moving OUT!

One more thing occurs to me--since the State/s are not clamoring to our aid, and indeed, there are already enough association 'cases' in court as it is,
might it be helpful to create an "Community Dispute Resolution-type Committee" CDR) within the Association--much like the ARC committee which reviews architectural requests and then presents their findings to the Board.

At the very least, it involves more residents (than just the Board and the violator) who would be aware of a 'violation situation' needing a solution--and whether the solution is a fine to encourage compliance, or a court case, or other.

Does any Association out there have such a Committee and if so, how is it working for ya?

Paul,

"might it be helpful to create an "Community Dispute Resolution-type Committee" CDR) within the Association--much like the ARC committee which reviews architectural requests and then presents their findings to the Board.

At the very least, it involves more residents (than just the Board and the violator) who would be aware of a 'violation situation' needing a solution--and whether the solution is a fine to encourage compliance, or a court case, or other. "

I think a few posters have done something like this, it will be interesting to see how its working.

I like the idea of getting more community involvement but for me, I would be afraid this would be like the BOD or ARC only different. What qualifications do your neighbors (volunteers) have to mediate CCR disputes? Do they even understand the CCRs? Our docs specify the BOD has final authority. Just my $0.02.

Dane/Paul: I don't have any other details on my fence issue - we haven't had our meeting yet. I will definitly let you know when I do. Thanks.

T

Well its been nearly 4 weeks now since the BODs closed session (on Sept. 3). Our neighbor (BOD who volunteered to talk to us) has NOT been by to discuss their idea on how to make our fence "OK".

However, at our motion hearing today our attorney informed us that the HOA attorney called him last night. The HOA attorney explained their great idea was they will pay to have the fence painted white now AND if we win the suit they will pay to have it painted back to black. Our attorney also told us that the HOA still refuses to mediate, despite the court order to do so. In fact, I just checked on line and indeed the scum bag filed a motion yesterday to Not Mediate.

In the mean time the our attorney has been working to expidite the mediation meeting (prior to the discovery process/phase due in Dec. this year), we continue with interrogatories and they have filed for production of documents from us.

I don't how you feel but I'm thinking that this SLAPP tactics at a very fine level and an excellent use of association funds. Sigh.

BTW, their motion to strike our preliminary defenses was denied!

T

Our BoD doesn't permit us to vote.