Homeowners oust condo board

Very good news.

Now for the hardest part of that task, stepping in and getting the association back on track.

Totally agree.

But I advocate all the time for people to take back their HOAs if they are being run by rogue boards.

It's harder to do than they realize, and the hardest part is the clean up afterwards.

But in the few cases where it has happened, the outcome has been great.

Although, sometimes it's an outcome not without a price. Very often the original "ousters" end up not being the ones that ultimately get the organization back into shape.

It sometimes falls into the category of the dog who loves to chase cars.

Now that he's caught one, he has no idea what to do with it!

I would have been the other fly just a few feet away from you at the meeting.

It ain't over by a long shot, I bet.

My sense is that the reporter was not very sharp or knowledgeable about the subject, so the facts reported is suspect.

I think you predict too much gloom and doom from a Newpaper article, that is probably inaccurate and misleading in a sense I think the reporter wanted to get across the News item thaty a BOD was voted ouit by the members. It happens a lot I suspectad never makes the news.

I believe I noted on the report that there was a law firm representing the owners. If this is true, I believe someone knew what they were doing and was willing to pay for it. Who actually did the deed and who is going to run the place may not be considiered news or no names were offered. I say wait a while before judgement.

If I recall right we have see more than a few times posted here acts of recalling th Board and certainly in newly turned over places. We have also seen coups by default because no one else wants the job. This place with 400 units would appear to have some organization and maybe some paid help that could support a new group and they also seemed to have an income stream that cold generate a professional MC. Good luck to them and thanks to the Judge. Which bring ups another issue. The judge made the decision, that doesn't mean he is done with the solution and could apppoint a "Administrator" if he felt the association needs guidence. IMHO

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but I've heard that the board's attorney sent the homeowners group an e-mail nullifying their meeting since it was not called by the board and the board did not attend. This issue will probably be decided in court.

I will let the source documents speak for themselves . . .

---

"TMGA managed Frenchman's Creek from August 2006 to February 2008. We were the fifth management company to manage your community in five years.

When we took over, we learned that Frenchman's Creek was facing multiple citations from the City of New Carrollton for Code violations, had significant financial problems and was not complying with the Maryland Condominium Act in several important ways.

We also found that certain members of the Board were reluctant to work with us to help resolve these problems.
. . .
After several reminders to the Board, the 2007 Annual Meeting was finally scheduled for December 27,2007. It was then arbitrarily canceled by the Board President. It is now being held only because a complaint was filed with State's Attorney General's Office.

These are only some of the issues of concern; several more examples can be provided. TMGA has a well-earned reputation over 30 years of being financially responsible and working hard for our clients. We feel that the letter that you received from the Board of Directors was misleading to the members of Frenchman's Creek, and did not accurately reflect the efforts made by TMGA to correct the many significant problems that your community faces."

---

http://www.fccaowners.com/PDF/Gazette.pdf
http://www.fccaowners.com/PDF/Gazette2.pdf

I find this subject to be very interesting in that our HOA had a complete turnover of the BOD in Oct 07.

The turnover came about because the BOD decided to begin charging one group of homeowners an increased fee while leaving the others at the regular fee. (Our community is a patio home community where people own their lots as well as the buildings so that the actual fee is based on membership in the HOA Corporation rather than home size.) The proposal to increase the fees for one group was brought to the Oct 06 annual meeting and the spouses of the BOD pushed the motion through with threats and shouting. In addition, the BOD had been secretive about the HOA finances and their meetings were closed to residents.

So after much squabbling, the BOD hired an attorney who specializes in HOAs. He advised them that the assoc fee had to be the same for all owners. As he did his work with the BOD and reviewed the docs, he discovered that in the 5 or 6 years of the development, director terms were not staggered as they were supposed to be. He suggested that at the Oct 07 annual mtg, all five directors be elected, 3 for two-year terms and 2 for one-year terms. After that all directors would be elected for two-year terms, threby creating the staggered situation required in the docs.

So, there was a turnover of the board, and all 5 directors were new for the 2008 year (I am one of the newly elected BOD). The very first thing we did was open up one hour of our monthly meetings to residents and to hold meetings in a public place (previously they were in directors' homes). We immediately published a newsletter and thanked the previous board. We do a newsletter every month and in it we include a brief treasurer's report, news of the community, and information about board activities. So, people are informed and feel a part of the process. The result has been very rewarding for us and for the community.

However, Mary, you are sooooo right. When we began reviewing the previous board's work, we discovered that they had really done a good job with the finances and management of the community. Their main problem was that they were so closed and seemed to be so autocratic. I think they might have been very successful if they had approached their duties with more of an expressed concern for the community as a whole.

I think the key to the success that we have had so far is that we have expressed an openness and a willingness to listen to residents. We may run into a real knotty problem some day, but for now, we have a happy community.
Marianne

Hi Robert,
Yes, there is one old board member, her husband, and the husband of another who definitely hold "animositu" to the new board. But, we in the new board have made an extra effort to reach out to the old board members. We have asked the old board president to serve on some committees, and he has agreed and has done a good job. I think the old board was so tired of dealing with the squabbling and the attorney from Oct 06 to Oct 07, that they knew very well their positions were up for grabs.

As far as the atty putting the association in jeopardy -- he was familiar with all the players and I think knew that a new board composed of some of the concerned residents would be able to handle the transition OK. It is also true that the old board member (the one I said still has some animosity) ran for the board so there might have been some continuity had she been re-elected.

I hear ya. The association cannot be completely subordinate to a homeowner. Consideration must be given to both, and I think we've been able to keep that balance so far. Thanks much for your reply. Marianne

Marianne,

You said: "However, Mary, you are sooooo right. When we began reviewing the previous board's work, we discovered that they had really done a good job with the finances and management of the community. Their main problem was that they were so closed and seemed to be so autocratic. I think they might have been very successful if they had approached their duties with more of an expressed concern for the community as a whole.

I think the key to the success that we have had so far is that we have expressed an openness and a willingness to listen to residents. We may run into a real knotty problem some day, but for now, we have a happy community."

Lack of transparity and communication with the members is what I've always blamed for a lot of the problems some HOAs have. Congratulations to you and your fellow board members for seeing the need to communicate with the members, open up the board meetings to them and let them know what is going on in the community. When this is lacking all it does is foster speculation. The natural thought is: "they don't want to tell us anything or let us attend the meetings; they must be doing something wrong!"

I'm also glad to hear the new board members have tried to reach out to the former board members and include them in committee appointments, etc. Afterall, this really wasn't a recall, just an election to get the assn on the track to operating IAW the bylaws. The new board members aren't to blame for being elected. The former board members only have themselves to blame for not being re-elected. In seeing how the new board is operating, perhaps they are able to see what they did wrong, if they don't let their objectivity get in the way.

Again, congratulations and keep up the good work!

It can be done, part two:

Murky pool pumped residents need for change
8/9/2008
A year ago, Suzanne Hackenbruch was on the wrong side of the bylaw ­- or so her homeowners association declared. When the Warrenville resident urged her neighbors to protest their association's failure to open the neighborhood pool, a lawyer representing the management company sent a letter demanding a retraction and fees.

Oh what a difference a year makes.

The pool's open. Hackenbruch's slate of candidates took over the Winchester Condominium Association board in Warrenville and now she's the board president. City officials are involved and doing what they can to help to improve the subdivision. And the management company's been replaced.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=226625&src=2