Executive Sesssion Minutes. > HOA Forum

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions

Subject: Executive Sesssion Minutes.

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 4

Author

Messages

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:2525

08/06/2008 9:28 AM
MaryA, Are you referring to meeting between Lawuers and Board or Manager or Closed meeting in a Open Board meeting. I, personally would want to notify the members anytime a meeting was held with a Lawyer and give the reason for the meeting. The reason should never be hidden and only selected parts of the meeting are covered under some confidentiality act. After all folks the members have the right to stop the Board from even meeting with a lawyer unless they want to pay for it. I knoiw, it is farfetched, but true non-the less. There is an awful lot of intent to be considered. What was the "intent" of the meeting. The "intent" is also considered by the law. Boards should not have carte blanche to do as they wish, the must deal with intent. The right to recall is much more powerful than the right for the Board to decide I think I will have a closed meeting with the lawyer and spend regime money and not tell anyone what is was about.

MaryA1
(Arizona)

Posts:2505

08/06/2008 10:17 AM
Posted By RobertR1 on 08/06/2008 9:28 AM MaryA, Are you referring to meeting between Lawuers and Board or Manager or Closed meeting in a Open Board meeting. I, personally would want to notify the members anytime a meeting was held with a Lawyer and give the reason for the meeting. The reason should never be hidden and only selected parts of the meeting are covered under some confidentiality act. After all folks the members have the right to stop the Board from even meeting with a lawyer unless they want to pay for it. I knoiw, it is farfetched, but true non-the less. There is an awful lot of intent to be considered. What was the "intent" of the meeting. The "intent" is also considered by the law. Boards should not have carte blanche to do as they wish, the must deal with intent. The right to recall is much more powerful than the right for the Board to decide I think I will have a closed meeting with the lawyer and spend regime money and not tell anyone what is was about. Robert, A meeting with an attorney would be held in a closed session as it falls under the category of "legal advice". In AZ, at least, ALL meetings of the members and the BOD must be noticed to the general membership; this also includes closed sessions. So, these meetings should be known to the members. However, many states do NOT have HOA open meeting laws; therefore, the BOD may legally hold a meeting w/o giving notice to the members, unless their docs say otherwise. Without the benefit of open meeting laws, much abuse can, and most likely does, take place.

MaryA1
(Arizona)

Posts:2505

08/06/2008 10:17 AM
Posted By RobertR1 on 08/06/2008 9:28 AM MaryA, Are you referring to meeting between Lawuers and Board or Manager or Closed meeting in a Open Board meeting. I, personally would want to notify the members anytime a meeting was held with a Lawyer and give the reason for the meeting. The reason should never be hidden and only selected parts of the meeting are covered under some confidentiality act. After all folks the members have the right to stop the Board from even meeting with a lawyer unless they want to pay for it. I knoiw, it is farfetched, but true non-the less. There is an awful lot of intent to be considered. What was the "intent" of the meeting. The "intent" is also considered by the law. Boards should not have carte blanche to do as they wish, the must deal with intent. The right to recall is much more powerful than the right for the Board to decide I think I will have a closed meeting with the lawyer and spend regime money and not tell anyone what is was about. Robert, A meeting with an attorney would be held in a closed session as it falls under the category of "legal advice". In AZ, at least, ALL meetings of the members and the BOD must be noticed to the general membership; this also includes closed sessions. So, these meetings should be known to the members. However, many states do NOT have HOA open meeting laws; therefore, the BOD may legally hold a meeting w/o giving notice to the members, unless their docs say otherwise. Without the benefit of open meeting laws, much abuse can, and most likely does, take place.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:2525

08/06/2008 11:33 AM
MaryA1, Have to say your explanation is closed minded. If we use your reasoning that if it no business of the membership to know (Paste your: However, many states do NOT have HOA open meeting laws; therefore, the BOD may legally hold a meeting w/o giving notice to the members) as your criteria or, more, justification for a closed door meeting, you eliminate the benefits that come from "intent". if the "Intent" is for the good of the association. I mean to say if you can ask the question, does a closed meeting benifit the association and how, specifically, over an open meeting, your justification may be valid, but never use, "because it's legal." And I suspect you didn't mean that, and I read it wrong.

VinceL
(California)

Posts:26

08/06/2008 11:56 AM
Somebody mentioned attorney/client privilege. Who is the client and whose is the privilege? It is the association that is made up of homeowners. It is not the officers, directors, management company or the lawyer. Both the lawyer and the director(s) are agents of the association, and by extension, agents of the homeowners. How can the their duties to the homeowners include concealing information from them?

BradP
(Kansas)

Posts:1742

08/06/2008 12:41 PM
Vince: I would agree to an extent, however, the board is responsible for the association which is a seperate entity from an individual homeowner. For example, what if the association is suing a homeowner for non-compliance on the covenants, that homeowner shouldn't be privy to what the association and their lawyer are discussing should they?

VinceL
(California)

Posts:26

08/06/2008 1:10 PM
Brad, That is exactly why all meetings ought to be open. Having been victimized by a vindictive BOD, I really know what I am talking about. Most HOA members were, or professed to have been, unaware of what was happening. Many members told me that, had that information been available to them, they would have intervened and not let it get out of control. In the process, they would saved me almost $100,000.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1867

08/06/2008 2:38 PM
Intervened in what way? How would that have helped you? What prevented you from making what was going on known to them? If you could have made many aware after the fact (as you apparently have), why could you not have shared the same information while it was going on if you felt it would have helped you?

MaryA1
(Arizona)

Posts:2505

08/06/2008 2:47 PM
Posted By RobertR1 on 08/06/2008 11:33 AM MaryA1, Have to say your explanation is closed minded. If we use your reasoning that if it no business of the membership to know (Paste your: However, many states do NOT have HOA open meeting laws; therefore, the BOD may legally hold a meeting w/o giving notice to the members) as your criteria or, more, justification for a closed door meeting, you eliminate the benefits that come from "intent". if the "Intent" is for the good of the association. I mean to say if you can ask the question, does a closed meeting benifit the association and how, specifically, over an open meeting, your justification may be valid, but never use, "because it's legal." And I suspect you didn't mean that, and I read it wrong. What I didn't say is that the board should not take any action in a closed meeting. The discussions remain confidential, but any action taken is done in the open, therefore, nothing is being kept from the members except for confidential information. Regarding "because it's legal". What I said is that if the state has no open meeting laws the board may legally hold a meeting w/o giving notice to the members, unless their docs say otherwise. If there is no law against it, then it's legal, right? I didn't say it was right, only that it's legal. Regardless of your opinions on closed sessions, oftentimes there is a legal reason for holding a closed session. Client/attorney privilege is one of the biggest reasons.

MaryA1
(Arizona)

Posts:2505

08/06/2008 3:57 PM
Posted By VinceL on 08/06/2008 11:56 AM Somebody mentioned attorney/client privilege. Who is the client and whose is the privilege? It is the association that is made up of homeowners. It is not the officers, directors, management company or the lawyer. Both the lawyer and the director(s) are agents of the association, and by extension, agents of the homeowners. How can the their duties to the homeowners include concealing information from them? Vince, Attorney-client privilege is a very ancient process that dates back to Roman law. It's a device to protect confidential communications between a client and their attorney, and was originally designed to prevent a lawyer from testifying gainst his client. A client does not have to be an individual, it can be a corporation, in this case the HOA. One of the requirements to qualify as attorney-client privilege is that the communication must be for the purpose of securing a legal opinion, legal services or assistance in some legal proceeding. This privilege encourages the client to disclose to his attorney all pertinent information regarding a legal matter and protecting this information from discovery at trial. That's the main reason why it must be kept confidential. It's not a matter of "concealing information from the homeowners", as you allude to, but rather a means of protecting the assn's interests should a court case arise. The resp. for designating which information remains confidential rests with the client. I'm not an attorney. The source of the information I've provided is "Law Encyclopedia". There is a wealth of info on the Internet! I hope this helps you to better understand this procedure and why it's necessary for certain information to remain confidential.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:2525

08/06/2008 4:00 PM
Vince, One good reason. Because the Board may have screwed up and are going to do the wrong thing. Another: If names have to be used to resolve an issue. Another. National security. Another: And most common, Board is playing CYA. And at time there is nothing wrong with that. More serious: There are many issues that should be held in confidence and the rule is a good one. As far as being an owner and having the right to this information, you can always demand to see your records, some you will get, some you will not, so you can petition a judge for what you want specifically for what you want, through a good lawyer, I may add. But your power as an owner resides in the collective consensus of the other owners. It is, and in this country has always been, the power rests with the people. If you galvinize your people to show their teeth, you will win. You don't have to fight to the death. Read some of these posts and see time after time, if the people get restless and it even suggests they are going to get involved and make a noise, suddenly the picture changes and some people quit or resign or what have you and new faces start to pop up. You might get straight at the table with compromise and wisdom but the power of the people will get you there. You don't need a revolution, you need an awakening.

VinceL
(California)

Posts:26

08/06/2008 6:11 PM
Mary & Robert, Thanks for your responses. I realize that corporations are not the same as the individual stockholders. Their difference is iron-clad for double-tax purposes, but when there is a liability issue and somebody wants to get to the deep pockets, courts will generally accept an alter ego argument, pierce the corporate veil and expose the arrangement for what it is - a distinction without a difference. It is the homeowner/stockholder/member whose dues pay the association lawyers, and as a consequence, are owed a fiduciary duty in return. Concealing information from their real client is not the way to discharge that duty. There is enormous financial potential in mutual benefit corporations provided the board is not distracted from those benefits by their petty, personal, vindictive agendae that feed their magalomanical self-images.

MaryA1
(Arizona)

Posts:2505

08/07/2008 7:53 AM
Posted By VinceL on 08/06/2008 6:11 PM Mary & Robert, Thanks for your responses. I realize that corporations are not the same as the individual stockholders. Their difference is iron-clad for double-tax purposes, but when there is a liability issue and somebody wants to get to the deep pockets, courts will generally accept an alter ego argument, pierce the corporate veil and expose the arrangement for what it is - a distinction without a difference. It is the homeowner/stockholder/member whose dues pay the association lawyers, and as a consequence, are owed a fiduciary duty in return. Concealing information from their real client is not the way to discharge that duty. There is enormous financial potential in mutual benefit corporations provided the board is not distracted from those benefits by their petty, personal, vindictive agendae that feed their magalomanical self-images. Vince, Methinks you're barking up the wrong tree if you think a judge would rule in your favor against the attorney-client privilege. Didn't you read the info I posted explaining that procedure? The "real-clients" are not the homeowners as you seem to think. The "client" is the assn - a corp and corporations can use this procedure. Furthermore, using the attorney-client privilege is not "concealing" information from the homeowners, at least not in the legal sense. Now I will agree, some boards most likely abuse the privilege, as they also abuse the right to meet in a closed session, but I don't know that the former can be proven.

VinceL
(California)

Posts:26

08/07/2008 11:17 AM
Mary, Would you agree that a HOA could be dissolved by the membership? Suppose the HOA lawyer and the HOA accountant met to transact HOA business and then refused to discuss or disclose any information by invoking privilege, would that be a satisfactory outcome?

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2951

08/07/2008 11:55 AM
Vince, Both the HOA lawyer and the HOA accountant WORK!! for the HOA and would not have any right to any privacy from the BOD unless the accountant was going to sue the HOA. Then that would be okay for them to do whatever lawyers and accountants do best. BUT, if it has anything to do with a Board action or Board business, you heard it above--they have NO right to meet without the Board. Mary would agree that YES, a HOA could be dissolved by the membership but it has to be 100% of the membership.

VinceL
(California)

Posts:26

08/07/2008 12:33 PM
Donna, Since a HOA can be dissolved, who, in its absence, would the lawyers client(s) be? Obviously the homeowners. Who would be entitled to full disclosure? Obviously the homeowners. Could the homeowners fire the lawyer? Yes. Obviously, the power belongs to the people. It is the people who gave a limited portion of their power to Directors, as a convenient way to conduct the community's business. BODs have misinterpreted their role, believing that by virtue of their status, all the power belongs to them, and a limited degree of power can be shared with the homeowners, but entirely at the sole discretion of the BOD.

MaryA1
(Arizona)

Posts:2505

08/07/2008 12:35 PM
Posted By VinceL on 08/07/2008 11:17 AM Mary, Would you agree that a HOA could be dissolved by the membership? Suppose the HOA lawyer and the HOA accountant met to transact HOA business and then refused to discuss or disclose any information by invoking privilege, would that be a satisfactory outcome? Vince, I think you are just trying to come up scenarios to justify your position. The HOA attorney and the HOA accountant could meet and discuss HOA business; however, there is no attorney-client privilege present. The accountant is not the client of the attorney, the HOA is.

MaryA1
(Arizona)

Posts:2505

08/07/2008 12:40 PM
Posted By DonnaS on 08/07/2008 11:55 AM Vince, Both the HOA lawyer and the HOA accountant WORK!! for the HOA and would not have any right to any privacy from the BOD unless the accountant was going to sue the HOA. Then that would be okay for them to do whatever lawyers and accountants do best. BUT, if it has anything to do with a Board action or Board business, you heard it above--they have NO right to meet without the Board. Mary would agree that YES, a HOA could be dissolved by the membership but it has to be 100% of the membership. Donna, I doubt this would ever happen w/o board members present, but if it did, as I said to Vince, there is no attorney-client privilege involved because the accountant is not a client of the attorney. If the accountant was going to sue the board he would not be retaining the HOA attorney, that would be a direct conflict of interest on the part of the attorney. I'm sure there are some out there, but I personally have not heard of any HOA docs that require a 100% vote to terminate the HOA. However, the vote % is very high; I've heard as high as 85%; mine is 75%.

MaryA1
(Arizona)

Posts:2505

08/07/2008 12:41 PM
Posted By DonnaS on 08/07/2008 11:55 AM Vince, Both the HOA lawyer and the HOA accountant WORK!! for the HOA and would not have any right to any privacy from the BOD unless the accountant was going to sue the HOA. Then that would be okay for them to do whatever lawyers and accountants do best. BUT, if it has anything to do with a Board action or Board business, you heard it above--they have NO right to meet without the Board. Mary would agree that YES, a HOA could be dissolved by the membership but it has to be 100% of the membership. Donna, I doubt this would ever happen w/o board members present, but if it did, as I said to Vince, there is no attorney-client privilege involved because the accountant is not a client of the attorney. If the accountant was going to sue the board he would not be retaining the HOA attorney, that would be a direct conflict of interest on the part of the attorney. I'm sure there are some out there, but I personally have not heard of any HOA docs that require a 100% vote to terminate the HOA. However, the vote % is very high; I've heard as high as 90%; mine is 75%.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2951

08/07/2008 12:52 PM
Vince, You are generalizing way too much . The clients/homeowners elect the Boards to represent them, to make decisions for them when it is very difficult to get the H.Os in one mind set, where it becomes nescessary to make learned and sometimes fast decisions. YES, the power is with the people as they are the ones who can and should remove Board members who do not function in the associations best interest. Yes they fire lawyers all of the time so what is your point with that? Full disclosure? It certainly depends on what the issue is. H.Os are not entitled to all information. Florida Statutes gives a list of items that are not to be shared with the members. If you want to see it, just ask. I was a Board member when my Association went to court against 2 homeowners. It was a 2 year battle. I learned alot from both of the lawyers and the Judge. The membership IS NOT entitled to any information that is part of the litigation. Judges orders.. "BODs have misinterpreted their role, believing that by virtue of their status, all the power belongs to them, and a limited degree of power can be shared with the homeowners, but entirely at the sole discretion of the BOD." Who are you speaking about? I sense that you are just venting here. I cannot get ahold of what information you want to learn from this post.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:2525

08/07/2008 1:10 PM
Donna and Mary, I think you are on the money with Vince but in case I am wrong all you are saying can be applied to a number of posters that are active recently. There seems to be a tendencey to want to push for some pin point consession and I suppose if that is reached they must feel that represents some kind of solution. Well it don't, and contributes little to the progress we should be making towards the overall health of all our associations. It seems plain, not one solution fits all, not one solutions fixes all, and not one solution chnges much. It has been said time after time, this is a Marathon, not a sprint. Don;t shoot to be a "right fighter", shoot to improve, aim at the members more than the Board, you can change the Board, you can't change the members. And please don't say it can't be done, better to say the truth and maybe you are not the one for the job, and if you aren't, make yourselve the one for the job. Get someone who can do the job, maybe that is what you are good at. I am much more effective being a supporter that a leader, so, as they say; Lead, follow or get out of the way. Now, I feel better, thank you.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1867

08/07/2008 1:11 PM
I think you have pegged it, Donna. After this comment, ". . .provided the board is not distracted from those benefits by their petty, personal, vindictive agendae that feed their magalomanical self-images." I deemed Vince a highly biased individual looking for a place to lash out at a group of people who associate themselves with the same nomenclature as the group that apparently caused him to have to spend $100,000. If we attempt in any way to clarify or whatever on the behalf of any BOD, I have a sneaky feeling he is going to imply we stand up for whatever actions his board took to hassle him. I don't know how many ways to Sunday we can validate that there are nefariously run boards that exist and much of the reputation those boards get are earned, however, I, personally, have yet to run into such a board, and I meet regularly with neighborhood leaders all over our area. Not to mention the association leaders who regularly post on this board. We may disagree over minute things, but I can't imagine a single regular poster here, nor any of the board members or neighborhood leaders I have met in person (which numbers in the 100s, by the way), who exhibit the kind of behavior that is often stereotyped against HOA boards. Sorry he has had such a hostile encounter, but I still believe that that sort of board is the exception anymore, rather than the rule.

MaryA1
(Arizona)

Posts:2505

08/07/2008 1:26 PM
I agree with you Michele. I have come across some boards that would qualify as the "board from hell", but I also feel they are in the minority. It's also my personal opinion that the majority of boards who don't always operate as they should, perhaps even break a few laws here and there, don't really do it intentionally. Oftentimes there is nowhere to go to get information about HOAs. Here in the Phx valley a number of cities have started sponsoring HOA training sessions and there are a couple of organizations that have sprung up specifically for HOA educational programs. But, there are HOAs all throughout the state and I'm sure the lesser populated areas have no resources whatsoever.

VinceL
(California)

Posts:26

08/07/2008 2:48 PM
Under current HOA conditions, the lawyers and management companies have greater property rights than the owners. Not too many homeowners enjoy being treated like children - you left your trash can out too long, go stand in the corner. Directors, with their access to lawyers and unlimited legal insurance coverage in addition to the opportunity to plot and scheme in executive session, have the ability to bring out the very worst in people. Their "in your face" approach in one HOA, drove a decent person/owner who wanted to trim a tree on his own property, to commit murder. Not all directors are so immature, and neither do all directors need to hide their opinions/decisions/actions in executive session. But those who can only be elected to positions that all the other members avoid, are a dangerous species. I have seen case records that named every single owner as a defendant, even though the HOA was incorporated. I imagine that an unfavorable verdict would have led to liens and foreclosures of their homes. We could and should, instead of petty politics, concentrate on such possibilities as having our own mortgage company to finance our own transactions, but unless the quality and character of directors improve, we will have to continue living next door to Mrs. Kravitz.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1867

08/07/2008 5:35 PM
Posted By VinceL on 08/07/2008 2:48 PM Under current HOA conditions, the lawyers and management companies have greater property rights than the owners. Not too many homeowners enjoy being treated like children - you left your trash can out too long, go stand in the corner. . . . but unless the quality and character of directors improve, we will have to continue living next door to Mrs. Kravitz. Snipping out some points and concentrating on these two, maybe this should be in its own thread, but you are just plain wrong in these comments. First, those homeowners being "treated like children" were mature enough to have bought into a deed restricted community that had specific Do's and Don'ts to which the "grown up" homeowner agreed. Now, if a child breaks the rules, aren't they responsible for the consequences that come with breaking those rules? If one does not like a deed restriction that addresses, for example, how long someone's trash should or shouldn't be left out, the grown-up thing to do is to work to change the restriction, not simply ignore it and then cry and whine and moan when the restriction is enforced. So, in essence, if one doesn't enjoy being treated like a child, then one should refrain from acting like one. The next point is just sheer rhetoric and doesn't even make sense. The "quality and character" of directors has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one lives next to an alleged "Mrs. Kravitz." That's as pointless as saying something like, "unless the quality and character of directors improve, we will have to continue living next door to people who wear fake noses and clown feet." The person who is living next to you, who is contacting the board of directors regarding alleged infractions of the deed restrictions had certain expectations when she/he moved into her/his house, as well. She/he expected that the deed restrictions, the CC&Rs were legitimate and enforceable. She/he expected to abide by them, and she/he also had an expectation that if her neighbors chose not to, that the board of directors would have the "quality and character" to maintain the integrity of the governing documents which everyone agreed to when they bought their home. So, if this is what you are hanging your board directors where megalomania hats premise on, then I can't go there with you.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1867

08/07/2008 5:36 PM
So, if this is what you are hanging your board directors where megalomania hats premise on, then I can't go there with you. *where should be "wear" in that sentence. Sorry.

VinceL
(California)

Posts:26

08/07/2008 9:13 PM
Since I began to communicate on the issue of "Executive Sessions", I have received posts from the following 12 people, and I appreciate that. Looking more closely, I discovered that they all had expressed opinions on other issues also. The total number of postings is 11,635 and their average is 970. Makes my 11 posts look measley. Then a thought crossed my mind - How many of these people are BOD members, and how many of those might have been offended by my posts. That was not my intention, and I apologize to any of you who felt offended. I promise I will put a sock in it from here on. NAME STATE POSTED MicheleD Kentucky 1272 MaryA Arizona 1199 RobertR South Carolina 1855 DonnaS Tennessee 2141 BradP Kansas 1699 KirkW Texas 425 SusanW Michigan 1326 EdieL Virginia 62 Nicole04 California 111 JaneK California 165 GeraldT4 782 MikeS1 Virginia 598

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1867

08/07/2008 9:43 PM
Vince, as a matter of fact, I am a board member. But I wasn't personally offended by your comments, since I don't feel I operate in a manner such as the one you have apparently experienced in your HOA, and even though we've had some "characters" on our board, they're "characters" in their own right, not because they were board members. I didn't get along with every personality on our board, but we were not dysfunctional, nor were we megalomaniacs. However, in the same vein, I also do not paint all residents with the same broad brush that it appeared you were painting board members with. We've certainly had our share of *holes, but they are holes first, residents second. And I still maintain, not all residents who violate CC&Rs do so on purpose or even maliciously. Most just plain don't know certain things are not allowed in the Use Restrictions. Most* comply when noticed. Even though we've had our share of residents who have pushed the process to the end of the envelope, including leaving us no option but to go to trial to compel compliance, we still don't view residents as arrogant jerks who simply wanna do whatever the heck they wanna do, rules be damned. I also think your negative (and apparently hostile) experience has left a bitter taste in your mouth and, as a result, you apparently see evil in all HOAs or deed restricted communities. And, that is your right, and I have no intention of trying to change your opinion or your mind regarding that. On the other hand, there are many communities in which HOAs and deed restrictions work as they were intended, or at least in a way that does no harm and helps to keep property values up and a resident's return on investment in the "satisfactory" column. The fact remains, if one has a problem living in deed restricted communities, then one should try to avoid them. My dad hates them. Will not live in one even if you gave him a home there mortgage free. I know this because my husband and I actually bought a home for my dad, and he would not take it if it were in a deed restricted community. So we found him one in a neighborhood that did not have any deed restrictions. I had to chuckle, though, because he still had to get permits for his fences, could only put in certain types of fences and certain heights, was not allowed to store certain types of recreational equipment in his yard, and was not allowed to park in his grass. He also could not keep his garbage can outside unless it was the day of pickup. Zoning regulations. Who knew they were very close to what many deed restrictions are? Go figure. Anyway, feel free to share your insight, but just be aware, there are very many neighborhood leaders here, and they have a story to tell, as well.

VinceL
(California)

Posts:26

08/07/2008 11:33 PM
Hi Michele, Thank you for your very nice letter. Why can't all board members be more like you?

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:2525

08/08/2008 4:25 AM
Vince, I am not a Board Member, who the hell would have me, but that is not your business or concern. Michele is not like all Board members because she is not like everyone else. Some of my best enemies or Board members, and some or not. Man, what are you looking for, the board is not your trouble, the Board is a part of the association and the association is your trouble. Incidently, you are part of that same association. You hang around one of these things long enough and you form strong opinions, if you pay attention and if you don't you end up one morning mad at the world because you hate where you live. You can help, you really can and you don't have to like everyone. You didn't sign occupancy papers that says you would not have to deal with people you don't like, you did sign papers that says you will protect your association.......get cracking.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 4

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Executive Sesssion Minutes.