Role of HOA Managment Company...?

I finaly got a response from my HOA manager regarding my issues with the board. He responded:

*"The Board has the authority to grant a variance, to the rules and regulations. A variance does not however, negate the rule.

I am happy to assist where I can, our role as the management company is to advise the Board, and act on the matters they assign to us. We do not pretend to be the legal experts when it comes to HOA law. If there are legal issues that need to be addressed then we refer the Board to their attorney. If there are legal issues that individual HO’s wish to address we again suggest they speak to their legal counsel."

I responded that I brought violations to his attention and that these violations are against the board and that all violations are anonymous so how can I bring these to the boards attention, myself. I asked him about the boards fiduciary duty role and also the introduction to the rules which states that all rules must be fair and equal and followed by all homeowners. I also told him that a variance to any rules must be granted to all homeowners with idential requests. He repiled:

*"My role is in fact to advise the Board. In most instances we are prohibited from advising homeowners as it is beyond the scope of our responsibility and possibly expertise. I have offered my opinion of the rules and regulations as they currently read. Beyond that I have no suggestions."

My questions, is this true. Doesn't the management have a responsability to H/O's? I mean we do pay them to manage the property and that means enforcing rules...?

Hi Mary,

But who do you go to when the board is the one breaking the rules? They are even violating state rules.

Thanks George. I just got off the phone with the H/O managment company and she suggested I just submit the arch form and if it gets denied to ask for a resolution meeting. So that is what I will do...wish me luck.

Violations are always private in our association. There is always a risk of retaliation.

You opened my particular "hot button" on this one, John.

If homeowners all agreed to the rules, they should all be following them to begin with.

The fact of the matter is, it's the violation that's the point, not who "reported" it.

If the violation is confirmed, it doesn't matter if Joleene next door or the board member passing the house on the way to his full-time job noticed it. It's a violation.

Now, it's possible it was an inadvertent violation. In which case, why would it be necessary to add to the potential embarrassment of the offender by sharing with him who noticed? What benefit is gained in knowing that?

In addition, if the violation is NOT inadvertent, I can see no good end in providing the offender with the name of the person who dropped the dime. Especially given the nature of people towards retaliation. It's real. It exists, and it's dam* dangerous.

The point is, the enforcement is NOT personal.

Some people don't care if they are anonymous when they report a violation. Others will suffer in silence (especially if the violation is something that could well be impacting on one neighbors reasonable enjoyment of his own property) if they think their names will be linked to a report, thereby setting them up to suffer harassment or other forms of intimidation.

If anonymous reporting of alleged violations is good enough for my local police department, my local animal control department, my local zoning compliance department, it's certainly good enough for our HOA board.

In the case where a violation ultimately needs to go to court to resolve, we don't even need to have the person who reported it initially attend and either sworn in or deposed.

Once a violation is reported, the board of directors assigns a board member to validate, track and monitor compliance. All that's needed is that individual to get on the stand and list the dates and times the violation was noticed.

Again, I ask, what good purpose it the revelation of WHO the reporting party is? If the alleged violation cannot be substantiated, then there is no enforcement needed. If the alleged violation CAN be substantiated, then it's on the violator, not the person who reported it, so it really doesn't matter WHO that was, does it?

Michele,

There is a double standard here. In our system of justice, a person accused of a crime is entitled to confront accusers in court.

You are saying that this constitutional protection is not applicable in homeowners associations.

I am not sure I agree with you. But then again, I am not sure I do not agree with you.

Yet, I do think that the way in which covenant and rule violations are handled would be drastically different, if the accuser had to step forward.

All sorts of evil things can go on without proper controls over anonymous accusations.

Michele - I won't carry this on because we just have different perspectives (and neither one is necessarily more "correct" than the other).

You're quite right in that nothing is gained by disclosure of the reporting party, BUT if as you say "Enforcement isn't personal" (which IS an absolute truth - enforcement should NEVER be personal - it's just what it is, enforcement of a pre-existing rule), then what is to be gained by cloaking the good citizen who reported? Philosophically they should be celebrated, not disguised.

A report of a violation of the rules that goes to the Board should be signed to weed out someone with a grudge against someone else and the possibility of wasting the Board's time. However, I think it is appropriate that the Board verify whether there is indeed a violation without referring to who brought the issue up. If the Board finds there is a violation it doesn't really matter who first noticed it.

Oh that's probably the second most absurd thing I've heard in a long time. The first one was when my sister said "Batman: The Dark Knight" was boring.

The PROCESS is impersonal, but the person who gets "outed" about the violation will not appreciate that nuance.

If the retribution, harassment, hostility, vandalism, and abuse that gets heaped on our board members is any reflection of how "personal" violators take getting "caught," then I can assure you, the person reporting will not be "celebrated."

Keep in mind, the obstinate violator (as opposed to the inadvertent one, hey accidents happen, not every knows all covenants by heart), is already of the opinion that he or she is above having to "do the right thing" in the first place. They already have limited discipline for propriety.

Again, anonymous reporting is not a REQUIREMENT, but if someone reports an alleged violation, and does not leave their name or email or phone number, (or if they do and ask not to be revealed), that doesn't negate the violation if it's confirmed.

When I was president of our HOA, a resident against whom a dog barking issue was reported took very violent steps to try to get me to tell him who reported him. He just wanted to "talk about it" with her or him. In a "neighborly" way. He stalked me, he threw rat poison in my yard, he vandalized my fence, and he called animal control various times trying to force THEM to tell him who, besides the HOA reported his dog. (Which they refused to do, by the way, because, guess what? They accept anonymous reports.)

I could not make him understand that it made no difference because several board members have documented the violations themselves. (not simply excessive barking, but illegal (unapproved)fencing and dog run (which isn't allowed).

I eventually had to get a restraining order against him. Keep in mind, this wasn't because we sent him the notices... Oh no no no, it was because we refused to tell him WHO the original report came from.

But ONLY so he could make sure everything was all okay between them. you know. neighbor to neighbor. He felt soooo bad about the dog noise (even though he didn't voluntarily correct it), and wanted to make sure his neighbor was a-okay now. (We ultimately obtained a court order to have the dogs removed.)

Ironically, we had no less than five residents file complaints about his dogs. Two of them moved because of the issue.

You're right. I am not sure. An accuser is not the same thing as a snitch or a tipster to an anonymous police tip line. Such things will stand up in court. It is the issue with violations that cannot be verified, such as noise.

I have had a number of anonymous complaints about my unleashed over size dog violating the rules. People don't realize that it is a service dog, not a pet, and is exempt from leash and other regulations. But I still get the dreaded letter from the board saying that I was observed with a dog in violation of leash laws and association rules.

If these people would address me personally, and inquire in a neighborly way, they would learn that it is a highly trained and disciplined service dog that enables me to have a significantly greater freedom of movement. But instead the call the association to complain and not leave their name. And the dreaded letter from the board comes again.

Oh, well. . .

George, does the board know your dog is a service dog? And if so, I would take up a complaint with them not your neighbors for continuing to send you letters. The board is the one sending the letters they could also inform your neighbors of this fact, with your permission to do so.

Sorry Kim, but its like your local city or town, your state and your federal government - screw up and they use your tax money to go after you. Corporations are simlar to our federalist system, we elect people to govern for us, we are not a democracy, not in your state, not in the U.S nor in your association. And guess what, if you want to sue any of those bodies of government, you do so out of your pocket, while they use tax dollars to defend themselves. In terms of structure, your association is similar to your government(s). The main difference is that you were born into, or willingly emigrated into your government - you chose your association. And that's a critical difference, which is why people trying to hold associations accountable to certain laws have failed. You are not dealing with constitutional law, but with contract law. This causes a lot of confusion because people don't understand that they can sign away some of their "rights", usually in the form of restrictions or controls.

Joe

A couple things here, a "snitch" or "tipster" is the same whether that person is dropping a dime on someone who has committed a criminal act or a civil one, as what happens in a CC&R violation. The person calling and reporting was only called an "accuser" in my post because I lacked the immediate imagination to clarify it. I was being lazy.

But, a snitch is a snitch is a snitch, whether is Gladys Kravits or Bob the Mole. Either way, it's reporting something, as Joseph clarified, that requires an authority (in our case, a Board member) to verify.

I also take issue that violations such as noise cannot be "verified."

We've done so on numerous occasions. Keep in mind, we're not a condo, but stand-alone, single family homes. So it would have to be a fairly obvious Noise Nuisance to raise to a level to be easily verified.

And as Kim stated, the frequent complaints about your service dog are not a result of there being "anonymous complaints." This appears to be a very dense BoD in that it is BOUND to have some record of the previous complaints and the final resolution of them. Even if they don't know who to contact to follow up the status of the complaint, they SHOULD have files with some sort of complaint tracking history.

By ignoring the history and the determination of previous validations they are the ones being difficult, not the un-named individuals filing the complaints.

Granted, if the BoD doesn't know who is FILING the complaint, they can't go back to that person with the clarification that there is no violation. However, what pitiful records do they keep that they are starting from square-one with your lot and revisiting the same complaint over and over that is not, in fact, a violation at all.

I would personally take a meeting with all members of the board and let them know that continued letters over the same issue that has been resolved EACH and EVERY time is bordering on harassment and is causing, albeit minor, distress and frustration.

It's a waste of everyone's time. Their right arm needs to speak to their left arm every now and again.

But it's not the fault of anonymous versus named complaint filings, but rather that of a short sighted, badly managed and organized board/complaint tracking/resolution process.

Kirk, I apologize if you think I was being derogatory towards people who report alleged violations.

I was being "semantical" to a degree. I think George was trying to draw a distinction between an "accuser," as in one who would need to face an accused in a trial, and the person who calls a police hot line to report a crime (who is often referred to as a "snitch.")

I completely support your position, and it is the position from which I speak, as well.

I don't happen to believe people who call police hot lines are "snitches" either, I consider them concerned citizens who are trying to do what they can to help reduce the level of crime in their community.

To me a "snitch" implies that person was at some point in time a "partner in crime" with the person being "snitched on" and they are using the system to protect themselves from incrimination (or at least get a reduced or dismissed sentence) in the activities about which they are "snitching."

I know, waaay off topic, but then again, in a way, not.

Calling and reporting something to a police Hot Line is infinitely different than actually meeting with investigators, turning over evidence or information, and sometimes working with investigators actively, yet having the investigators or system protect their identity, which is known to the investigators, but not to the person about whom the information is being given.

In a hot line, the caller does not need to provide ANY identifying information whatsoever. He or she simply dials the anonymous tip line, gives information about the alleged criminal activity and hangs up.

The crime team then takes that information and tries to verify it independently.

Our violation reporting process is very similar to that model.

A resident can call a message line and leave information, they can fill out a form online, which does not REQUIRE any identifying information, or they can send a letter to the PO Box. In each case they CAN supply their name and contact information IF THEY WANT TO, but they are not required to in order for the complaint to be acted on (that is, verified).

Mary and have the reports stopped?

The one good thing (if it can be called that) about sending someone a violation notice is that they usually then make it their mission to root out all of the violations in the community and let you know about them.

So true!

They think they are "getting back at us" by doing that, but they are actually making our job much easier.

I've had private conversations with other board members pondering whether we should send them "thank you" notes!