What is a vote of no confidence?

What is a vote of no confidence?
Can this be done at a regular board meeting?
Does it need to be a board member to motion for a vote of no confidence?
How many people are needed to be present for this vote to take place?

Mary and Grace,
I think you are probably close to the truth Mary as the term is commonly used in English Parliamentary Law.

However, the question is still valid for HOA and I guess other Board if the morion is made something like: "I make a motion that the membership be polled and asked to respond to the question of the competency of our management to remain in office." Something like that could be seconded and discussed and probably, if it was evident from the discussion this question was valid, a vote could be taken. I am not sure what the results would mean other than to cause all kinds of problems. The subject was brought up by Dj and since Grace is looking for some fast action to get her Board replaced, it appears attractive to her. Just an assumption and I could be off base.
My suggestion is the same as I posted on the other thread. Take your time and open cracks with pressure. You have to realize if you push one place something might pop out somewhere else. Your group must be ready to meet this issues "popping up." So the process creates flux and the group wanting change has to be ready to stop any challenges to their actions, vote in folks that support their positions and keep the group in the face of the entrenched management. Then, at some point they must have the people ready to take up any holes created with resignations or counter moves by the opposition. These people you are trying to oust will not roll over and will likely not go sneaking into the night, until they know all is lost. But a slow process has to be followed because you must be able to control reactions and understand all the day to day stuff that makes the place tick.
In summary, the Vote of No Confidence, to me seems to likely create more problems than is will solve. Read Joanne's post earlier this month.......a classic.

This is intriguing and sounds like it has potential, but I guess I'm not seeing a real "big picture" execution of this.

For one thing, it's different to have a vote of "no confidence" from the homeowners who actually make it to the meeting.

We've had a low turnout of 6 and a high of 70, and everything in between.

But unless the vote of no confidence is received by all members, or at least sent to all members who are then given the opportunity to vote on it, I don't see how effective it can be in and of itself.

Although, I would have to say, it would be at least a First Step Wake-up Call to me!

I would imagine there are about 10 or so homeowners in my development who would vote No Confidence in our board.

But then, I can give you their names, too! These will be the ones that we generally have persistent problems with, either with restriction violations or repeated non-payments.

On the other hand, if we got a vote of No Confidence much higher than that, even if it were not at the majority mark, I would think we would need to take a hard look at what we are doing and how we are doing it.

Otherwise, not sure what else it would accomplish.

Especially with a board that doesn't give a rat's a** what the general membership thinks.

I'd have to go to the Nuclear Option in that regard -- Full Recall process.

Can a Home Owner make a motion or does it need to be a board member?

Robert,
you have not offended. I appreciate all the help that each of you guys has given! I am in the process of reading Joanne's posts.

Grace,

As someone else stated, using the "vote of no confidence" may just get someone to resign, but you should keep in mind the fact that this type action is not binding. You won't find it addressed in your bylaws or state law and RRO does not recognize. Also, this action does not remove the person from office it only lets them know you no longer have confidence in their ability. If you want to remove a board member from office that can be done by a recall. If you want to fire the PM you don't need a vote of the membership (unless that is specified in your gov docs which I doubt!), the board can take that action on their own. The PM works for the assn, not the members. Only the board knows if the PM is doing his/her job correctly, efficiently and legally. Read the PM's contract very carefully to determine if and when he can be let go w/o imposing any penalties on the assn. IMO, the vote of confidence may be a wasted effort. Concentrate on organizing your neighbors for a recall, which is final and binding.

One other thing to keep in mind is the fact that not all BOD's or board members are familiar with RRO. Some bylaws may state RRO should be used for parliamentary procedures but that is not the norm. Don't be surprised to learn that no one knows what you're talking about if you use the "point of order" motion.

In answer to your question regarding motions: A member may make a motion at a meeting of the members but NOT at a board meeting. At a board meeting a member MAY have the ability to ask a question but the board doesn't even have to answer. They can just listen, thank you and move on. Depending upon the laws of your state a member may not even have the ability to attend, much less speak, at a BOD meeting.

Grace,

Yes a recall is the same as seeking removal. As explained earlier a h/o can only make a motion at a meeting of the members. IMO, the best thing to do is gather all your friends and neighbors and put together a document outlining the reasons for wanting to recall the board members. Put this info in the form of a petition and pass it out among the membership. If you can get a majority of the h/o's to sign it, then you can petition the board for a special meeting for the purpose of holding a recall vote and an election for new BOD members if the recall is successful. Check out your gov. docs to see if there is a recall process outlined (I checked and could find nothing in the VA HOA statutes). If there is make sure it is followed to the letter. Also seek out members willing to run for the vacated position, should the recall be a success. Once the new board is in place they can deal with the issue of removing the PM.

Grace,

Sorry, I forgot to mention one very important thing. When outlining all the reasons for recalling the BOD, make certain you have proof of all the allegations you're are making. If you don't, then you don't have a case! If you accuse them of violating the bylaws, state the exact article and how & when it was violated; dereliction of duty, state how so and show evidence; incompetence, state in what manner and show evidence, etc., etc.

Grace,

When the assn has a PM the duties of the secretary and the treasurer are scaled back quite a bit. Speaking of my assn, the PM makes up the agenda and puts together the board packet. However, any board member can ask to have a particular item placed on the agenda. In my assn the sec doesn't even take the minutes, we contract with a prof. to do this. The treas doesn't prepare the financial report as the books are handled by the mgmt co., but she is saavy to everything that is reported therein. In fact our treas is a CPA.

Well, see, that's a tricky question, especially the way you asked it.

The word "supposed" is what is the issue.

And my Catch-all response is: It Depends. . .

If the board has "assigned" the task of compiling the agenda to the PM, then, the PM is "supposed" to make the agenda for board meetings.

The board may well be sending items via email or phone for the PM to put on the agenda.

The PM may also be adding items she/he feels should be addressed, given her experience in the area.

The board may then say, okay, or no, depending on what the items are.

Or they may just leave the entire thing up to the PM.

I'm not saying that's "right," but unless your governing documents specifically state that only the board shall build/create/develop the agenda, then having the PM do it is not technically a violation of the documents.

I recently attended an association meeting of a neighboring development and was shocked to see how much the meeting was run by/controlled by the PM.

The officers just sat there and answered questions only when the questions were directly addressed to one officer or another.

No board members were in attendance. Apparently the "officers" are not also "board members," or so they've been led to believe. . .I was very tempted to invite several out to lunch and see what's what. . .but I have enough on my plate from my own HOA without borrowing trouble from another one!

How do you guys type so fast?
I have not even gotten to Thank Michele for her help.

Thank you Michele!

That meeting that you just spoke of, that is how ours are and even if the board is asked a question, they tend to look at the pm for her response instead of giving their own.
I do have support. And we are putting a time line if you will as to how and when we can proceed.

Mary,
I agree, however it is not our board that runs the meetings, it is the pm. We have recently opened the eyes of the pm- (I would say the board, but in reality it is the pm) to the fact that the Pres. should be in charge of the meeting. So, now the Pres. opens the meeting and turns it over to the pm for the managers report and that is the meeting. Every question that is asked to the board, the pm answerers. Thankfully, one of my neighbors is loud enough to be heard as he explains that the question was asked of the board and is for the board to answer. After saying that 3-4 times, the pm stops talking and the board is asked for their input. Sometimes we get answerers, sometimes they just sit there, and we have had 1 board member state that the pm is in charge and he agrees with whatever she says.
I also agree with reading the governing documents, which the board has little or no knowledge of. The Board Pres. does not even know how many houses we have and he has been on the board for 10 years. One of his duties is to oversee that management is doing their job, yet he does not know how many houses he governs over?

Robert,
Yes I have already been labeled the trouble maker. The pm rolls her eyes when I walk into the office, speaks down to me, acts like she does not understand what I am saying (even though everyone else in the room does), at the last meeting, another home owner told me that the pm sat back in her chair and mouthed that I was full of sh** to the board. I did not see that, but I do believe it.
Label me what you will,(the bod & pm) I know that things aren't right and will be uncovered soon enough.

I just caution you to use accurate terminology when discussing the role and responsibility if the president or other officers/directors.

Keep in mind that neither the board nor the president "governs" over residents (or houses or lots).

The board and president are administrative/executive functions, not "governing" functions.

They may oversee administrative actions of various aspects of the Homeowners association, including the administrative functions/actions of the PM.

I'm also surprised the PM owns property in the HOA she manages.

That may explain a lot.

She not only has a vested interest in the association as a "client," but as a resident/owner as well.

This could get trickier as you and your group begin to threaten her status quo.

Michele,
Thank you for pointing out the terminology.
I was also surprised to find that the pm owned property although she does not reside there. I am also trying to research conflict of interest. I do remember reading about home owners not working for assoc. but I am yet to find the exact part of the bylaws.

Again, Susan, I must correct you. The board does not "govern," the board "manages." There's a subtle, but huge difference.

It's this sort of phrasing that continues to muddy the waters and cause confusion over what an HOA is, and what it isn't, what the board of directors is, and how it's supposed to function.

We need to stop elevating board members with our terminology.

The company I work for, the CEO and president of the board doesn't "govern" the company or board. He/she or they manage it. They delegate administrative (and sometimes executive) tasks and make executive decisions, but they don't "govern."

The board in this case is abdicating it's management/oversight role to someone who indeed seems to be running the association as a mini-kingdom to "govern."

They are and have no more "power" in an association than the resident/owner/member living on either side of themselves.

They have simply agreed to step forward and "manage," "oversee," "administrate," and "execute" the tasks and functions set out in the controlling documents.

It seems that both the board and the PM in this association need to be reminded of that.

I certainly hope that Grace can organize and educate enough homeowners to begin to set things right.

Care to comment?

If the State has a Statute governing associations or HOAs, doesn't that place the "Governing" on the state? Granted I don't believe the states want to do this and would much rather let the associations work it out. However, just a for instance: If a crime is committed by any one under the umbrella of the association the State will readily jump in and prosecute (govern).

Does this help or hinder?

After reading the above comments regarding “governing”/”administrating”/”managing, I took a look at our CC&R’s. Under our By-Laws, Article III “Board of Directors, Numbers, Powers, Meetings”, A “Composition and Selection”, Section 1. Governing Body: Composition, it starts, “The affairs of the Association shall be governed by a Board of Directors …”.

It would appear from this that “Governing” does have a place in the administration of HOA’s.

Gee, even Webster seems to have a conflict: My version “WEBSTER NEW WORLD DICTIONARY, COLLEGE EDITION, has 7 definitions. The most applicable one is #1 which reads, “to exercise authority over; direct; control; rule; manage”

“To exercise authority over” sure seems strong!

Well stated, Michele; no argument here.

See:

http://www.associationtimes.com/articles2004/rolebod1104.htm

for more definitions of Board roles.

No, not really, the kettle - pot thing.

I still maintain you are trying force the HOA into a suit of clothing it was not intended to wear.

And doing so adds to the confusion about what an HOA is and what a board of an HOA is and is supposed to be/do and what it is not supposed to be/do.

Board members get big enough egos without them trotting along thinking they are some sort of government entity as well (fiefdom bordering on dictatorship).

Just sayin.

Well, Robert, this is a philosophical bend to the conversation that's probably best not taken in this particular thread.

My contribution in this thread was just to continue to remind owners AND BOD members that if we use the proper language we can reset our mental imagery, as well as our neighbor/fellow members' mental imagery -- and better manage everyone's expectations. Because in the end, that's what it's really about -- managing expectations.

We are not a government entity.

HOAs are not.

The board members are not the same as aldermen/women, councilmen/women, state or federal representatives, senators, what have you.

We are "glorified" administrators. We are worker bees. We "manage," we don't "legislate." We collect the bucks and pay the bills, and in a good year, we fix things that got broke.

Anyway, obviously it's hard for people to wrap their brains around that. We've been so conditioned that somehow we (HOAs and board members) ARE some sort of government entity with magic government powers . . .

Regarding apathy, I don't believe "apathy" either exists in a vacuum or is the only explanation for non-involvement by the non-board members of the association. But again, we can beat that scapegoat in another thread.

If we can continue to pursue the terminology and mindset that a board member is no different than any other member, except they have to make sure the bills are paid and the work gets done, expectations all the way around will be better met. That's about it.

No problem.

It's a common faux pas that people make.

The documents "govern" the association.

The board simply administers/executes the documents and manages the affairs of the association.

Donald,

Thx for your "vote of confidence". Er, wasn't that the topic of this thread b/4 it was hijacked by the def of govern?