Search the Community

If the Board of Directors of an FL HOA passed a Resolution early this year (2023) that some of the membership (consisting of close to 400 households) wishes to have it removed, rescinded, or eliminated due to the hardship it is causing the membership. The Board of Directors refuses to have an open and transparent discussion about the implication of this resolution on the membership during its public meetings after being formally requested to do so. What can I do as a member? When I approached the HOA via a formal written request, the only response I received from the Board of Directors was the attached letter from the attorney stating that the Board of Directors doesn't have to give the membership a rationale as to the reason(s) it passed the resolution in the first place. I want to start a petition to remove this resolution/policy/ordinance from the records so it is no longer enforced by the Board of Directors. 1) Can it be done? 2) How many signatures (electronic or wet signatures) do we need? Is there a timeframe for this to be accomplished? 3) Do we need an attorney to assist us so we have the correct wording in the request to petition the Board of Directors to strike this resolution out of the record and make it non-enforceable?

At a recent HOA Board meeting, the President discussed a certain agenda item in her opening President's report. When the time came for the agenda item in the course of the meeting she announced there would be "No further discussion" There was no motion or vote on the item, and the meeting moved to the next agenda item. Was this proper? Thanks

Roberts rules is a great set of rules for preventing lone dissenters from having their objections registered. A five person HOA board with a lone dissenter can effectively neutralize the impact the person can have on the proceedings. They can not even put a motion in place because ...... no seconds. Even worse when only the minimum quorum - 3 people - is present. Reminds me of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Should the seconds rule be relaxed in such small environments? The insistence on following the seconds rule under these conditions seem very superficial. You don't need seconds if your quorum is 5 or less would probably make sense.

According to RR cumulative voting is bad. What is a better option for an HOA board of directors election?

Hello, my question is about HOA Board of Directors vote. Our association follows Illinois Condominium Act., Declaration, By-laws, Board Rule Book. Association is registered as Non-profit corporation. (1) Our Board members with no membership approval voted to allow the President (board member) to work as property manager assistant for compensation. (Our By-laws: ........Members of the Board shall receive no compensation for their services, unless expressly allowed by the Board at the direction of the voting members having two-thirds (2/3) of the total votes....) Property Manager whom pushed for her becoming his assistant argues that such is allowed by Robert’s Rules and we should read it. We never used or heard of Robert’s rules. Lately our Property Manager points to it frequently but never explains. I was unable to find anything in Robert’s rules regarding this matter. (2) Based on our By-laws most membership believes the President is not allowed to work for compensation and furthermore that elected Board members committed fraud by changing the rule in the favor of another elected official. (3) Also, some members are questioning if the President lost or gave up her position on the Board by accepting the job within the association. Thank you for your time.

Under RONR, is it proper for the minutes of a Board meeting for an HOA to include an allegation from one side of a controversy that emerged during a debate of a contentious motion, without inclusion of the other side's contention countering that statement and without any further context? If improper to include such an allegation, what is the recommended way to correct the minutes? - to eliminate that allegation raised within that portion of the debate? or to balance it out with the other counter-statement's contention? or to give greater detail of the full debate? Context is HOA with bylaws that rely on RONR 11th ed. (although those who remember me from a previous question will know that for the time being, we have to interpret the rest of our bylaws in a common sense way until we can re-insert a missing "not" into our parliamentary authority bylaw). Our bylaws contain no specific provision pertaining to minutes, other than that our secretary has the authority to prepare the minutes, so presumably they are to be prepared in accordance with RONR 11th ed. In our February meeting of the Board, a major motion was brought to the floor to remove a Board member, that action being brought under a bylaw requiring 2/3 vote of Board directors present and voting. Debate was rather ragged, in one instance featuring a claim by the defending Board member speaking in his defense. The Board member who had made the motion interrupted without properly gaining the floor, alleging that he had "first-hand" knowledge the defending Board member's contention was false. Draft minutes prepared by the HOA's managing agent contain 3 bulleted items about that portion of the Board meeting - First, a very embellished version of the motion is given, adding significantly more detail than was actually stated in the motion itself. When the vote was actually taken on the motion, the presiding officer did not re-state the motion; and the version of the motion given in the minutes includes content that was not even discussed during the debate. (But that's not my question here; for purposes of this question, presume that the motion as it stood at the time of the vote is being presented in the minutes accurately.) Second, the minutes state that debate was held, a vote was taken, and the motion failed. (The actual vote count is not recorded in the minutes. Similarly, that is not the issue in this particular question.) Finally, in a third bullet after stating the result (i.e., almost as if implying a comment after the debate), the minutes state that [name of officer] stated that [allegation], providing the allegation that was stated by the interrupting Board member (i.e., on the failing side of the vote), without stating the original contention counter to that allegation (i.e., on the winning side of the vote) and without any further context. This highly selective choice of one piece of a much larger, very contentious debate strikes me as the sort of subjective content discouraged from being in minutes that are prepared within the rules of order prescribed by RONR. Comments or suggestions?