Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Opinions in debate


Guest Insomnious

Recommended Posts

If one is on a board where one is representing hundreds of people in the decision making process,

And one is supposed to have 'undivided loyalty' to the whole, meaning one cannot have one's own interests in mind in the decision making process, but only the 'whole' as it were,

And since opinions can only represent one's self,

Should one's opinions-as-reasons be avoided in the decision making process?

Especially if one's opinions represent direct personal opinions or preferences about a certain topic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the age old debate about what someone in a representative capacity, such as a board member, city council member or legislator should do when his own opinions on a matter upon which he must vote are at odds with the majority of those he represents. 

 

Although he is, of course, supposed to represent the interests of his constituents, I am of the opinion that he must ultimately vote his conscience. 

 

I don't know that there is an answer to your question. 

 

Note:  There are probably situations, such as a delegate to a convention, where the delegate might be honor bound to vote as directed by the body he represents on certain issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sez who?

Your premises are flawed.

Well, consider this:

"Directors must act in the best interests of the association even if at the expense of their own interests. This is more than just embezzlement of funds; it includes steering contracts to family members or taking actions that result in personal benefits to the director at the expense of the association. Violation could result in (i) liability for all profits received, (ii) all damages caused by the breach, and (iii) punitive damages."

This is from the Davis Stirling Act of CA, which applies to HOAs among other types of groups, I believe.

Lets say a director is using his board seat to get two mature trees cut down that he does not like. He has access to the vendor who manages our trees, and has been asking over and over (over a period of a year or more) for that vendor to change his professional recommendation about these two trees, so they will be offically on a removal list. A 'priority removal' list no less.

The vendor recently stated (again, in an official capacity in a recent inventory/review of our trees) that those particular trees were fine to stay. The board member asked yet again, not only for reconsideration of the professional recommendation, but asked the vendor for a deadline to put the trees on such a list in case the professional recommendation was wrong. All other recommendations from this vendor were considered a-ok, mind you).

A ordinary homeowner (non-board member) could not do this, as they do not have access to vendors, and if it was found out that an ordinary homeowner had somehow gained access to this vendor (recognized him on site, phone his company), and was asking over and over for the same thing, they would surely be asked to stop, and the vendor would be told not to entertain conversations with that homeowner. The director is using his position of power to gain a benefit to himself (getting something he does not like taken away) at the expense of the association (the actual expense of removing the trees and the expense of the trees being absent, as they did take 30+ years to grow).

Is such a transaction and pursuit not self-dealing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one is on a board where one is representing hundreds of people in the decision making process,

And one is supposed to have 'undivided loyalty' to the whole, meaning one cannot have one's own interests in mind in the decision making process, but only the 'whole' as it were,

And since opinions can only represent one's self,

Should one's opinions-as-reasons be avoided in the decision making process?

Especially if one's opinions represent direct personal opinions or preferences about a certain topic?

 

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, consider this:

"Directors must act in the best interests of the association even if at the expense of their own interests. This is more than just embezzlement of funds; it includes steering contracts to family members or taking actions that result in personal benefits to the director at the expense of the association. Violation could result in (i) liability for all profits received, (ii) all damages caused by the breach, and (iii) punitive damages."

This is from the Davis Stirling Act of CA, which applies to HOAs among other types of groups, I believe.

Lets say a director is using his board seat to get two mature trees cut down that he does not like. He has access to the vendor who manages our trees, and has been asking over and over (over a period of a year or more) for that vendor to change his professional recommendation about these two trees, so they will be offically on a removal list. A 'priority removal' list no less.

The vendor recently stated (again, in an official capacity in a recent inventory/review of our trees) that those particular trees were fine to stay. The board member asked yet again, not only for reconsideration of the professional recommendation, but asked the vendor for a deadline to put the trees on such a list in case the professional recommendation was wrong. All other recommendations from this vendor were considered a-ok, mind you).

A ordinary homeowner (non-board member) could not do this, as they do not have access to vendors, and if it was found out that an ordinary homeowner had somehow gained access to this vendor (recognized him on site, phone his company), and was asking over and over for the same thing, they would surely be asked to stop, and the vendor would be told not to entertain conversations with that homeowner. The director is using his position of power to gain a benefit to himself (getting something he does not like taken away) at the expense of the association (the actual expense of removing the trees and the expense of the trees being absent, as they did take 30+ years to grow).

Is such a transaction and pursuit not self-dealing?

 

If the members think it is, then it is.  I'm not a member so what I think doesn't matter.  RONR would be fine with calling in conduct unbecoming an officer, and just as fine with ignoring it.  It's the members who decide if the act is worthy of discipline and, if so, what the punishment should be.

 

Of course you may disagree on the grounds that  they should not let their opinions influence their vote.  But ultimately that is all that ever influences the vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, consider this:

"Directors must act in the best interests of the association even if at the expense of their own interests. This is more than just embezzlement of funds; it includes steering contracts to family members or taking actions that result in personal benefits to the director at the expense of the association. Violation could result in (i) liability for all profits received, (ii) all damages caused by the breach, and (iii) punitive damages."

This is from the Davis Stirling Act of CA, which applies to HOAs among other types of groups, I believe.

Lets say a director is using his board seat to get two mature trees cut down that he does not like. He has access to the vendor who manages our trees, and has been asking over and over (over a period of a year or more) for that vendor to change his professional recommendation about these two trees, so they will be offically on a removal list. A 'priority removal' list no less.

The vendor recently stated (again, in an official capacity in a recent inventory/review of our trees) that those particular trees were fine to stay. The board member asked yet again, not only for reconsideration of the professional recommendation, but asked the vendor for a deadline to put the trees on such a list in case the professional recommendation was wrong. All other recommendations from this vendor were considered a-ok, mind you).

A ordinary homeowner (non-board member) could not do this, as they do not have access to vendors, and if it was found out that an ordinary homeowner had somehow gained access to this vendor (recognized him on site, phone his company), and was asking over and over for the same thing, they would surely be asked to stop, and the vendor would be told not to entertain conversations with that homeowner. The director is using his position of power to gain a benefit to himself (getting something he does not like taken away) at the expense of the association (the actual expense of removing the trees and the expense of the trees being absent, as they did take 30+ years to grow).

Is such a transaction and pursuit not self-dealing?

 

Did you come to this forum to obtain advice based upon the rules in RONR or based upon some California statute? If the latter, you've come to the wrong place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

That's an awfully brief answer. So does your 'No' answer mean you think it is ok for a fiduciary to use beliefs/feelings that only reflect one person's specific ideas about something (opinions…as opposed to a complete picture of "facts, let's say, for contrast) to vote in a situation where a large group of people trust that you will vote in a fair and unbiased manner on behalf of them all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the members think it is, then it is.  I'm not a member so what I think doesn't matter.  RONR would be fine with calling in conduct unbecoming an officer, and just as fine with ignoring it.  It's the members who decide if the act is worthy of discipline and, if so, what the punishment should be.

 

Of course you may disagree on the grounds that  they should not let their opinions influence their vote.  But ultimately that is all that ever influences the vote.

That all depends on the person voting.

I feel a person who is dedicated, as much as their ego allows, to remaining open and unbiased as long as one can in the information gathering process before they decide on their position on a topic, that is preferable.

If one chooses their own (possibly narrow) opinion over facts, and remains closed minded to ideas than their own, especially in cases where they wish to ignore facts they simply do not like, or attempt to weaken the facts with bad (faulty) logic to support their own narrow view, I would consider that an irresponsible way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an awfully brief answer. So does your 'No' answer mean you think it is ok for a fiduciary to use beliefs/feelings that only reflect one person's specific ideas about something (opinions…as opposed to a complete picture of "facts, let's say, for contrast) to vote in a situation where a large group of people trust that you will vote in a fair and unbiased manner on behalf of them all?

What it means is that there is no rule in RONR which prohibits this behavior. RONR provides that a member who has a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members should not vote on a question, but he cannot be compelled to abstain. See FAQ #9.

If the membership doesn't care for the behavior of this board member, the solution is to vote for someone else when his term expires, or see FAQ #20 if you don't feel like waiting that long.

It is quite possible (even probable) that applicable law has additional requirements related to the fiduciary duty of board members, but that is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum.

That all depends on the person voting.

I feel a person who is dedicated, as much as their ego allows, to remaining open and unbiased as long as one can in the information gathering process before they decide on their position on a topic, that is preferable.

If one chooses their own (possibly narrow) opinion over facts, and remains closed minded to ideas than their own, especially in cases where they wish to ignore facts they simply do not like, or attempt to weaken the facts with bad (faulty) logic to support their own narrow view, I would consider that an irresponsible way to go.

I would agree with you, but our personal opinions on this subject are beside the point. The fact remains that no rule in RONR prohibits the board member from behaving in this manner. If you don't think he's a good board member, then vote for someone else next time, and persuade your fellow members to do likewise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...