Definition of "Member in Good Standing"

[Marsha Thole]

Our bylaws define a member in good standing as one whose dues are up to date and who is in compliance with the covenants, with no outstanding violations. Some feel it should only mean someone has paid dues. What do the rest of you use for an HOA? Personally, I would not want someone on the board who thinks it is okay to have covenant violations, and then be charged with enforcing them. How do you definite "in good standing"?

[Richard Brown]

As you probably understand, RONR has no definition of “a member in good standing“ and, if “ being in good standing” is to be used as a criteria for something such as holding office, your organization will need to define the term.

I want to urge you to be careful with other requirements such as “no outstanding violations”. What exactly does that term mean? Does it mean no adjudications of having violated your covenants? If so, how recently? What is the timeframe? Would it apply to people who have been accused of a violation, but whose case has not yet been “adjudicated”? If so, keep in mind that that could open the door to members preventing other members from running for office simply by accusing them of having violated some rule.

Take this seriously and be careful what you wish for. BTW, if someone running for office is accused of having a violation or having them in the past, nothing requires anyone to vote for that candidate. 

[Marsha Thole]

Good points, Richard. Correct, a member doesn't have to vote for a candidate, but then, we had a treasurer who was in litigation for embezzlement and he was reelected! People don't always vote with common sense, but for friends with no experience, a record of absences at meetings, or someone's color. I have seen it all. Easier said than done.  

[Weldon Merritt]

On 7/3/2024 at 4:59 PM, Marsha Thole said:

People don't always vote with common sense, but for friends with no experience, a record of absences at meetings, or someone's color.

RONR cannot protect members from their own stupidity. And I echo Mr. Brown's admonishment to be very careful what criteria you put in your bylaws. I have seen well-intentioned language turn out to cause more problems than it resolves. I'm not saying that requiring "good standing" to be elected is necessarily a bad idea. I'm just saying be very careful how you define the term.

At the very least, I would recommend that there have been an actual finding of a violation and not just an accusation, and that the disqualification last only as long as the violation remains unabetted. 

Edited July 4, 2024 at 02:51 AM by Weldon Merritt
Second paragraph added.

[Joshua Katz]

On 7/3/2024 at 2:16 PM, Marsha Thole said:

Personally, I would not want someone on the board who thinks it is okay to have covenant violations, and then be charged with enforcing them.

I share this concern about a person being asked to faithfully execute laws who thinks it is okay to break them. But I too think, in general, it is one for the voters, unless you can draw a very clear line and not prohibit too many people.

[Gary Novosielski]

The closest RONR comes to defining "good standing" is in this footnote:

³ Members in good standing are those whose rights as members of the assembly are not under suspension as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws. A member may thus be in good standing even if in arrears in payment of dues (see 45:1, 56:19). If only some of an individual’s rights as a member of the assembly are under suspension (for example, the rights to make motions and speak in debate), other rights of assembly membership may still be exercised (for example, the rights to attend meetings and vote). [1:13n3]

So if your bylaws specify that only members in good standing have certain rights, you can end up with some circular definitions, unless "good standing" is well defined in your bylaws.  Saying that dues must be current is necessary if you want that to be a condition, because clearly RONR does not do that automatically.  The rest of your definition looks a bit squishy.  Whether someone is in compliance might be a matter of opinion.  Unless formal discipline procedures have removed specific rights, it can be ambiguous.  

[Atul Kapur]

On 7/3/2024 at 10:43 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I share this concern about a person being asked to faithfully execute laws who thinks it is okay to break them

I believe we may need to be more specific about which definition of execute is intended.