BOD not executing a motion

[smackdaddy11]

Good morning,

The HOA I'm a member of had a meeting inlate Oct '09. Two motions were brought up under new business, seconded and passed by the membership that had Quorum.

1. "Form a committee to examine expanding our Elected officers from the current 3 to un unknown nuber"

2. "Form a committee to examine who owns the northern boarder fencing within our community"

In April '10 a newsletter was sent our by the board that had an interest form in it. We were to fill it out and mail it back.

We just received an email from the board that regarding #1..

"Thank you for responding to the survey and volunteering to be on a Committee to evaluate the number of elected Board Members that should serve on our Homeowner's Association Board.

We received 34 responses to the survey (out of 130 home/lot owners - 26.1%), with the following results:

17 - 3 members is the right number

15 - Something other than 3 members (ranging from 4 to 7 members)

2 - No opinion

In evaluating the responses, a "no opinion" vote was grouped with the "3 members" votes, as no opinion essentially signifies the home owner believes the current number of members is appropriate. Therefore, there were 19 votes that 3 Board Members was the right number (56%), and 15 votes that the Board should contain something other than 3 members (44%).

Based on the overall low response rate and the fact that the majority of homeowners who did respond think our current number of Board members (3) is the right number, the Board has determined that insufficient interest exists to re-evaluate the number of elected Board Members.

Again, thanks for completing your survey, and for volunteering to serve our neighborhood.

Regards.

Treasurer"

Is this legal? I feel the board should of appointed a committee like they were instructed to do.

#2....

"Thank you for responding to the survey and volunteering to be on a Committee to evaluate the costs and requirements of erecting a security fence around the entire neighborhood perimeter. This was NOT the motion.

We received 34 responses to the survey (out of 130 home/lot owners - 26.1%), with the following results:

25 - each homeowner is responsible for the fence behind their home (73.5%)

9 - in favor of exploring the erection of a security fence around our neighborhood (26.5%)

0 - No opinion

Based on the overall low response rate and the overwhelming majority of homeowners who did respond indicating they think each homeowner is responsible for their own back fence, the Board has determined that insufficient interest exists to evaluate the costs and requirements of erecting a security fence around the entire neighborhood perimeter.

Again, thanks for completing your survey, and for volunteering to serve our neighborhood.

Regards.

Treasurer"

This wasn't even the motion that passed. The motion was to determine who owns the existing fencing within our PUD property pins.

What is the legallity of this?

Thx

[Mr. J!]

Two motions were...passed by the membership...

1. "Form a committee to examine expanding our Elected officers from the current 3 to un unknown nuber"

2. "Form a committee to examine who owns the northern boarder fencing within our community"

If this is the full text of the motions, the problem started there, with what was left out of the motions.

Were these motions to instruct the board to appoint committees? Were they intended to create committees? When are these committees to report?

See RONR Section 50, starting on page 471, for the rules on committees and how to draft an effective motion to commit. It follows the section on boards, which you will also want to read.

[Larry Cisar]

Good morning,

The HOA I'm a member of had a meeting inlate Oct '09. Two motions were brought up under new business, seconded and passed by the membership that had Quorum.

Etc.

Who has the power according to your covenants? The board may not be required to do what the membership tells it to do. So check your documents first.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

[re poll]

Is this legal? I feel the board should of appointed a committee like they were instructed to do.

The board is free to poll its constituency, to find out what We The People are thinking and feeling.

Q. Did you think that the board is forbidden from asking questions from the population from which they sprang?

If every board member manned a telephone tree, and conducted a popularity poll, would you think that the popularity poll was "illegal"?

(I don't. There is no gag rule in Robert's Rules of Order.)

"Thank you for responding to the survey and volunteering to be on a Committee to evaluate the costs and requirements of erecting a security fence around the entire neighborhood perimeter.

[This was NOT the motion.]

This wasn't even the motion that passed.

The motion was to determine who owns the existing fencing within our PUD property pins.

What is the legality of this?

I don't know what to make of it.

There is a mismatch between (a.) what the motion said; vs. (b.) what action was generated from the motion.

Shall I blame the board? Shall I blame the poll takers?

It is like ordering the treasurer to go out and find a local accountant for an audit, and then seeing the treasurer show up with pizzas and ice cream, saying "The resolution adopted in June is now complete."

I just don't know the CAUSE of the screw-up.

Like they say in football, "Somebody blew their assignment."

But I don't know WHO blew it.

And maybe you don't, either.

(The pizza and ice cream is not at fault, in my example. Depending on "who blew their assignment", the communicator to the treasurer may have blow the assignment, or the treasurer himself may have blown the assignment. The secretary, who wrote down the wrong wording, which should have said "pizza and ice cream", may be the guy at fault. So YOU tell ME where the key player dropped the ball. 'Cause I certainly don't know.)

[Josh Martin]

What is the legallity of this?

The board is required to follow the orders of the general membership unless the Bylaws provide otherwise. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 466, lines 7-14)

[Thomas Ralph]

The board seems to have carried out #1 sufficiently well (perhaps the committee may have only comprised a single person, but nothing turns on this). However, #2 has not been done and the board members should be politely reminded to get their respective acts together.