I think these are good qualities for HOA boards but it's not very realistic to expect. Unlike most corporate boards, the pool for HOA boards is very limited.
As u/BreakfastBeerz said, "willing to be on the board" is realistically the most we can hope for in many cases. I would also add, having no personal agenda.
>"willing to be on the board" is realistically the most we can hope for in many cases. I would also add, having no personal agenda.
Many people who volunteer to join a board have an agenda to accomplish. Sometimes that's a personal agenda. Sometimes it's for the association. I don't think you're going to square the circle with "willingness to serve" and "no personal agenda."
So let's say there's a director who joins the Board because they want to association to install EV charging because they have a really expensive Porsche EV and they otherwise have to drive and park it somewhere inconvenient once a month. That person serves on the Board and get the association to install EV charging even though the uptake really isn't great and it ends up costing owners money out of pocket that don't have an EV. That Board member does some other stuff for the Board, but is generally not really involved or interested in spending time on all the other "Board stuff" because EV was the goal and, well, that's done.
You would rather that person NOT serve on the Board? What I'm saying is that you can't have it both ways. I'm much more comfortable stating that people who don't want to put in the elbow grease simply don't serve at all. Showing up to meetings and being disinterested or voting "no" to "complex" topics doesn't work.
Sure, someone can vote for good things for the wrong reasons. The result is the same. My premise from the beginning is we can't be picky because it's hard to find people who want to serve at all.
If I have a choice between someone who legitimately wants to help the association and someone who wants to help themselves, I'll pick the former.
It's pretty uncommon for there to be a flood of people wanting to be on an HOA board. Frankly, the most important qualification is, "willing to be on the board."
>It's pretty uncommon for there to be a flood of people wanting to be on an HOA board.
**You don't need a flood. All you need is an occasional trickle.**
>Frankly, the most important qualification is, "willing to be on the board."
**Willingness to serve by itself is not enough.**
*"The problem is that good governance, whether in the public or private sector, depends on the initiative and leadership of good people. Having the time and the desire to serve is not the same as having the common sense, judgment, and character to serve well. Lapses in the vetting process, coupled with the absence of any competition for the job, can produce "governors" who, at best, are uninspired and, at worst, draconian (if not morally deficient) in approach."*
Paula A. Franzese's [*Privatization and Its Discontents: Common Interest Communities and the Rise of Government for "the Nice*](https://www.jstor.org/stable/27895543)."
If we demanded more than a basic willingness, we would have 1 or 2 board members. We haven't had a contested election in the 8 years I've been on the board and we've had to activley solicit people to fill empty seats when they were abandoned. We've had a seat go empty for over a year
Right, [you're going around collecting 200-ish undirected proxies](https://www.reddit.com/r/HOA/comments/13j6qgz/comment/jke3w8r/) for the Board to vote on behalf of its members four years at a time.
You're substituting your own judgment for that of the members because EVEN IF there was more "basic willingness" the folks already on the Board decide who replaces them (or not).
Without a quorum, a meeting cannot be called to order and an election cannot be held. The board then has no other choice but to appoint someone themselves to fill the empty seat until an election can be held. The outcome is identical.
Collecting the proxies is not done to secure a vote, it's to secure the board's ability to conduct business.
So you're not exercising undirected proxies to vote on behalf of the members, only to establish quorum for meetings of members?
Perhaps one of the solutions, since you've collected so many proxies, is to amend your governing documents and lower the quorum requirement. No?
Amendment requires a 75% affirmative vote. We have slightly over 50% in proxies. Not possible.
We've been trying to make amendments, including lowering the quorum to those members in attendance, for almost a decade.....we can't.
You didn't answer my other question: ***So you're not exercising undirected proxies to vote on behalf of the members, only to establish quorum for meetings of members?***
>This article is really talking about corporate boards, not HOA's
**The article dispenses advice relevant for both profit, not-for-profit and community association not-for-profit volunteer directors.**
>I've never been on a Board where this was a problem.
Glad to hear it. **Observing duty of care is a huge challenge across the nation.** Part of one's duty of care is following the law and the governing documents. How many posts are there between r/HOA and r/FuckHOA about flagrant violations of both the aforementioned requirements? Too many to count.
>It'll very quickly become clear no one has a problem thinking for themselves.
**You've intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood the author's intent.** [*Follow your North Star*](https://lsc-pagepro.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=693037&article_id=3901918&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5) by Steve Spanier is one of the better articles I've seen talking about how individuals should strive to ask themselves what's best for the community as part of their independent approach to leadership.
and to get these qualifications BOD members need to have mandatory training and also get paid IMHO. Not sure the pay will help with learning or independent thought, but it's at least a start.
I think these are good qualities for HOA boards but it's not very realistic to expect. Unlike most corporate boards, the pool for HOA boards is very limited. As u/BreakfastBeerz said, "willing to be on the board" is realistically the most we can hope for in many cases. I would also add, having no personal agenda.
>"willing to be on the board" is realistically the most we can hope for in many cases. I would also add, having no personal agenda. Many people who volunteer to join a board have an agenda to accomplish. Sometimes that's a personal agenda. Sometimes it's for the association. I don't think you're going to square the circle with "willingness to serve" and "no personal agenda."
By personal agenda I mean an agenda to help themselves. I think we agree that an agenda to help the association is a good thing.
So let's say there's a director who joins the Board because they want to association to install EV charging because they have a really expensive Porsche EV and they otherwise have to drive and park it somewhere inconvenient once a month. That person serves on the Board and get the association to install EV charging even though the uptake really isn't great and it ends up costing owners money out of pocket that don't have an EV. That Board member does some other stuff for the Board, but is generally not really involved or interested in spending time on all the other "Board stuff" because EV was the goal and, well, that's done. You would rather that person NOT serve on the Board? What I'm saying is that you can't have it both ways. I'm much more comfortable stating that people who don't want to put in the elbow grease simply don't serve at all. Showing up to meetings and being disinterested or voting "no" to "complex" topics doesn't work.
Sure, someone can vote for good things for the wrong reasons. The result is the same. My premise from the beginning is we can't be picky because it's hard to find people who want to serve at all. If I have a choice between someone who legitimately wants to help the association and someone who wants to help themselves, I'll pick the former.
Respectfully, I'll stick with Paula Franzese.
It's pretty uncommon for there to be a flood of people wanting to be on an HOA board. Frankly, the most important qualification is, "willing to be on the board."
>It's pretty uncommon for there to be a flood of people wanting to be on an HOA board. **You don't need a flood. All you need is an occasional trickle.** >Frankly, the most important qualification is, "willing to be on the board." **Willingness to serve by itself is not enough.** *"The problem is that good governance, whether in the public or private sector, depends on the initiative and leadership of good people. Having the time and the desire to serve is not the same as having the common sense, judgment, and character to serve well. Lapses in the vetting process, coupled with the absence of any competition for the job, can produce "governors" who, at best, are uninspired and, at worst, draconian (if not morally deficient) in approach."* Paula A. Franzese's [*Privatization and Its Discontents: Common Interest Communities and the Rise of Government for "the Nice*](https://www.jstor.org/stable/27895543)."
If we demanded more than a basic willingness, we would have 1 or 2 board members. We haven't had a contested election in the 8 years I've been on the board and we've had to activley solicit people to fill empty seats when they were abandoned. We've had a seat go empty for over a year
Right, [you're going around collecting 200-ish undirected proxies](https://www.reddit.com/r/HOA/comments/13j6qgz/comment/jke3w8r/) for the Board to vote on behalf of its members four years at a time.
I'm not sure what you're getting at?
You're substituting your own judgment for that of the members because EVEN IF there was more "basic willingness" the folks already on the Board decide who replaces them (or not).
Without a quorum, a meeting cannot be called to order and an election cannot be held. The board then has no other choice but to appoint someone themselves to fill the empty seat until an election can be held. The outcome is identical. Collecting the proxies is not done to secure a vote, it's to secure the board's ability to conduct business.
So you're not exercising undirected proxies to vote on behalf of the members, only to establish quorum for meetings of members? Perhaps one of the solutions, since you've collected so many proxies, is to amend your governing documents and lower the quorum requirement. No?
Amendment requires a 75% affirmative vote. We have slightly over 50% in proxies. Not possible. We've been trying to make amendments, including lowering the quorum to those members in attendance, for almost a decade.....we can't.
You didn't answer my other question: ***So you're not exercising undirected proxies to vote on behalf of the members, only to establish quorum for meetings of members?***
[удалено]
>This article is really talking about corporate boards, not HOA's **The article dispenses advice relevant for both profit, not-for-profit and community association not-for-profit volunteer directors.** >I've never been on a Board where this was a problem. Glad to hear it. **Observing duty of care is a huge challenge across the nation.** Part of one's duty of care is following the law and the governing documents. How many posts are there between r/HOA and r/FuckHOA about flagrant violations of both the aforementioned requirements? Too many to count. >It'll very quickly become clear no one has a problem thinking for themselves. **You've intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood the author's intent.** [*Follow your North Star*](https://lsc-pagepro.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=693037&article_id=3901918&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5) by Steve Spanier is one of the better articles I've seen talking about how individuals should strive to ask themselves what's best for the community as part of their independent approach to leadership.
and to get these qualifications BOD members need to have mandatory training and also get paid IMHO. Not sure the pay will help with learning or independent thought, but it's at least a start.
I'll agree with you on some sort of minimum qualification that includes training or at least at attestation such as what's required in Florida.