I have read it and I agree. But the question was can a spouse attend and talk at a meeting without being on the deed. The answer would be no. You stated that a board member could make his spouse (not on the deed) his representative who could them attend and talk. If the spouse is the representative, what does that make him? Both are attending. He is a board member. You have to be a member to be on the board and he gave his spouse status as his representative. I don’t believe you can make someone else your representative and still be there and function as a member. If that is not what you meant, please let me know.
thanks

Brodie,

You are incorrect, what I stated was there is no statute that would limit a member from designating a renter or anyone else from representing them at a meeting of the board or community. Because the specific statute you referenced stipulates just that. There are no provisions in statute that would undermine that statement or position. You might want to actually read the original question and follow up comments before you attack my response. If two spouses are on the deed either can attend, if only one is on the deed they can designate their spouse to represent them at any meeting. If the home is rented the owner can designate the renter to represent them, and finally any owner can designate anyone other than themselves to represent them at a meeting. The board is absolutely able to open their meeting to anyone they want even non-members. It is their meeting. The do not have the right to open up meetings of the members to non-members, only the members have that right it is their meeting. The law requires that all members and their representatives be included it does not in any way limit the participation of non-members in board meeting at the total and unlimited discretion of the board.

Dennis

Dennis,
I would disagree with your comment that there is no statute that refers to who can attend meetings. I think that ARS 33-1804 is quite specific about members being the ones who can attend meetings and speak. Our own documents further define a member and owner.

1-the CCR’s, Article 1, section12 defines “member” to mean and refer to the owner of a lot.
2-the CCR’s, Article 1, section 14 defines “owner” as the person of record. That can be verified on Maricopa County assessor’s website.
3-the CCR’s, Article V, section 1 states that every owner shall be a member.
4-ARS 33-1804, Section A is below:
Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association or any person designated by a member in writing as the member’s representative and all members or designated representatives so desiring shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time during the deliberations and proceedings.
5-please note in the above ARS, it states 1) meetings are open to all members or their reps…..and members equals owner by record and 2) those members or their reps desiring shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time.

Where does it say board members can designate someone else as their representative during a meeting?

Brodie,

While I complete understand your frustration with an association that is resistant to transparency. I just caution you that while you believe that your request for information is reasonable the specifics of the request are what will determine the outcome if you challenge the refusal in court. The association clearly has a duty to provide financial transparency relative to the business and expenses of the association, and the association has a fiduciary responsibility to act prudently in the management of the association funds. Not getting multiple bids for significant expenditures have been found by the courts to reflect a lack of prudency.

They clearly have a job to do, that your community put them in this position of responsibility to do. You need to allow them the opportunity to do the job that you want them to do without second guessing every move. If you have concerns about specific transactions, then you have a right to see the details of that transaction and the association has the obligation to provide you access to that information in a timely manner. But request for a year’s worth of detailed financial records without any specific concern identified will always be viewed by the courts as unreasonable and overly burdensome. No matter how you feel about the issue. If you feel that your are not adequately informed about a particular months income or expenditures and want more details about that month you are free to ask for those details and the association is required by law to provide them. But doing that month after month will always be viewed and unreasonable.

If you don’t trust your board to do the right thing for the association then work to remove that board or individuals on that board from that position. If enough people feel the same about the issue, they will sign the petition and vote to recall those board members. Otherwise, you must allow then to do the job you put them there to do.

Dennis

Dennis,
I would like to address the question above and your comment about requesting financial records for all of 2022.

First of all, it was not unreasonable in any way. The BOD is spending homeowner money and they have a right to know how much is being spent and for what. And second, as to it being burdensome, that was not the case at all. We are not a huge community. Each month was organized in a separate folder (as the treasurer always does) and easy to follow. The review only took about 3 hrs.

What I think you failed to realize was that this request was made because we have a board who spends money and never tells us what anything costs. They do not get 3 bids and recently upped the amount they can spend without asking. Requests have been made for several items that have never gotten a response. The monthly financials, published in the newsletter, do not identify what is spent on specific items. During the review, it was discovered that there was another page to the financials that has never been published and does show many of the specifics. It was also discovered that there is no posting as to what is in a deposit. Even when questioned directly, the treasurer could not identify what was included in a specific deposit,

We asked that those 2 things (publishing the 2nd page of the financials and listing what is included in a deposit) be addressed/resolved but again, nothing has happened.

Thank you
Brodie Poole

Thank you again, Dennis! When we first moved here, it was stated by the then-HOA manager to my husband and I that the HOA works for the community members, not just the board. I appreciate your clarifying this.

ADRE? Arizona Department of Real Estate? Sorry, I’m unfamiliar with that acronym. I say corrupt as this isn’t the only instance of their wrongdoing. However, I appreciate your gentle nudge.

It’s not just myself but many of the community members that want this board member removed. We want to live in a peaceful community where we are informed and can be neighbors first and then ‘official’ next (with regards to board members vs community members). However, it’s become so political and full of hate that it’s cost friendships among the community and threats of legal action.

This is my first experience with an HOA but honestly, I don’t think I’ll ever live in another place with one.

I completely agree that they do have value and purpose WHEN the laws are adhered to by all and it’s not so pitted.

Have an amazing weekend!

Lori,

You are absolutely correct the Board violated the open meeting law by calling a meeting of the board to discuss community business without 48 hours’ notice to all members and the opportunity of any member to attend. This fact in undisputable, but it is not a sign of a corrupt board. It reflect at the very least an uninformed board or at the worst a board that is trying to hide something that they are doing. There is a reason for the open meeting law and that is the need for transparency in the conduct of the business of the community based on the fact that all homeowners are unconditionally obliged to pay for any action of the board. The open meeting laws are the most violated provision of the law relative to these communities. You have a right to know what your board is doing, and the board has an obligation to all homeowners to conduct their business and discussion with transparency. Like I always say transparency builds trust, trust builds respect and respect builds a content community. You are however incorrect in your assumptions relative to the management company, they have absolutely no obligation to anyone in the community. They work for the board under the terms of their contract with the board. While you pay for their services, they do not work for you. To assume that the management company will comply with the law and make sure that the board does the same is incorrect and while logical is not in any way a reflection of reality. Only the board has a duty and obligation to the community to comply with the law.

Using terms like corrupt board to describe this situation is inflammatory and not in any way helpful. You have provided the board with the detail of the law, inform them that if they do this again you will file a petition to ADRE to force them to comply with the law and they will then be under a court order to comply with the law enforceable by contempt of court and will have to pay your application fee and any fine applied by the court.

Hopefully this gets their attention, and they start doing business in compliance with the law.

Lastly to have seven board members to govern a community of 48 homes is total overkill and excessive. Five would be a more appropriate number.

Dennis

Dennis,

Thank you! Agreed, it’s highly unethical and completely lacking in integrity. The community is already working on various actions.

We have exactly 41 homes in our community, and zero common areas (unless you count the deplorable entrance (not gated either).

I have worked in corporate America and with the government almost my entire adult life and never in my life have I encountered such deceitful, manipulative, self-serving, lawbreakers in my life.

Of course I’m the hated one because I’m stirring the pot as they say because I refuse to be lied to or have my rights taken away.

Thank you so much for your advice!

Lori,

Some follow up thoughts. What was somewhat Un emphasized in this message is that members of the community attended the board meeting and expressed their opposition to a proposed motion. By doing that the board listened and dropped the issue. This is what this coalition is all about, an engaged community that does not allow the elected board members to implement policy that is not in the best interest of the community. While I do not know how small or how large your community is unless you have more that 1000 members a board of 7 members is total overkill and more problematic then positive. While the outrage was on this issue and not on the more significant issue of the inappropriate appointment of sitting board members to circumvent the election process. If the board serves the terms assigned and is held accountable by the election process than a board of five members is probably appropriate for your community. I understand that this was a move to allow the dominant three members to maintain control of the board, but the members should be allowed to address that in an election, and not by illegitimate actions of the board. This move was simply a measure to eliminate accountability of these board members to the community that they are supposed to serve. Exercise your right to recall these board members and turn control of your community back to the homeowners.

Dennis

Lori,

This problem is getting more and more common, i suspect that one community does this, it gets passed to other communities thru the attorneys or the community managers. It is not currently illegal but it is absolutely unethical and inappropriate. The board members are elected to those position by the people and their term is applied to their position. They can extent their stay on the board only by vote of the members. The use of this musical chairs approach to avoid election cycles is totally and completely inappropriate. With any luck I will be proposing and attempting to get legislation passed next year that makes this practice illegal.

Right now, your options are a recall of the board members that conspired to create this sham and total abuse of power. I would highly recommend that your community while still enraged by the move initiate a petition for a special meeting of the members for the purpose of recalling the individual board members and replacing them with board members that will work for your community and not for themselves.

Dennis