Re: Fiduciary Responsibilities - Taking Care of the Community | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: David Clements and Evan Richardson (evdavwesaol.com) | |
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 05:15:39 -0700 (PDT) |
Thanks for bringing up the topic. I am not a lawyer, but would love to hear input from any lawyers about this. For our community ( www.westwoodcohousing.com ), the responsibility of the Board was defined in our original declaration and bylaws as everything other than approving the amount of the annual budget and assessments and electing the Board, which authority is reserved to the members. In this respect, our HOA (Homeowners Association) is set up like the other 99% of HOAs that are not cohousing. So we have a huge potential for conflict, since many (but not necessarily all) residents assume that in cohousing the members themselves should have significant authority for many aspects of community life, rather than just electing a Board and turning over their authority to the Board. . We have had conflicts related to the Board being perceived as doing "too much," when it exercises the authority given to it in the bylaws, and doing "too little," when members of the Board assume that they do not have the authority, and fail to act or defer to members. I have come to feel that the most important way to minimize this kind of conflict, for communities that have a small elected Board (as opposed to communities where many or all members are legally on the Board), is to be very clear about what authority they want the Board to have. In our state (NC) this would involve including in the declaration any authority that we might want to give to members which is usually given "by default" to the Board. For example, the authority to create rules and regulations. The NC Planned Community Act specifies that the Board has the authority to create rules "by default," unless the declaration specifies otherwise. If we want the members to have the authority to create rules and regulations, we need to specify this in the declaration. We have not actually done this, although historically the only rules and regulations we have ever adopted have been by member decision rather than Board decision. We have thus left ourselves open to a legal challenge based on the fact that our rules were not properly adopted. (Knock on wood, no one has challenged the rules yet.) The Board has a "fiduciary responsibility" to the owners and the HOA. One aspect of this fiduciary responsibility is that the Board carry out any responsibilities given to it by the members/owners. These responsibilities are typically detailed in the declaration and bylaws. If the Board feels that some of the things specified in the declaration are not in the best interest of the community, the Board still has the responsibility to carry out the responsibilities. To fail to carry out the responsibility is by definition a violation of the Board's fiduciary duty. If the Board determines that an existing provision in the declaration is unwise or imprudent, the only action the Board can take consistent with its fiduciary responsibility is to convince the members to change the declaration, and meanwhile continue to enforce the provision. For example, if the declaration specifies a "pet policy" (as some declarations do) saying that pets over 50 pounds are prohibited, and the Board tolerates or allows a 60-pound dog on the property, the Board is violating its fiduciary responsibility to owners. Even if the Board determines that a different pet policy is in the best interests of the community. Another example: Conventional wisdom says that for HOA Boards, investing HOA funds in any instrument that may lose value, such as Municipal Bonds, reflects poor business judgment and is thus a violation of fiduciary responsibility to the owners. The members of a Board which approves such an investment are individually vulnerable to a lawsuit from owners to recover personally from them any amount lost because of their action. However, if the range of permitted investments is specified in the Declaration or Bylaws, and the Board invests according to the policy, the Board's actions by definition carry out its fiduciary responsibility. The concept of "fiduciary responsibility" applies whenever a Trustee or elected Board makes decisions on behalf of individuals or owners. It does not apply to decisions the individuals or owners make for themselves. There is no legally enforceable requirement that owners, when acting as a group on their own behalf, make "good" or "sound" decisions. I have heard the opinion that the HOA owner/members should not make financial decisions for themselves because they have no "fiduciary responsibility" to themselves: only the Board has a fiduciary responsibility to the owners, and therefore the Board will make "more responsible" decisions -- so the argument goes. I think this argument misses one main point of cohousing: That it is a legitimate choice for people to govern themselves, rather than to elect a government and turn over their power to them. Self-governance may not always be pretty or easy, and many people may reasonably choose not to live this way. But for those who do, it can be deeply satisfying and often exhilarating. For those who prefer to have an elected Board make decisions for them, there are plenty of other places to live (the other 99%). David Clements Message: 3 Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 09:40:06 -0700 From: "Norman Gauss" <normangauss [at] charter.net> Subject: [C-L]_ Fiduciary Responsibilities - Taking Care of the Community To: "'Cohousing-L'" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org> Message-ID: <01d601cd5a03$abad5e80$03081b80$@charter.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Our community has a long history of trying to minimize arbitrary actions by the Board of Directors. The feeling is that, in cohousing, the whole community should be making important decisions. The literature is replete with stories of domineering Boards lowering the boom on the HOA without any recourse from the membership. However, in California, the whole community may make ill-advised decisions with legal impunity that may make living here potentially hazardous with respect to personal safety, susceptibility to fires, termite infestation, attacks by dogs, access to emergency vehicles, and preventative measures minimizing the need for special assessments. But the whole community does not have fiduciary responsibilities for its members and cannot be held liable for negligence or purposely making decisions based on personal preferences of a few members. The Board of Directors, being a fiduciary body, legally cannot let personal interests of its members be a basis for its decisions. It must have the welfare of the community in mind rather than the welfare of its members. If found to have been negligent or to have purposely made decisions that were not in the best interests of the community, it can be accused of malfeasance and liable to be sued. Our membership is uncomfortable with the Board making unilateral decisions and is not willing to give the Board leeway to act in the best interests of the HOA. Does this type of conflict exist in other cohousing communities? Norman Gauss
- Re: Fiduciary Responsibilities - Taking Care of the Community, (continued)
- Re: Fiduciary Responsibilities - Taking Care of the Community Mariana Almeida, July 5 2012
- Re: Fiduciary Responsibilities - Taking Care of the Community Norman Gauss, July 8 2012
- Re: Fiduciary Responsibilities - Taking Care of the Community Mariana Almeida, July 8 2012
- Re: Fiduciary Responsibilities - Taking Care of the Community Sharon Villines, July 9 2012
-
Re: Fiduciary Responsibilities - Taking Care of the Community Sharon Villines, July 8 2012
- Re: Fiduciary Responsibilities - Taking Care of the Community Norman Gauss, July 8 2012
- Re: Fiduciary Responsibilities - Taking Care of the Community davidaclements2, July 9 2012
- Re: Fiduciary Responsibilities - Taking Care of the Community Sharon Villines, July 9 2012
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.