Florida ROC : Florida Mobile Home & RV Lawyer & Attorney : Scott Gordon : Lutz Bobo Telfair Eastman Gabel & Lee Law Firm : FL Condo & Homeowners Associations

What can the directors or other members of a ROC do when the President refuses a request to bring an item before the board for consideration?

There are a number of factors that should be considered in answering this question:

• Traditionally, the President (or the board's chairperson) has been given the task of setting the agenda for meetings of the directors.  However, it's also customary that the President consult with the other directors when setting that agenda.
• There's certainly nothing wrong with allowing the President and the other members of the board to exercise a reasonable amount of discretion in setting the agenda.   Clearly, no purpose is served by allowing an issue that has already been decided by the board to have that issue placed on the agenda simply because a board member or other resident disagrees with the board's decision.
• However, the continual refusal of a President to place an item on the board meeting agenda may be a symptom of dangerous divisions within the board and the entire community.   When a ROC board member complains to me that his or her President will not place an item on the board meeting agenda, that's a warning sign that requires my contacting the ROC manager to determine the reasons for the refusal to place the item on the agenda.    Quite often, I'll learn from the community's manager that there are legitimate reasons for the President's position and at the same time will discover that personality conflicts or other issues are preventing the board from effectively governing the community.

If the President's refusal to place an item on the agenda is not justified, board members should review the association's bylaws.   The board members themselves usually appoint the association's officers, including the President, and a President that refuses to listen to a majority of his or her board members runs the risk of being removed from his office by his or her fellow board members.   While he or she would remain on the board, that removed President would no longer be able to unilaterally control the agenda.

I'll be posting the dates and locations of our seminars for February and March in my next blog entry.   We've got some exciting topics to cover and hope you'll be able to attend one of them.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I've always told board members that the residents in their communities elected them to vote on the issues that come before them and not to refuse or decline to vote on those issues.   There are very few circumstances that justify a board member abstaining on an issue and most, if not all, involve situations where the board member would find himself in a conflict of interest if he voted on that particular matter.

The following are not valid reasons to abstain:

• The board member feels he doesn't know enough about the issue.   It's that board member's responsibility to do his homework about the issue before the meeting.
• The board member doesn't want to take an unpopular position or offend any of the residents.  Board members should not be elected because they are nice or will make the easy and popular decisions.   They are elected to properly and prudently make the sometimes difficult and unpopular decisions required  to effectively operate the community.
• The member, who happens to be the chairman/president, feels he only has to vote if a tie needs to be broken.   In most communities, the chairman/president is elected by only the members of the board while each board member is elected by the entire membership.   I believe that the chairman/president is first and foremost a member of the board that was elected by the entire membership and has been given and accepted the same responsibility of every other board member--which is to vote on every issue that comes before the board, regardless of whether a tie vote needs to be broken.

What is the effect of an abstention?  

• The 2008 amendments to Florida Statute Section 718.111(1)(b) provide that a member of the board of directors of a condominium association who abstains from voting "on any action taken on any corporate matter shall be presumed to have taken no position with regard to the action."   Apparently, that abstaining member's vote cannot be counted either for or against the action.  
• However, this provision is not found in Chapter 719.  Instead, cooperative associations are governed by Florida StatuteSection 719.104(8)(b) which provides that a director who is present at a board meeting is presumed to have assented to the action taken by the board unless  the director votes against such action or abstains because of an asserted conflct of interest.    It would seem that any abstention that is not based on a conflict of interest would be held to be a vote "for" the action taken by the board.
• It appears that the provisions of either Florida Statute Sections 607.0824(4) or 617.0824(4) will  apply to homeowners associations, depending on whether that particular association is organized as a for profit (Chapter 607) or not for profit (Chapter 617) corporation.   Those sections provide that a director who is present at a meeting of the board or a committee of the board when corporate action is taken is held to have assented to that action unless he either objects at the beginning of the meeting or promptly upon his arrival to holding the meeting or transacting specified affairs at the meeting, or he votes against or abstains from the action taken.   

As you can see, the statutes are not quite identical and can cause some confusion.   My apologies to those of you that caught my earlier entry this morning which did not include the reference to Section 719.104(8)(b).   We've talked about this not quite logical provision at a number of our seminars and thanks to the followers of this blog that reminded me of the inconstency between Chapter 718 and Chapter 719.  

In any event, the best way to avoid the questions arising from abstentions is for a board member to vote on the issue unless a conflict of interest prevents him from doing so.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

"Civility" is a new "buzz word" as a result of the outburst of the South Carolina congressman who yelled "you lie" during President Obama's address to the members of the Senate and House of Representatives last week.   Regardless of how one feels about the health care reform debate, this interruption of the President's speech by a member of the U.S. Congress was a shocking breach of decorum and left me feeling less than confident that our current elected officials would be able to reach any constructive resolutions to the important issues and challenges that we face.

I've had similar feelings recently after leaving several board or membership meetings in resident owned communities.   The past few years have seen a pronounced decrease in courtesy and respect and an increase in volume and vitriol.   I'm sure that almost every resident reading this has had at least one unpleasant experience with a board or membership meeting that deteriorated into a shouting match or name-calling contest.   

While no one should have to be told that his or her neighbor should be treated with respect and courtesy, the unfortunate reality is that ROC boards and managers must occasionally deal with residents that refuse to behave in a civil manner at board or membership meetings.

Florida Statutes governing board meetings in resident owned communities provide some assistance to ROC managers and board members:

• F.S. Sections 718.112(2)(c) and  719.106(1)(c), which apply to condominium associations and cooperative associations respectively, give unit owners the right to speak at board meetings on "all designated agenda items" but also allow ROCs to "adopt written reasonable rules governing the frequency, duration, and manner of unit owner statements" to be made at board meetings. 
• F.S. Section 720.303(2)(b), which applies to meetings of mandatory homeowners associations,  specifies that members can "speak on any matter placed on the agenda by petition of the voting interests for at least 3 minutes" but again allows the association to adopt written reasonable rules "expanding the right of members to speak and governing the frequency, duration, and other manner of member statements" and also allows for the inclusion of "a sign-in sheet for members wishing to speak".

Note that all three statutes require that the rules governing members speaking at board meetings be written.

It's always helpful for the person chairing the meeting to be able to remind the membership at the beginning of the meeting or prior to the time for membership comments that the community does have these written rules and that each member will be expected to follow those rules.

We've helped numerous communities prepare written rules governing the behavior of residents at board and general membership meetings and have found that  these rules do help to discourage "gadflies" and other residents that attempt to engage in disruptive, discourteous, or uncivil behavior.  

If your community does not have written rules for these situations, you may be missing an important tool to help ensure that your members treat each other with the courtesy and respect that each resident in your community deserves.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One of my blog readers recently emailed me and wanted to know whether Florida's "Sunshine Law" applies to meetings between less than a quorum of the members of the board of directors of an ROC.

Many members of resident owned communities incorrectly believe that the meetings of their ROC board or ROC committees are governed by Florida's "Sunshine Law," which can be found in Chapter 286 of the Florida Statutes.   It's clear from the provisions of this chapter, and in particular Section 286.011, that Florida's "Sunshine Law" only applies to meetings of boards or committees of state, county, or municipal agencies or other similar political subdivisions and not private enterprises.  In other words, only a very few ROCs (those that are agencies of state or local government--such as a community development district) are subject to Florida's "Sunshine Law".

Thus, in most situations, I see nothing wrong with a ROC President or other board member meeting with other board members as long as less than a quorum of the board is present during that meeting, even if the purpose of that meeting is to determine how the board members at that meeting are going to vote on a matter coming before the board in the future.   An effective President or board chairperson should already have a pretty good idea of how his or her board is going to vote on important matters before the board meeting and it's certainly logical that he or she contact the other board members in advance to find out how each member intends to vote and the reasons for that member's vote.

As long as there is less than a quorum of board members in the room where the meeting is occurring, even if ROC business is being discussed, there is no violation of the applicable provisions of Florida Statutes Chapters 718, 719, or 720.  I do want to remind ROC managers and board members that an illegal meeting occurs when a quorum of the board finds itself on the same conference call, receiving an email sent to them simultaneously, or in a "chat room" or other internet "meeting" area if that meeting was not properly noticed and made open to all members and does not fall within the limited exceptions that allow "closed" meetings.   The State's Department of Business and Professional Regulation will not take kindly to any such illegal meeting--even if it was held in "cyberspace".

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Members of resident owned communities in Florida have the absolute right to attend meetings at which a quorum of the community association's board of directors are present.   A "quorum" is defined as a majority of the members of the board of directors.  Florida Statutes Section 718.112(1)(c), which applies to condominium associations, and Section 719.106(1)(c) , which applies to cooperative associations, specifically state that meetings of board of directors "at which a quorum is present shall be open to all unit owners."  Florida Statute Section 720.303(2) , which applies to mandatory homeowners associations, contains similar provisions.  The only time that a condominium or cooperative association's board of directors meeting need not be opened to the unit owners is when the meeting is between the board and the association's attorney with respect to proposed or pending litigation, when the meeting is held for the purpose of seeking or rendering legal advice.  The homeowners association statute has a similar exception that refers to proposed or pending litigation where "the contents of the discussion would otherwise be governed by the attorney-client privilege".

While the intention of Florida's lawmakers to keep board meetings open to the members of  community associations seems clear, ROC boards have, from time to time, felt the need to create their own "exceptions" to the statutory requirements.   Here are just a few examples of my favorite attempts to justify a ROC board of director's failure or refusal to comply with the requirements of Florida law:

1.   The board is meeting in "executive session" and can thus close the proceedings even   though a quorum of the board is present.

2.   The board's having a "workshop" or "agenda" meeting.  Even though there's a quorum present, the board's not voting on anything so the members don't have the right to attend.

3.    This is not a meeting of the board of directors--rather, it's a meeting of the "(insert appropriate committee name) committee"--even though a quorum of the board is present.

4.    The board's discussing some very sensitive matters (such as personnel issues or a member's failure to pay maintenance fees) and the meeting is closed to protect the privacy of the individual(s) being discussed.

5.    A quorum of the board just happens to show up on a regular basis at the same table at a nearby restaurant or wanders into the small conference room next to the community's office every Monday morning.   Of course, no association business would ever be discussed at these "coincidental" gatherings...

As I continually advise my ROC clients, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's a duck!   Regardless of what an ROC's board wants to call it, if you get a quorum of the board in a room together (or on a conference call, or in an internet chat room, for that matter), you've got yourself a board meeting and unless the very specific exception for seeking or receiving legal advice in regards to pending or threatened litigation applies, the meeting must be properly noticed and all association members have the right to attend.

Of course, the rules of reason apply.  The presence of a quorum of board members at the pool, at a social event in the clubhouse, or our seasonal ROC seminars usually won't constitute a "board meeting".   However, board members should be aware of the fact that the minute that it appears to even one association  member that a quorum of them are getting together (whether meeting in a corner of the clubhouse or by the pool even if during a purely "social" event), the board sets itself up for a claim that it is violating Florida law by having a 'closed meeting".   Those of you that have heard me speak know that I firmly believe that (a) every ROC has at least one resident "gadfly" whose sole purpose in life seems to be making board members' lives as miserable as possible and that (b) the minute an ROC's residents have any reason to believe that its board of directors are meeting "behind closed doors" those residents will immediately assume that the directors are up to no good.

You don't want to give the gadfly any ammunition and you want to keep your ROC happy and healthy...so keep the meetings open and let your ROC members see the hard work your ROC board does to make your community a great place to live.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks