Russett’s woes show problems with HOAs
Capital Gazette
By Jeanne Mignon
08 August 2015
The recent conflict between long-standing board members in Russett, Tim
Reyburn and Colin Sandy, and the Russett Community in general
highlights the many problems instigated by vague governing documents
that are prey to legalistic manipulation and poor oversight by the
state legislature.
Russett residents are engaged in a legal action against the standing
board of directors. I am not surprised. I worked in the community
management industry, where hostility between boards and citizens is not
unusual.
In the case of Russett, two board members, Reyburn and Sandy were voted
out, in accordance with Russett Community documents. This is not
ambiguous. Yet, in the ensuing court battle, the board members in
question get to use our funds to defend themselves. The dissident
homeowners have no "pot of gold." But, we are willing to fight.
This sad state of affairs is one of many experienced by homeowner's
association, or HOA, members. There are many instances in which board
members and homeowners confront each other, disagree and reach no
resolution to problems. Why?
The reason is simple: There is no accountability.
a taxing authority without guidelines
All HOAs collect money, ostensibly used for common area contracts and
the quality of the community. Boards also have the power to levy fines
against homeowners who are in arrears, or who refuse to comply with
document requirements. Yet, there is no strong authority to enforce
transparency, require regularly published audits and deal with ethics
violations and the neglect of common property. This means a
nongovernment body is acting as a taxing authority without guidelines.
How do I know this? I have seen it repeatedly. Some documents, for
example, are so poorly written that homeowners in arrears in their own
assessment payments are not prohibited from serving on a board of
directors. There are no statutes that enforce minimum requirements for
these volunteer positions. You could have a convicted pervert serve on
a board, and the only recourse is court. Term limitations, which would
abate some of the negative impacts caused by rogue boards, are not even
on the table at this time.
Without real accountability or protective limitations, the list of
potential offenses is endless. For example, there is no requirement in
state statutes for repairs to community common areas to be made in a
timely manner — so nonresident board members can vote not to raise
appropriate fees for repair.
Or, in the case of Russett, the board can preside like dragons over a
gold hoard of over $5 million, while paths around the community
disintegrate from lack of repair or some streets get better service
than others, etc.
"Embezzlement" is a real word
Lack of meeting transparency — specifically prohibited in HB 552 (2009)
, which allows for closed meetings in very limited situations — can be
manipulated or ignored. Where do homeowners go for remediation? The
Office of Consumer Affairs. What can it do? Oh. Mediate. Big deal. In
this age of large HOAs, this trust in the human impulse to "do the
right thing" is misguided at best; tragic at worst. "Embezzlement" is a
real word.
It is tempting for local and state authorities to breathe a sigh of
relief because of the existence of HOAs, which cover many of the
mundane functions of government. However, an HOA board is not a
government agency — it is a motley group of homeowners, some good; some
bad.
It is time to put some legal teeth in an antiquated view of the innate
goodness of volunteers. The state needs an oversight board in the
Office of the State's Attorney. HOAs need to provide real evidence that
they adhere to a more common code of ethics and expectations for
communities. Privatized government is not part of democracy.
The writer, who teaches English in Prince George's County, had been a
Russett resident for 23 years and has served on the community's board
of directors.
top
contents chapter
previous
next