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   appendix   previous   next