HB 2158; Ariz. Sess. Law Ch 125 (2022)

Reformatted for ease of comprehension. New law is shown in blue caps according to legislative rules. The law duplicates the provisions separately for Condo (ARS 33-1600 et seq.)  and Planned Community HOA (ARE 33-1800 et seq.)  statutes.

ARS 33-1261 (p. 3 – 4)

H. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION IN THE CONDOMINIUM DOCUMENTS,

• AN ASSOCIATION MAY NOT PROHIBIT OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE INDOOR OR OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF AN ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGN
• BY A UNIT OWNER BY PLACEMENT OF A SIGN ON THAT UNIT OWNER’S PROPERTY, INCLUDING ANY LIMITED COMMON ELEMENTS FOR THAT UNIT THAT ARE DOORS, WALLS OR PATIOS OR OTHER LIMITED COMMON ELEMENTS THAT TOUCH THE UNIT, OTHER THAN THE ROOF.
• AN ASSOCIATION MAY ADOPT REASONABLE RULES REGARDING THE PLACEMENT, LOCATION AND MANNER OF DISPLAY OF ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGNS,
• EXCEPT AN ASSOCIATION SHALL NOT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. PROHIBIT THE DISPLAY OF ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGNS BETWEEN THE DATE THAT THE ASSOCIATION PROVIDES WRITTEN OR ABSENTEE BALLOTS TO UNIT OWNERS AND THREE DAYS AFTER THE CONDOMINIUM ELECTION.

2. LIMIT THE NUMBER OF ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC SIGNS, EXCEPT THAT THE ASSOCIATION MAY LIMIT THE AGGREGATE TOTAL DIMENSIONS OF ALL ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC SIGNS ON A UNIT OWNER’S PROPERTY TO NOT MORE THAN NINE SQUARE FEET.

3. REQUIRE ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGNS TO BE COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED OR PROFESSIONALLY MANUFACTURED OR PROHIBIT USING BOTH SIDES OF THE SIGN.

4. REGULATE THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES SUPPORTED OR OPPOSED OR THE NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS SUPPORTED OR OPPOSED IN A RECALL OR THE NUMBER OF BALLOT MEASURES SUPPORTED OR OPPOSED ON AN ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGN.

5. MAKE ANY OTHER REGULATIONS REGARDING THE CONTENT OF AN ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGN, EXCEPT THAT THE ASSOCIATION MAY PROHIBIT USING PROFANITY AND DISCRIMINATORY TEXT, IMAGES OR CONTENT BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN AS PRESCRIBED BY FEDERAL OR STATE FAIR HOUSING LAWS.

* * * *

J. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION IN THE CONDOMINIUM DOCUMENTS,

AN ASSOCIATION MAY NOT PROHIBIT OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICT A UNIT OWNER’S ABILITY TO PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLE AND USE COMMON ELEMENTS OF THE CONDOMINIUM IF DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS FOR THE USE OF THAT PROPERTY ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

AN INDIVIDUAL UNIT OWNER OR GROUP OF UNIT OWNERS MAY ASSEMBLE TO DISCUSS MATTERS RELATED TO THE CONDOMINIUM,

* * *

 1. “ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGN” MEANS A SIGN THAT SUPPORTS OR OPPOSES A CANDIDATE FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR THE RECALL OF A BOARD  MEMBER OR A CONDOMINIUM BALLOT MEASURE THAT REQUIRES A VOTE OF THE ASSOCIATION UNIT OWNERS.

ARS 33-1808 (p. 7 – 8)

K. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION IN THE COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS,

• AN ASSOCIATION MAY NOT PROHIBIT OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE INDOOR OR OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF AN ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGN BY A MEMBER BY PLACEMENT OF A SIGN ON THAT MEMBER’S PROPERTY.
•  AN ASSOCIATION MAY ADOPT REASONABLE RULES REGARDING THE PLACEMENT, LOCATION AND MANNER OF DISPLAY OF ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGNS,
• EXCEPT AN ASSOCIATION SHALL NOT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

• PROHIBIT THE DISPLAY OF ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGNS BETWEEN THE DATE THAT THE ASSOCIATION PROVIDES WRITTEN OR ABSENTEE BALLOTS TO MEMBERS AND THREE DAYS AFTER THE PLANNED COMMUNITY ELECTION.
  • LIMIT THE NUMBER OF ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC SIGNS, EXCEPT THAT THE ASSOCIATION MAY LIMIT THE AGGREGATE TOTAL DIMENSIONS OF ALL ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC SIGNS ON A MEMBER’S PROPERTY TO NOT MORE THAN NINE SQUARE FEET.
  • REQUIRE ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGNS TO BE COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED OR PROFESSIONALLY MANUFACTURED OR PROHIBIT USING BOTH SIDES OF THE SIGN.
  • REGULATE THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES SUPPORTED OR OPPOSED OR THE NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS SUPPORTED OR OPPOSED IN A RECALL OR THE NUMBER OF BALLOT MEASURES SUPPORTED OR OPPOSED ON AN ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGN.
  • MAKE ANY OTHER REGULATIONS REGARDING THE CONTENT OF AN  ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGN EXCEPT THAT THE ASSOCIATION MAY PROHIBIT USING PROFANITY AND DISCRIMINATORY TEXT, IMAGES OR CONTENT BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN AS PRESCRIBED BY FEDERAL OR STATE FAIR HOUSING LAWS.

* * *

M. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION IN THE COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS,

• AN  ASSOCIATION MAY NOT PROHIBIT OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICT A MEMBER’S ABILITY TO PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLE AND USE COMMON AREAS OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY IF DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS FOR THE USE OF THAT PROPERTY ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
• AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OR GROUP OF MEMBERS MAY ASSEMBLE TO DISCUSS MATTERS RELATED TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY,
  • INCLUDING BOARD ELECTIONS OR RECALLS, POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL BALLOT ISSUES OR REVISIONS TO THE COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE OR SAFETY ISSUES OR ANY OTHER PLANNED COMMUNITY MATTERS.
  • A MEMBER MAY INVITE ONE POLITICAL CANDIDATE OR ONE NON-MEMBER GUEST TO SPEAK TO AN ASSEMBLY OF MEMBERS ABOUT MATTERS RELATED TO THE COMMUNITY.
  • THE ASSOCIATION SHALL NOT PROHIBIT A MEMBER FROM POSTING NOTICES REGARDING THOSE ASSEMBLIES OF MEMBERS ON BULLETIN BOARDS LOCATED ON THE COMMON AREAS OR WITHIN COMMON AREA FACILITIES.
  • AN ASSEMBLY OF MEMBERS PRESCRIBED BY THIS SUBSECTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL MEMBERS’ MEETING UNLESS THE MEETING IS NOTICED AND CONVENED AS PRESCRIBED IN THE COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS AND THIS CHAPTER.

O. For the purposes of this section: ,

1. “ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGN” MEANS A SIGN THAT SUPPORTS OR OPPOSES A CANDIDATE FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR THE RECALL OF A BOARD MEMBER OR A PLANNED COMMUNITY BALLOT MEASURE THAT REQUIRES A VOTE OF THE ASSOCIATION MEMBERS.

Preface to Restructure HOA Supplement

Preface

“People could care less about the truth. People buy promises and dreams. They’ll do anything to avoid reality” (anonymous)

The above quote, reflecting human nature,  gets to the very heart of the HOA-Land problem. It applies not only to SCG but to all HOA members throughout America.  In a sarcastic Nextdoor  post, the writer expressed his feelings that my posts were, in my words too cute, and that he didn’t want “to be in an association that George had anything to do with . . . and take his trouble making rhetoric to other lucky people.” I responded:

“My HOA right or wrong! So what if it has violated state laws and the governing documents, and refuses to defend itself. So what! As long as the amenities keep coming and assessments stay low, I guess all is OK.”

I have high hopes that all HOA members will follow their conscience and do what is right for their community, their state, and for America.  The alternative is a rejection of our democratic institutions, our constitutional government,  and the principles and values that we, as Americans, stand for.  The alternative is an acceptance of the HOA-Land Nation Within America.

* * * *

For this case study, my objective was to unveil the truth and advise the BOD of a $22 million revenues, 9,500 unit, active-adult community in Arizona as to its conduct in deciding difficult and controversial  issues.  I put my management/BOD skills to work and began the study. It is very important in the learning process to share recommendations with others, and to accept their constructive criticism. Readers can reject, modify, or remove recommendations. This approach sharpens one’s thinking and helps to make a more solid case for HOA reforms.

In regard to the SCG members at large — apathy evidenced by silence or perhaps fear — prevailed as commonly found in HOA-Land. The vast majority of comments  to my posts on social media and elsewhere were irrelevant and without merit. They failed to address my messages concerning  violations of the laws and governing documents by boards of directors.   Rather, they focused on my HOA right or wrong, take it or leave it, and move out. 

 The necessary first step for democratic reforms, as proposed in A Plan Toward Restructuring the HOA Model of Governance, is the reorientation and reeducation of the pubic and especially boards of directors. Based on my experience I presumed that  they are uninformed and many prefer to remain uninformed; wrongly believing, and being led to believe,  that their HOA is  a wonderful country club instead of a legally binding contract between them and their HOA. 

The findings from this research reaffirmed this view of HOA directors and members regardless of income or education levels — they are highly uninformed about the legal and governmental issues of an HOA association. It seems that the  boards of directors over the years were and are heavily influenced by the Community Associations Institute’s teachings and programs.

Collectively referenced as the CAI School of HOA Governance  stemming from its focus on “large-scale associations,” such as SCG. Some 13 SCG members served as CAI members, including CAI presidents or directors, while serving as SCG’s presidents, directors, and committee chairs.  Its impact is devastating and cannot be underestimated.

This finding was very disappointing!  The behavior and conduct by the leadership displayed false and misleading information, an illusion of “no problems here,” and for the most part, silence. It supported the position of authoritarian and cult followers as maintained in the Plan’s view of the HOA Culture, and its description of the social and political dynamics at work in HOA-Land.

This Supplement is organized in time sequence based on posts made to the HOA Constitutional Government website, including comments,  referencing or alluding to emails, to  the official Sun City Grand website’s News of the Day posts; and to posts and comments to social media websites: NextDoor (Desert Sage); Facebook’s Sun City Grand Members (AZ), closed by Administrator’ opposition; and Members of Sun City Grand AZ.

These exchanges are all reproduced as is, unedited except for  omissions of non-relevant sections.  In this manner, lacking audio-video materials, one can get a feeling of the posters’/commentators’ message tone.

George K. Staropoli

February 14, 2022

A history of the institutionalization of HOAs

The creators and developers of the homeowner association concept and legal structure (1964)  immediately ran into problems and by 1973 had to form the Community Associations Institute (CAI) to resolve them.  In 2000, CAI and ULI boasted of their long-term success in institutionalizing homeowners associations into the American fabric – HOA-Land. The subtitle of their self-congratulatory book reads: “The Emergence and Acceptance of a Quiet Innovation in Housing”.

After 58 years, the public, the legislators, the media, and the HOA boards of directors and vast majority of members have remained quietly accepting HOAs as a private form of local government.

“People could care less about the truth. People buy promises and dreams. They’ll do anything to avoid reality” (anonymous)

The above quote, reflecting human nature,  gets to the very heart of the HOA-Land problem. It applies to all HOA members throughout America.  In a sarcastic Nextdoor  post, the writer expressed his feelings that my posts presenting justifications for restructuring HOA-Land were, in my words too cute. He didn’t want “to be in an association that George had anything to do with . . . and take his trouble making rhetoric to other lucky people.”

I responded:

“My HOA right or wrong! So what if it has violated state laws and the governing documents, and refuses to defend itself. So what! As long as the amenities keep coming and assessments stay low, I guess all is OK.”

I have high hopes that all HOA members will follow their conscience and do what is right for their community, their state, and for America.  The alternative is a rejection of our democratic institutions, our constitutional government,  and the principles and values that we, as Americans, stand for.  The alternative is an acceptance of the HOA-Land Nation Within America.

Do you stand behind the US Constitution or your HOA ‘constitution’?

Many courts have referred to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) as the HOA constitution.

Arizona’s HB 2158 is a second try (Arizona HB 2052 restores homeowner constitutional speech protections ) to prohibit restrictions on HOA members’ freedom of political speech with respect to HOA governance issues and matters.  It has passed put of committee and Caucus.

This important bill has been sitting for an extended 2 week time awaiting the House leadership to schedule it for a full House vote of all the members. NOT A GOOD SIGN!  My years of experience lead me to believe it does not have the support of the leadershp that has the right, under House Rules,  to withhold bills from further votes.

HB 2158 (2022). You can read the bill at the legislature’s website. Read the important amendments below. This is your chance to stand up for constitutional protections against the CAI lobbyists, many whose members have been or are SCG directors – conflict of interest!

“L. Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents, an associociation [sic] may not prohibit or unreasonably restrict a member’s ability to peacefully assemble and use private or common areas of the planned community . . . . An individual member or group of members may organize to discuss or address planned community business, including board elections or recalls, potential or actual ballot issues or revisions to the community documents . . . . The association shall not restrict posting notices of these informal member meetings on physical or electronic bulletin boards used by the association for posting notices for the association’s or board of director’s official meetings.”

This bill has support from the Nevada Supreme Court opinion in Kosor (NV supreme court upholds HOAs as public forums (re: Kosor 2021)) that contained several California opinions serving as legal precedent.

 “[A] unit owner’s association or a planned community association (association) may not prohibit a unit owner or member (member) from peacefully assembling and using private or common elements of the community . . . legitimate and valid criticisms of your HOA and its president and board are protected from HOA lawsuits of defamation and libel.”

“Nextdoor.com post qualifies as a public forum for the purposes of anti-SLAPP protections. . . .these steps [Kosor’s statements] do not seem to differ significantly from that which might be required to view posts on Facebook; that is, a post on Nextdoor.com is as compatible with expressive activity as one on the other platform, which we have already held can support a public forum.”

“The HOA here is no less of ‘a quasi-government entity’

* * * *

The following is an excerpt from a lengthy email sent to me by a long time AZ homeowner rights advocate, Dennis Legere. It and his email are made public with Dennis’ permisssion.  It  reveals the obstacles an hostiity he faces trying the get HOA reform legislation to restore lost rights and freedoms. It contains his comments on the heavy opposition  from CAI and AACM (AZ managers association, CAI trained).

“The ridiculous nature and hidden motivation of the HOA trade groups [CAI and AACM] is what makes any HOA meaningful legislation so difficult to get introduced or protected from demands from the trade groups for provisions that benefit them only.”

Take back controll of your HOA!  Write your Representative in support of this bill. Also write the sponsor, Jack Kavanagh (jkavanagh@azleg.gov) and the House leaders in support of this bill urging that it be submitted for a hearing by all the House members. Do it today!

House leaders:

Rbowers@azleg.gov – Speaker (R)

tgrantham@azleg.gov – Speaker Pro Temp (R)

btoma@azleg.gov – Majority Leader (R)

lbiasiucci@azleg.gov – Majority Whip (R)

rbolding@azleg.gov – Minority Leader (D)

ddegrazia@azleg.gov – Minority Whip (D)

jlongdon@azleg.gov – Asst Minortiy Whip (D)

What makes for an effective nonprofit HOA board of directors?

(For the record, I am not a lawyer nor work for a lawyer and I am not providing legal advice or opinion.)

First and foremost, an HOA is  a chartered nonprofit corporation given authority to function as such under the AZ Constitution.   The association’s Governing Documents, an agreement between the HOA and the members, gives the HOA the authority and powers to function as the governing body of the subdivision.

As you are well aware, both nonprofit corporation law and the Governing Documents place the ultimate authority and responsibility for managing the HOA – in the true meaning of “managing” and not CAM — in the board of directors (BOD).  CAM keeps the HOA functioning smoothly delivering the services and providing for “groundskeeping.”  In order for the HOA to accomplish its mission and goals, which provide the necessary guidance and direction for performance, it is the BOD that must decide 2 important questions: What is our purpose?  What should it be?

What then makes for an effective BOD? To start at the beginning and get right to the point, my emphasis at this important juncture (Managing the Nonprofit Organization, Peter F. Drucker, p. 171-172, 1990),

“The board needs to know that it owns the organization. But it owns an organization not for its own sake — as a board — but for the sake of the mission which that  organization is to perform.”

“If you find that the board has become inflexible, you have to look for ways of renewing the board with fresh appointments. The more power is concentrated in a few people on a board, the more likely the situation will turn unhealthy.”

And this is where the BOD has failed the members!

As pointed out in earlier posts, “mgmt case study #1”, SCG’s continues to widely publish its nonsensical vision and mission statements providing no guidelines to act or of any value to measure effective performance. What we have witnessed is a BOD deciding on its own where to go and what to do, cleverly masked as fulfilling the wishes and desires of the members.  In actuality, all those meet the board, chats, Q &As, etc. allow for a presentation of grievances without binding the BOD to action.

There is no provision to require the BOD to hold a vote on a member’s proposed amendment to the governing documents as permitted by state law with respect to removing a director or all directors.  Or to nullify an act of the BOD.

Drucker continues with, “Ducking controversy or minimizing difficulty, snowing people with reports that are not realistic either about the quality of the programs . . . or whatever . . . that’s terrible leadership”

It’s well beyond time for a necessary change in attitude and culture before SCG descends into chaos. Adoption of a new approach, as recommended in A Plan toward Restructuring the HOA Model of Governance is needed, today!