Lost HOA Constitution webinar complete videos

This post allows access to 3 webinar videos on Restoring the Constitution to HOA-Land. The quality improves as I go on — it’s the content, the material, that’s important to learn and understand.

For best viewing press the ‘expand’ icon (lower right) for full screen viewing. Place cursor over video to select menu.

HOA board education in constitutionality

HOAs have, as local private governments are not subject to the Constitution, created divisiveness and a separation from the greater public community resulting in member confusion regarding the law and their constitutional rights and protections. StarMan Group presents an online educational series, with numerous authorities, to instruct HOA boards in regard to their obligations “in the best interests of the members”.

This HOA educational series to reorient HOA boards and the public in general is available online under the collection, “Restoring the Lost Constitution to HOA-Land”:

1) HOA Common Sense: rejecting private government, a summary of 6 constitutional defects,

2) The HOA-Land Nation Within America, presenting the scope of outlaw private governments that deny constitutional protections,

3) The Plan to Restructure the Model of HOA Governance that advances an approach to restore the Constitution to HOAs while keeping the desired benefits of the “real estate package,” and

4) Establishing the New America of Independent HOA Principalities,” a history of the HOA scheme.

For a historical perspective of HOA-Land, see: 1) The Homes Associations Handbook (ULI, 1964). (Not publicly available but I have a copy of the 434 page document); 2) Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government (1994), Evan McKenzie; and 3) Community Associations: The Emergence and Acceptance of a Quiet Innovation in Housing (2000), Donald R. Stable. (ULI and CAI production).

CAI School faculty advice – managing HOAs

I have described the CAI School of HOA Governance in an earlier post. In short its programs educate and promote the biased CAI view of governing HOAs.[1] I consider the School’s faculty consisting of those learned professionals, real estate attorneys, CAI former Trustees and national Presidents and some misguided constitutional attorneys and nonprofit organizations.

The latest School pronouncements come from a highly respected real estate attorney that is deeply involved in CAI, Kelly G. Richardson.[2] In view of his background and publications, seminars and speeches, I consider him to be part of the of the CAI School faculty that sets CAI’s objectives, missions and programs. Note that Richardson’s profile shows no credentials or expertise to speak about corporation management or governance, or constitutional or municipal laws.

Yet he feels free to speak outside his expertise about HOA governance that I maintain is founded on real estate equitable servitudes, covenants running with the land, where “The policy makers have failed to understand that the HOA CC&Rs have crossed over the line between purely property restrictions to establishing unregulated and authoritarian private governments.”[3] Richardson, with all due respect, does not have the credentials to advise HOA directors on governing the HOA.

In his “Homefront: Fiduciary Duty” article[4] he takes the time to clarify in some detail, finally for the members, that the BOD (board of directors) acts in the interests of the corporation and not the individual member. That’s straight corporation law not HOA law. However, I’m confused by the following statement: “If the director were a fiduciary to the individual member, that pursuit of delinquency or violation would breach the duty of loyalty toward that member, but the loyalty is to the corporation.” Richardson seems to be saying that indeed a director has a fiduciary duty to the member but that duty to the HOA comes first.

Then he goes on to advise directors that a dissenting director, one who voted in the minority, owes his allegiance to the HOA and must muzzle himself.

“Even though the director believes the decision is a poor one, the director’s loyalty to the corporation compels the director to support and not frustrate the board’s decision.” This appears to be one of the fundamental flawed teachings of the CAI School, never go against the HOA or BOD. Never! It is contrary to all expert advise on effective and productive management[5] or city management.[6]

Richardson closes with advice on the need to conduct due diligence so the director can fulfill his duty to the HOA.

“The duty of care requires directors to have sufficient information from qualified persons to make the decision.” But then comes the plug for CAI, “Savvy directors know their role as directors is to make good decisions and not to advise, and so support hiring outside experts for advice.”

He further warns directors, who have relevant knowledge and expertise, to remain mum and not speak out least he be sued. If the director chooses to speak out as he should do in the best interests of the HOA, ”the director is not acting as a director but is an unpaid consultant and could be held liable for their advice.”

 Once again Richardson is advising directors to remain silent and to trust in the experts adding support to my earlier assertion, BODs, in general, resort to CAI not for legal advice on how to run the HOA government but as a crutch to allow them to dodge their obligations to govern the people.”[7] His managerial advice does not come from any credentials in political science, or constitutional law, or municipal government, but as a real estate professional espousing the CAI School of HOA Governance model of contractual, private, local government. In short, by fear mongering, it gives credence to the view that the HOA lawyers control the BODs.

Indoctrination “is the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.” Over the years CAI has been very successful in indoctrinating all the people: the policymakers, the state legislators, the state real estate departments, the media and the homebuyers. Richardson’s article justifies the need for a restructuring of the independent HOA principality and a reorienting the board of directors away from the CAI School doctrine.[8]

 Notes

[1] The foundation and principles of the School can be traced back to CAI’s Public Policies, The CAI Manifesto (its 2016 “white paper”), its numerous seminars and conferences, its Factbooks and surveys, its amicus briefs to the courts, and its advisories, letters, emails, newsletters, blogs etc. I have designated these foundations and principles collectively as the CAI School of HOA Governance.

[2] Kelly G. Richardson: CAI Board of Trustees 2011-2017; Community Associations Institute (CAI), National, President, 2016; College of Community Association Lawyers (CCAL), 2006; CAI’s California Legislative Action Committee, Chair, 2009, 2010; National Association of Realtors; California State Bar Association, Real Estate & Litigation Sections.

[3] See in general Restructuring HOAs: “CAI School and member benefits” pt. 2.

[4] HOA Homefront: Fiduciary Duty – What It Is, And Is NOT, The Public Record, (Feb. 26, 2020).

[5] See for example: Are You Creating ‘Yes Men’ And Hindering Your Own Leadership Success?”, Terin Allen, Forbes.com (Nov. 10, 2018). “In my experience, most people get this way because they are responding to a culture or people in management who elicit and reward this type of behavior. . . . [in order to] survive on a dysfunctional leadership landscape where all the signals and messages confirm for them that dissent is bad and agreement is good.”; “7 Ways “Yes People” Can Destroy Your Business,” Barry Moltz, American Express Company (May 27, 2013). “Yes people don’t tell the truth. They only tell the . . . business owner what they want to hear. This doesn’t help a leader, who needs the whole story, good and bad, to operate a business. It only serves to increase your vulnerability.”

[6] Orville W. Powell, City Management: Keys to Success, AuthorHouse (2002). Powell “is recognized in this country and internationally as an expert in the field of city administration.”

[7] See Restructuring the HOA model.

[8] See HOAs are in need of a major restructuring.

 

The future form of HOA-Land

A little earlier I had commented that HOAs are here to stay, but face strong reforms. It was an appeal for all to get their voices heard and take the HOA-Public Attitude Survey. Allow me to clarify my position.

“HOA” has 2 common connotations: as a model of authoritarian private local government or as the real estate “package” of amenities, landscaping, and certain infrastructure. I have long maintained that the real estate package represents the end but the HOA government model is not the best means to achieve that end. And that state legislators have treated HOAs as independent principalities with their pro-HOA laws and support of de facto governments devoid of constitutional protections for HOA members.

The overwhelming reform legislation across the country presumes and accepts the validity of the governing documents and state laws. This is a loser position!

It implies the acceptance of the legitimacy of legal arguments supporting the governing documents and pro-HOA statutes. Advocates should be denying their validity and constitutionality; by failing to oppose these defensive arguments homeowners have put themselves in the weaker position of, Please sir, can I have some more justice? An example of reform legislation that challenges fundamental wrongs has been summarized in HOA Common Sense and the HOA-Land culture is presented in The HOA-Land Nation Within America .

Example: not only demanding the licensing HOA managers but holding them to the same statutes and rules   –  not CAI’s standards — as required of city/town manager; holding the BOD to the same standards as city/town councilmen. The constitutional arguments to use include: a violation of the equal protection of the law, holding the HOA as a state actor, or an unconstitutional special “franchise” of the state relating to these real estate “packages.” (“franchise: an authorization granted by a government or company to an individual or group enabling them to carry out specified commercial activities, e.g., providing a broadcasting service or acting as an agent for a company’s products.”

Advocates must not ignore these broad, constitutional arguments but educate themselves to understand them. I am urging advocates and homeowners to follow the path of the Founding Fathers who stopped toying with the Articles of Confederation as unworkable. Rather than continue to make the Articles work, they did away with them and created the Constitution of the United States.

HOA-Land will still be here but which form will it take? Spend another 30 years as before or go for fundamental reforms?

Resurrecting the argument for a homeowners bill of rights

This demand for a homeowners bill of rights by homeowner rights advocates had its play back in the 1997 – 2008 period, some 10 years ago. There was:

  • the AHRC’s 1997 bill,[1]
  • Lois and Samuel Pratt’s 1999 bill,[2]
  • my 2000 address to the AZ Legislature[3],
  • the 2006 AARP bill of rights,[4]
  • and my 2008 “Members Bill of Rights” amendment to CLRC.[5]

And there are undoubtedly others that I missed. Deborah Goonan recently re-posted a 2015 article[6] speaking of no Bill of Rights and constitutional violations of the 14th Amendment.  In 2017 the California Legislature adopted a limited bill of rights dealing with member political free speech.[7]

A new look at homeowner rights is needed, one that takes a down-to-earth approach and focuses on the common CC&Rs covenants and bylaws that read like,

  1. If there are conflicts between the provisions of Arizona law, the Articles, the Declaration, and these By-Laws, the provisions of Arizona law, the Articles, and the By-Laws (in that order) shall prevail.
  2. these By-Laws [Declaration] may be amended only by the affirmative vote or written consent, or any combination thereof of Members representing at least 51% [67%] of the . . . votes in the Association.
  3. no amendment may remove, revoke, or modify any right or privilege of Declarant . . . without the written consent of Declarant

Over the years I’ve discovered that the courts have universally upheld the broad amendment covenant as generically stated in (2) above.  The basis of their decisions is the very dangerous and overly broad interpretation that homeowners agreed to be bound[8] by the CC&Rs and bylaws.   Note that (3) above carves out an exception for the Declarant that requires his explicit consent, while accepting the majority rule principle in regard to the members. But, this “acceptance” to be bound by majority rule violates a fundamental right of citizens in regard a governmental “taking” or eminent domain action.

In many instances the courts have required 100% consent when the amendment adds new covenants, covenants not found in the CC&Rs, the most notable being changing from a voluntary HOA to a mandatory HOA.  This would be inconsistent with (1) above that holds that the law of the land prevails, and which of course, the buyer also agreed to. But, CAI comes to the rescue and prevails in the courts that the CC&Rs and bylaws contain valid waivers and surrenders of fundamental rights, even to the extent of accepting implicit (not stated but presumed consent) waivers and surrenders as valid.

Hold on! It is long held legal doctrine that the surrender and waiver of these rights must be explicit, one by one. And that, under contract law, there must be a meeting of the minds with full consent and no misrepresentation in the buying process. I have concluded that,

Public policy today rejects constitutional government for HOAs allowing them to operate outside the law of the land. The policy makers have failed to understand that the HOA CC&Rs have crossed over the line between purely property restrictions to establishing unregulated and authoritarian private governments.

The point I wish to make is that the absence of any meaningful bill of rights that genuinely protects the rights of HOA members is ab initio (from the beginning) a rejection of democratic norms and institutions.  The HOA cannot, therefore, be considered democratic by any means regardless of the propaganda by CAI and other pro-HOA supporters.

Community associations are not governments — many years of legislation and court rulings have established that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet they are clearly democratic in their operations, electing their leadership from among the homeowners on a periodic basis.

. . . .

The solution to that problem is not to replace democracy with tyranny, royalty, or some other form of government, but to work to make the democratic process better and to hold those elected accountable.[9]

Simply unbelievable!  (In face of subsequent advocate criticisms, CAI began speaking of HOAs as a business, and we are seeing more and more statements that when a homebuyer signed his real estate contract, he was actually investing in a business.  Unbelievable!  Shades of George Orwell’s NewSpeak from his novel, 1984, where people are indoctrinated to hold 2 opposing views at the same time, and be at peace.)

What is intentionally absent — yes, intentionally otherwise the renowned CAI layers would have to claim incompetency regarding the law – is a Homeowners Bill of Rights.  Can you imagine that if the HOA framers, those stakeholders, of the HOA concept had actually met and discussed with knowledgeable and informed public that there would be protections for homeowners?  Can you imagine?

What the absent, yet informed public, would have added was a Preamble to an Amendment to the CC&R that would have been like that found in the Bill of Rights:

 Preamble to the US Bill of Rights

“THE Conventions of a number of States, having at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution:”

The basis for the BOR was a distrust of government and the need to further protect the people.  Regarding the HOA documents, the 9th and 10th Amendments, as applied to the HOA legal scheme, would prevent the broad interpretations that have been and are continuing being held by the courts.  No more generalities, except in favor of the members.  If it was good for America over 230 years, it must be good for HOA-Land!

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The 9th Amendment simply says that if it ain’t specified – enumerated — in the governing documents, it belongs to the membership.  No more broad interpretations of waivers and surrenders of rights.  The 10th Amendment simply says that if the members did not explicitly agree to certain HOA powers (delegated to), it belongs to the membership.

This is the argument and approach needed to get a Homeowners Bill of Rights accepted by state legislatures.  It should be a national campaign by all advocate groups in all states for their next legislative session.  There is time to organize and prepare.

 

References

[1] See “Short History” in co-opting the HOA “homeowners bill of rights”, Elizabeth McMahon, 1997.

[2] See A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR HOMEOWNERS IN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS (1999).

[3] Statement to AZ Legislative Homeowners Association Study Committee, 2000.

[4] A Bill of Rights for Homeowners in Associations, AARP HOA Bill of Rights, David Kahne 2006.

[5] Supra, n. 1. “CLRC” is the California Law Review Commission.

[6] Let’s Get Some National Attention on HOA, Housing Issues, Deborah Goonan, 2015 original post.  

[7] A California true HOA Bill of Rights (SB 407).

[8] For a summary of the issues regarding the agreement to be bound position, seeConsent to be governed, No. 4, HOA Common Sense: rejecting private government.  The notes contain very important authorities on this issue.  (In only one case did a court reject this position because it felt that the amendment exceeded the reasonable expectations of the homeowner.  For example, having part of their assessments go toward a private entity unrelated to the HOA).

[9] CAI CEO Skiba in his April 2, 2008 Ungated blog entry.