CAI: your friend or your foe?

Author’s note:  I’d like to thank the ever-alert Deborah Goonan of IAC for this important tip.

Unbelievably, the CAI Washington chapter spills the beans  on CAI’s mission and objectives.  As a tax-exempt 501(c)6 business trade nonprofit the oxymoron statements below admit to working for business entities and at the same time, serving the consumers of these services, the HOAs.  “to advocate on behalf of community associations.” 

CAI is not permitted to have HOAs as members, so it recruits the boards of directors as individual volunteers creating conflict of interest conditions. I offer this statement by the chapter to set the tone for my criticism of the following article.[1] Note it skips over serving its members, the attorneys and managers who are vendors to HOAs.

“Our Vision: “To be recognized as the leading resource for Community Associations and Business Partners.

“Our Mission: “Optimize the operations of Community Associations and foster value for our Business Partners.

“What We Do: 1. Advocacy – establish and enhance/maintain relationships with legislators and government officials and to advocate on behalf of community associations; 2. Member Development – boost membership and participation through enhanced outreach; 3. Education – provide a World-Class Education Curriculum for Stakeholders; 4. Member Services – maximize value provided to our current members, including Business Partners (events, conferences, materials, etc.).

“Who We Serve: “Community Association Leaders, Business Partners, CAI National, Community Association Members, Developers/Builders, Financial Institutions, Government Agencies, Insurers, Legislators, Managers, Media, Realtors, Sister Associations.

* * * *

Quorum Magazine article Based on the above stated mission and purpose of CAI, the Washington chapter’s magazine recounts a superficial, misleading whitewash portrayal of the history of HOAs in America[2]; it serves as good CAI propaganda and portrays an unprofessional social media illusion that  all’s well in HOA-Land. It is all real estate development oriented sold as a desired and well accepted housing alternative by uninformed individuals.

The article is devoid of constitutional and democratic concerns and validity centering on the HOA as another form of local government —  a contractual, private government.  These issues affecting the rights and freedoms of HOA members can be found in detail in the listed texts and selected quotes. Note the title of the texts, which says a lot.

• Prof. Dilger wrote in Neighborhood Politics (1992)[3],

“For example, most of those who advocate the formation of RCAs [HOAs] assume that RCAs  . . . incorporate all the rights and privileges embodied in the US Constitution, including . . . the rights of due process and equal protection under the law found in the Fourteenth Amendment.”

• Prof. McKenzie wrote in his landmark Privatopia (1994)[4],

“T]he property rights of the developer, and later the board of directors, swallow up the rights of the people, and public government is left as a bystander. . . . [Consequently,] this often leads to people becoming angry at board meetings claiming that their ‘rights’ have been violated – rights that they wrongly believe they have in a [HOA]. 

“CIDS [HOAs] currently engage in many activities that would be prohibited  if they were viewed  by the courts as the equivalent of local governments.” 

• Steven Seigel wrote in his WM & Mary journal (1998)^[5],

“Because of the traditional view, RCAs [HOAs] rarely have been deemed state actors subject to the requirements of the Constitution. As private entities, RCAs regulate behavior in a way that is anathema to traditional constitutional strictures;”

• CAI-ULI funded publication Community Associations (2005)[6].

“[HOAs are] a consumer product sold by profit-seeking firm, a legal device, a corporation reliant on both coercive powers and voluntary cooperation, a democracy, and a lifestyle.  With this plan, TB50 [The Holmes Association Handbook] set out the plan that would be taken in forming the CAI.”

• Franzese and Seigel argued in their Rutgers journal article (2008)^[7]

“The laissez-fare approach to CIC [common interest communities]  regulation is reflected in the statutory law, which affords exceedingly few rights and protections to homeowners association residents.”

It can be safely concluded that CAI is not your friend, and any HOA in bed with CAI is representing its interests and not yours.

Notes

---

[1] Washington Metropolitan Chapter, CAI (Oct.18, 2022).

[2] “Community Associations – A Historical Perspective,” Quorum Magazine, CAI (August 2016, reprinted Oct. 2022).  

[3]  Roger Jay Dilger, Neighborhood Politics: Residential Community Associations in American Governance, p. 160, New York Univ. Press (1992). Formerly WVU Prof. Political Science and Director of Political Affairs.

[4] Evan McKenzie, Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government,  Yale Univ. Press (1994).

[5] Steven Siegel, “The Constitution and Private Government: Toward the Recognition of Constitutional Rights in Private Residential Communities Fifty years After Marsh v. Alabama,” Wm & Mary Bill of Rights J., Vol. 6, Issue 2 (1998).

[6] Donald R. Stabile, Community Associations: The Emergence and Acceptance of a Quiet Innovation in Housing, p. 144 (2000). Funded by CAI and ULI.

[7] Paula A. Franzese and Steven Siegel, “The Twin Rivers Case: Of Homeowners Associations, Free Speech Rights And Privatized Mini-Governments,” 5 RUTGERS J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 630 (2008).

HOA management case study – 2022 epilogue

Author’s note:  This commentary is a follow up to my Dec. 2021 – Feb. 2022 “mgmt case study” posts relating to an Arizona HOA. Its board has continued its path with a few suggestions on open meetings and videotaping the board meetings.  The series starts by entering “case study” in the Search box in the left panel. This is a reorientation and educational process, but the board is not yet amenable to hear the whole truth about HOAs.

Resource: Towe Lifestyle article: SCG community is a business

“[The board of directors]  bring an extraordinary level of imagination and management expertise to bear on the very complex problems of running a sophisticated and demanding business. No sugar coating either. The men and women serving you on the BOD represent you and your interests with a sincere desire to make Grand the very best place it can be.[1]

I beg to differ with this statement on several issues that I see as PR and more BOD propaganda.[2]

First, SCG is not a business!  Did you sign a commercial UCC contract or residential  real estate contract? Enough said! From whence  does this mistaken belief  arise.  In my many years of research I found it to be from long term indoctrination and acceptance of the teachings of the CAI School of HOA Governance[3], my categorization, of CAI’s special interest agenda. There is strong evidence supporting the view that CAI dominates SCG policy.[4]

In 2015 the board claimed in its IRS tax-exempt application that SCG was a nonprofit social welfare organization and was not applying for exemption as an HOA.  There are no grounds, no authority in the governing documents, then and now, to make such an assertion. In the application, the president informed the IRS that SCG provides services “benefitting both the Sun City Grand community and the surrounding community.” You will not find that “and surrounding community” claim anywhere else but on the IRS application.

Second, the article contains a number of vague and confusing assertions not supported by the facts,  and contradict such attitudes found in other BOD publications by other SCG officials. One gets a sense of Who’s in charge? Additionally, it raises the question of board competence, which can be found in recent actions and decisions by the BOD[5]. Puffing can be found in the article:

• “an extraordinary level of imagination and management expertise”
• “to make Grand the very best” contradicts the Vision statement that proclaims SCG is already the best, “Grand is the premiere age-restricted adult association.”
•  “sophisticated and demanding,” which is undoubtedly demanding but a sophisticated” business?  Are the demands on the board of directors beyond its pay grade? Does the public view town managers, SCG equivalent to CAM, viewed as a business? Does the public view town councils, the equivalent of the SCG board, viewed as a business?

Finally, “[Directors] on the BOD represent you and your interests” is misleading and contradicts the law and SCG policy that the board owes its obligations to the HOA “person.”  The 2021 Candidates Package paragraph “9a”,  makes my point. “Directors work first and foremost for the best interests of the Association.”  This authoritarian tone is contrary to our democratic values. This attitude reflects its policy to run SCG as a business, and at times a for-profit business.  

I’m left with who and what is SCG?  The governing documents, like the US Constitution make that clear; yet the board hasn’t seemed to accept this foundation for its authority to act on behalf of the members, and that’s not to be a business.  It has failed to address two top level management concerns of boards of directors: What is our business and what should it be?

As I detail in “CAI dominates SCG” (see link below), the board has a duty of care and a fiduciary responsibility to the members. Unless the BOD does an about face in regard to its CAI legal advisors, members can expect more of the same in dealing with several serious legal matters that are on the horizon.

Notes

---

[1] Robert Towe,  Board Director, “Our Great Community”, Lifestyles, Oct. 2022.

[2] “Propaganda” is false statements, half-truths, omission of facts, and misrepresentations designed to produce a favorable attitude and mindset in the targets.”  The BOD provides illusions of happiness and approval, and are supported by the majority of their members; its messages use propaganda statements — disinformation consisting of false, misleading, half-truths, omitting facts, and fear.

[3] CAI School of HOA Governance: 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.

[4] Read the domination argument paper at:   CAI Dominates SCG.

[5] See Wizard of SCG.

THE ALLEGORY OF THE WIZARDS OF HOA-LAND

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

The quote comes the classic film The Wizard of Oz. The Wizard of Oz tells the story of Dorothy (and her dog Toto) who is magically transported to the Land of Oz. Now, stuck in the Land of Oz she  is advised to see the Wizard of Oz as he may know of a way to send her home.  Speaking to the Wizard, who looks like a giant floating head, the floating head is exposed as just an illusion created by a middle-aged man hiding behind the curtain, who is the “real” Wizard. He attempts to distract them by asking them to ignore the man, saying “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”  (View https://youtu.be/YWyCCJ6B2WE).

The ”Wizards of HOA-Land” are none other than the HOA boards of directors (BOD) who provide illusions of happiness, approval, and support by the majority of their members.  The BODs use propaganda statements — disinformation consisting of false, misleading, and half-truths —  videos, photos, testimonials, and coercion applied to non-believers in their message.

Speaking specifically in regard to my “Mgmt Case Study #1” subject, Arizona’s SCG, as a result of the BOD’s arrogance, its defensive posture using propaganda to create illusions of proper and righteous conduct, its silence on the crucial issues, and its continued violations of black-letter statutes and the governing documents, I’ve managed to pull away the “curtain” and expose the Wizards in action. The BOD’s response has been, in effect: Pay no attention to these criticisms and just believe in how we’ve made you all content with  SCG. 

The SCG BOD election  mockery

(In general, the legislators, the media, the HOA BODs and members need to step back and see the ugly forest through the trees — the claimed “isolated” incidents.)

And so the BOD, with some 30% of the votes already cast, continues to urge the members to vote.  Why?  Under SCG’s election procedure the winners are from the top 4 vote counts, and with more than 10% voting to avoid any quorum issues, why bother?  Would it really make a difference among 7 shades of gray candidates who, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, have been carefully selected and controlled by the BOD with the result, no matter who won, of more of the same policies, attitudes, decisions, culture as before.  The independent voices of  the members have been denied.

A Committee for the Betterment of Sun City Grand  (CBSCG) is becoming a necessity for any hope of restoring member fundamental rights and freedoms.  The members must act!

Mgmt case study #1 – update3

SCG BOARD CONTINUES TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT’S A ROGUE BOD

Management Case Study #1 update3 — BOD good faith conduct

George K. Staropoli, January 16, 2022

This study will proceed to a climax late this month with the board elections.  The BOD has remained silent with respect to the allegations and the members have also remained silent. However, the BOD has handled their problem with a campaign of propaganda.

I challenged the BOD and the members in a post to the SCG FB private member group, stating in part:

PROPAGANDA. I have studied the recent weekly posts, releases, enotifications, “news of the day” etc. from the BOD. My  conclusion was that I was witnessing a very slick and effective propaganda campaign.  (“Propaganda” is false statements, half-truths, omission of facts, and misrepresentations designed to produce a favorable attitude and mindset in the targets). What has been presented to the membership has been happy, smiling faces, eating good food at the Café, enjoying the club and sports amenities, and beautiful pictures of the landscaping. A picture of happy land and playing to the wishes, desires, and wants of the members.

All designed to elicit “what a great place this” and “what a great job the BOD is doing.”  I agree!  Meanwhile they have failed and continue to fail to address documented criticisms and charges of violations.  Completely ignoring these serious aspects of BOD duties and obligations under state law and the governing documents.  Will the new BOD follow in suit?  “For they are all, all honorable men.”

* * * *

Please feel free to provide posts on this open SCG member FB group: any  feedback, your views, any questions about me, who I am, what I stand for, or what I wish to accomplish. 

PLEASE ENTER MY NAME AS YOUR WRITE-IN NOMINEE FOR A CHANGE FOR THE BETTER: GEORGE K. STAROPOLI.