NFT: Condo Homeowners Association

There should be term limits for any elected position

position so it may be hard to get people who want to be in that role.

On the other, the longer someone is on one of those boards, the more likely they end up being really hard to deal with and think they're more important than they are (obviously not everyone is like this but have seen this a lot)

I think a term is a good idea

so I think term limits would be out of the question. I think the greater issues are incompetence (being a homeowner doesn't mean you know how to run a community), and conflicts of interest (condo owners v townhome owners; owners who rent out their units v those who live in them).

If you have enough people willing to run, then term limits are fine, I just don't know how much it would change things.

But there are some important caveats. You need to have people willing to put in the work. Although it is a volunteer position, it requires a lot of effort to do correctly. I also would suggest staggering terms when you set this up because you need people with knowledge about what was in the works so you are not reinventing the proverbial wheel each time. Finally, in addition to length of time on the board you want to have term limits on President and Treasurer positions in particular.

Board members but I guess that was clear.

My main concern is getting people to serve with the headaches involved. I just can see sometime in the future a request to make an exception to the rule.

Its staggered so that 3 positions are up each year. We didn't usually have trouble getting people to run. We do have certain people that stayed on the board forever.

Our terms are already staggered.

In comment 15315292 Stu11 said:

Quote:

Its staggered so that 3 positions are up each year. We didn't usually have trouble getting people to run. We do have certain people that stayed on the board forever.

What some have done is say that after a term is up you have to be off the board for a certain number of years to prevent people from rolling over after each term and defeating the purpose.

A lot of questionable decisions are made because board is comprised of a particular age or number of years in the condo. And they make them based on their own lifestyles or self-interest.

If don't impose term limits, then at least impose some limitation on # of consecutive terms to break it up somewhat...

If the Community documents do not say it you probably will not be able to enforce term limits.

In comment 15315325 bluesince56 said:

Quote:

If the Community documents do not say it you probably will not be able to enforce term limits.

A voted amendment .to change the rules?

In comment 15315331 Big Al said:

Quote:

In comment 15315325 bluesince56 said: Quote: If the Community documents do not say it you probably will not be able to enforce term limits. A voted amendment .to change the rules?

Yes, would need to change the docs. Check your docs. May need 75% of all homeowners. Need to check

to change anything in the founding documents.
Good luck with that.

In comment 15315366 bluesince56 said:

Quote:

In comment 15315331 Big Al said: Quote: In comment 15315325 bluesince56 said: Quote: If the Community documents do not say it you probably will not be able to enforce term limits. A voted amendment .to change the rules? Yes, would need to change the docs. Check your docs. May need 75% of all homeowners. Need to check

We have made a number of amendments over the years. On the past, they have tended to be approved.

I'm in an NYC co-op (condo equivelant) and we don't have term limits although I think it would be a good idea. I've been involved with quite a few non-profit committees and boards and I've seen it go both ways although it's my understanding that good governance "experts" argue for term limits generally in the range of six years with those who "roll off" at the term limit permitted to return at a later date.

In comment 15315597 Jerry in 329 said:

Quote:

I'm in an NYC co-op (condo equivelant) and we don't have term limits although I think it would be a good idea. I've been involved with quite a few non-profit committees and boards and I've seen it go both ways although it's my understanding that good governance "experts" argue for term limits generally in the range of six years with those who "roll off" at the term limit permitted to return at a later date.

Damn, are co-op still around? I thought they all converted to condo style of ownership.

- Three out of five board members showed up.
- Two out of 153 homeowners showed up (one of which was me).
- Four of the board members are at the end of their term and wanted to resign...nobody volunteered to take their place

By messaging I was being pushed pretty hard to support the change in rules for term limits and was given some of the logical reasons discussed here but I was also given some stuff that made no sense and other contradictory stuff. I suspected it was an issue with a board member. Being stubborn I refused to commit and got a call from another owner this morning. As I suspected the real reason was to get rid of the Board President. She is a nasty piece of work who bullies staff, owners and other board member and apparently runs over the representatives from the management company. Seven of them in two years. She treats the building as her kingdom. People are scared to challenge her. Not sure why. Doing this is a less direct way to get rid of her.

In comment 15316606 Big Al said:

Quote:

By messaging I was being pushed pretty hard to support the change in rules for term limits and was given some of the logical reasons discussed here but I was also given some stuff that made no sense and other contradictory stuff. I suspected it was an issue with a board member. Being stubborn I refused to commit and got a call from another owner this morning. As I suspected the real reason was to get rid of the Board President. She is a nasty piece of work who bullies staff, owners and other board member and apparently runs over the representatives from the management company. Seven of them in two years. She treats the building as her kingdom. People are scared to challenge her. Not sure why. Doing this is a less direct way to get rid of her.

Big Al, the Board President may have an in with a super or some other employee to have owners give Board President a proxy for their votes at the annual meeting. Therefore, since she has a majority of the votes as people are too lazy to show up, there is no practical way of challenging her.

In comment 15316610 Mike in NY said:

Quote:

In comment 15316606 Big Al said: Quote: By messaging I was being pushed pretty hard to support the change in rules for term limits and was given some of the logical reasons discussed here but I was also given some stuff that made no sense and other contradictory stuff. I suspected it was an issue with a board member. Being stubborn I refused to commit and got a call from another owner this morning. As I suspected the real reason was to get rid of the Board President. She is a nasty piece of work who bullies staff, owners and other board member and apparently runs over the representatives from the management company. Seven of them in two years. She treats the building as her kingdom. People are scared to challenge her. Not sure why. Doing this is a less direct way to get rid of her. Big Al, the Board President may have an in with a super or some other employee to have owners give Board President a proxy for their votes at the annual meeting. Therefore, since she has a majority of the votes as people are too lazy to show up, there is no practical way of challenging her.

The Super knows where his bread is buttered. Before the last time she ran, while talking to the Super, he urged me to vote for her. Seemed inappropriate at the time.