Soon after Poudre Overlook HOA removed the Board of Directors on 8/27/19, a push began for hiring a CAM (Community Area Manager) by some of the new Board members. In meeting after meeting, those on the board, and the homeowners that were advocating for the same reasoned that Board members were merely volunteers who didn’t have time to know all the details of everything – particularly the intricacies of law.
At the March 2020 meeting, the Board even noted in the meeting minutes that hiring a CAM that knew the law would even save on legal fees. The logic being that instead of going to an attorney for legal advice, the Board could go to a CAM that is presumed to know the law, and then get the answer for less because they would be regularly working with the CAM on a continuous contract.
Now, at first glance, this sounds perhaps brilliant. Why pay more for information?
Well, first of all, one of the major flaws in the logic is that anyone credentialed by CAI or CAMICB would be violating their written Standards of Professional Conduct, and therefore risking revocation of their credentials if they attempted to give legal advice. So, the proposition of a CAM saving on legal fees is tempting and attractive, but is not allowed – unless, of course, the Code of Conduct is ignored and unenforced.
CMCA STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
The Community Association Managers International Certification Board (CAMICB) requires a Certified Manager of Community Associations (CMCA) to comply with the Standards of Professional Conduct, which govern their professional activities.
A Certified Manager of Community Associations (CMCA) shall:
1. Be knowledgeable, act, and encourage clients to act in accordance with any and all federal, state, and local laws applicable to community association management and operations.2. Be knowledgeable, comply and encourage clients to comply with the applicable governing documents, policies and procedures of the Client Association(s) to the extent permitted by that Client.
3. Not knowingly misrepresent materials facts, make inaccurate statements or act in any fraudulent manner while representing Client Association(s) or acting as a CMCA.
4. Not provide legal advice to Client Association(s) or any of its members, or otherwise engage in the unlicensed practice of law.
5. Promptly disclose to Client Association(s) any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may involve the manager.
6. Refuse to accept any form of gratuity or other remuneration from individuals or companies that could be viewed as an improper inducement to influence the manager.
7. Participate in continuing professional education and satisfy all requirements to maintain the CMCA.
8. Act in a manner consistent with his/her fiduciary duty.
9. Conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times when acting in the scope of their employment in accordance with local, state and federal laws.
10. Recognize the original records, files and books held by the manager are the property of the Client Associations to be returned to the Client at the end of the manager’s engagement and maintain the duty of confidentiality to all current and former clients.
A violation of any of these Standards of Professional Conduct may be grounds for administrative action and possible revocation of the CMCA credential by CAMICB.
SOURCE: https://www.camicb.org/for-cmcas/standards-of-professional-conduct
If you believe that a clear violation has occurred, a complaint may be filed.
Ironically, the Board may say that they may have misspoken at the meeting because they weren’t aware of the fact that they couldn’t lean on a CAM for legal advice to avoid knowing anything about HOA law themselves. But, who is supposed to educate them about that?
According to CAI’s January 2021 paper on Hostile Environment Harassment, it is the CAI-trained attorney that has the burden of making sure that their clients are educated and stay within the boundaries of the law.
“As counsel for the community association, we all know that we are obligated to advise on the law and make recommendations on the state of the law as it exists at the time of the rendering of our opinions. Does the role of counsel include educating boards and managers on addressing and overcoming racism in community associations? We believe it does.“
Source: https://www.caionline.org/Advocacy/LegalArena/CCAL/Documents/Best%20Manuscripts/2021_Overcoming%20Racism%20in%20Community%20Associations%20-%20ETHICS.pdf
This begs the question: Why do Poudre Overlook Board members think they shouldn’t know the law themselves, or stay updated with changes in the law? Didn’t we have an attorney on retainer who could set this straight?
While we now have VF Law as our General Counsel (since August of 2021), with Damien Bielli, not only a CAI member, but also a member of CAI’s Amicus Committee, we were previously receiving guidance from several other attorneys, including ones hired by American Family Insurance. During my litigation process, the my attorney informed me that POHOA was being represented by attorneys who were not fully knowledgable on the law – particularly as it related to changes in FHA law in 2016.
It may have been that while CAI opposed the changes in their 2015 comments to Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and again in 2018 after the law was changed, these attorneys may have been passively following CAI’s published documents and were under the impression that CAI’s objections meant that the law should not be followed.
But, even more importantly, if our Board members were following that advice, or were getting it from CAMs or Attorneys who passed it along, perhaps imperfectly, they may have been given the impression that “punishment” by a non-profit corporation was encouraged or even allowable (it is not). CAI, even though they are the clearing house for most information related to HOAs and are generally reliable, sometimes gets it wrong.
Example from the 2015 paper:
Source: https://www.caionline.org/Advocacy/Priorities/Documents/Federal/Housing%20Finance/Community%20Associations%20Institute_Quid%20Pro%20Quo%20and%20Hostile%20Environment%20Comments.pdf
“CAI recommends the Department remove “(including bylaws or other rules of a homeowners association, condominium or cooperative)” from proposed § 100.7(a)(iii). If the Department continues to believe a public good can be reasonably accomplished by retaining this language, CAI recommends the language be modified to clearly state the Department’s view as to the terms and conditions in association bylaws and regulations that constitute an actual duty on the part of an association or its agents to investigate and punish residents for illegal discriminatory housing practices. “
My litigation with POHOA was found by the Larimer County District Court to be brought in good faith. While CAI may have the opinion that the changes in the “Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment Harassment” rules imposed new duties, costs, or expenses, the fact of the matter was that the law required intervention when criteria were met. And, prior to my litigation, I requested that the POHOA Board both intervene, and if they did not believe they had existing powers and authorities, that they needed to write a new policy (or clarify existing policies that may apply).
Instead, they refused to engage me on the topic, told me to forgive everyone, and to stop writing to them about it – implying that pursuing the matter further may be considered some form of “harassment”, including criminal harassment.
But, I had not only researched the topic thoroughly, including CAI’s opinion papers from 2015 and 2018, but I had also interviewed several attorneys utilizing “free” legal advice many offer for minimal sessions of 15-30 minutes. It’s amazing how a well-researched question can elicit a better understanding – and such consultations are always available to Board members (and actually advised by many law firms as a way to keep legal budgets trim). I gave the Board my references, and offered to sit down and discuss. I offered a written compromise to ensure that the conditions leading to a hostile environment would either not occur again, or would have defined objective consequences.
I waited 5 months for the POHOA Board to engage, including a final email that copied the POHOA general counsel. Due to a failure to recognize that documents submitted to CCRD would be copied to the complainant, I got to see the exchanges between the POHOA Board and the attorneys advising them. None of them seemed to recognize that they needed to intervene and write a new policy in order to become compliant with the law that had changed in 2016 (4 years prior!).
However, during the litigation, the POHOA Board hired Trademark Property Management Group, which has as its CEO, Mr. David Rand, who has a biography on their website indicating he has a CMCA credential from CAMICB, an organization under the CAI umbrella. I interviewed Mr. Rand prior to their hire, and his responses about following FHA law were affirmative – which allowed me to consider that maybe, in fact, if the CMCA Code of Conduct were followed, then maybe Mr. Rand would notice the non-compliant policy Ms. Hutchinson had voiced at several board meetings – that POHOA would never, under any circumstances, get involved any 3rd party disputes (neighbor-to-neighbor disputes), trivializing them by calling them “kerfuffles”.
But Trademark didn’t assign Mr. Rand to the POHOA account. Instead, a new hire, Ms. Theresa Martenson was assigned, and she had no prior work experience in HOA management, nor did she have any educational credentials related to HOA management – from CAI, or any other institution. In effect, the idea sold by Ms. Hutchinson for over a year, that hiring a CAM would deliver knowledgeable persons on matters of law was a bait and switch.
So, it is no surprise that, even if POHOA and Trademark were being advised by their general counsel at the time (Mr. Pete Dauster) or the attorneys representing American Family Insurance (Sutton-Booker), they acted as though they had no obligation to comply with these laws – even in responses to the Court and Civil Rights Division.
But, in January of 2021, CAI, after years of resisting compliance with the new Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment Harassment policy that went into effect in October of 2016, finally capitulated. They focused on racism, but while race is a protected class, you can virtually plug in all of the other protected classes in their examples and reasoning and arrive at the same conclusion – an HOA must now intervene with the powers and authorities available to them when the criteria (ie definitions) for Hostile Environment Harassment have been met.
Most importantly, it is the aggrieved who determines when the criteria are met, and whether or not the intervention was successful or adequate. And, equally important to the educational process is an understanding that intervention does not mean punishment – ever.
But, the key question for which POHOA refused to engage, mediate, and eventually wound up in litigation was over the question of whether or not POHOA needed to intervene EVER, or was allowed to have and use a policy that, as Ms. Hutchinson put it: “We never get involved in neighbor-to-neighbor kerfuffles.”
This simply was not and is not true. CAI put this in straightforward terms in January of 2021:
“The enactment of the 2016 HUD regulations effectively codified the finding in Reeves70 and provides that if an association has the authority to take civil action against a person who is engaged in unlawful discriminatory conduct under its governing documents or applicable laws governing the association, it has a duty to exercise that authority on behalf of the aggrieved resident. Failure to do so now formally constitutes a violation by the association of that person’s civil rights under the Fair Housing Act.”
Source: https://www.caionline.org/Advocacy/LegalArena/CCAL/Documents/Best%20Manuscripts/2021_Overcoming%20Racism%20in%20Community%20Associations%20-%20ETHICS.pdf
So, if POHOA was actually in violation of the Fair Housing Act and therefore my civil rights as someone in a protected class (I’ll write in detail about my PTSD in the future), why did the Larimer County District dismiss the case?
I’ll have to explain this in detail in a separate article, but the bottom line is pretty simple: POHOA has insurance with attorneys who use scorched earth tactics to wiggle out of responsibility. It’s truly difficult-to-impossible to enforce the rules on an HOA Board. But, what was clear by the time CCRD took up the issue, and noted by Robinson and & Henry as late as March of 2021 was that the POHOA Board and their attorneys were not fully educated on the their duties and responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act – even with CAI publishing a paper making it abundantly clear months before.
So, how do we improve the situation and avoid such dilemmas?
There’s some concrete steps.
First, Board Education is no longer optional. CAI not only recognizes this is the case, but has recently created (October of 2021) a Credential available for just $99 and 5 hours of class time – which Board members can do on their own time online, or attend a physical class.
While the Colorado Legislature considered requiring Board members to sign a document stating they had read and understood the law and governing documents, CAI opposed the measure and it was removed from HB-1229 as a result. If CAI wishes to be the sole university giving credentials, then these shouldn’t be optional, and it should not take the urging of homeowners (or other Board members) to make it happen.
Giving the excuse of “We’re just volunteers” is no longer pragmatic or acceptable – HOA Board members have the right to take away someone’s home through foreclosure, so they had better know the law, process, procedures, and what is and is not ethical before or soon after they join a board. Boards made up of persons who are willfully ignorant should be a thing of the past, and that education should be updated annually.
It’s important to note that CCIOA actually requires Associations to have some sort of Board and Homeowner education program in place, yet POHOA has still never acted on this duty. DORA has a page explaining all of this in detail, and actually provides educational materials of their own – but does not offer credentials like CAI. POHOA could make it a requirement for all of it’s board members to at least use the DORA materials in their first month of service to get educated on legal and ethical matters as an improvement over the status quo.
“The Colorado HOA Information and Resource Center has assembled a series of educational training videos for HOA board members to help with understanding the basics of a board member’s role and the many aspects of overseeing a homeowners’ association, as well as assisting board members in understanding the rights and responsibilities of those living in an HOA. Together with these instructional videos are quizzes to cover some basic learning principles, and resources that can be accessed to support board members in carrying out their obligations to the communities that they serve.”
Source: https://dre.colorado.gov/hoa-board-member-education
CCIOA is explicit on the subject of education, yet POHOA has yet to take action on the guidance created by statute related to both Board and Homeowner Education
Resource: https://dre.colorado.gov/hoa-board-member-education
38-33.3-209.6. Executive board member education. The board may authorize, and account for as a common expense, reimbursement of board members for their actual and necessary expenses incurred in attending educational meetings and seminars on responsible governance of unit owners’ associations. The course content of such educational meetings and seminars shall be specific to Colorado, and shall make reference to applicable sections of this article.Source: L. 2005: Entire section added, p. 1377, § 7, effective January 1, 2006.
38-33.3-209.7. Owner education. (1) The association shall provide, or cause to be provided, education to owners at no cost on at least an annual basis as to the general operations of the association and the rights and responsibilities of owners, the association, and its executive board under Colorado law. The criteria for compliance with this section shall be determined by the executive board.”
Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1VD36mBqe1ENjZTVi1wYU9ucS1rczE4bERmVGd3UGRRWXdN/view?resourcekey=0-ywq8odnI_yPmthRSmHkjFQ
While the last line is somewhat ambiguous as to how the Board determines their own criteria for compliance, most certainly, doing nothing at all cannot be the criteria for compliance – and that is where POHOA stands today.
Mentioned in this CCIOA guidance is the topic of “rights and responsibilities of owners”, which first of all acknowledges a topic deserving its own article as well – Homeowner Rights. But, once again, organizations like CAI give straightforward lists for HOAs to use in their education program.
CAI defines Homeowners rights with the following list:
– A responsive and competent community association.
Source: https://www.caionline.org/HomeownerLeaders/Rights%20and%20Responsibilities/rights.pdf
– Honest, fair and respectful treatment by community leaders and managers.
– Participate in governing the community association by attending meetings, serving on committees and standing for election.
– Access appropriate association books and records.
– Prudent expenditure of fees and other assessments.
– Live in a community where the property is maintained according to established standards.
– Fair treatment regarding financial and other association obligations, including the opportunity to discuss payment plans and options with the association before foreclosure is initiated.
– Receive all documents that address rules and regulations governing the community association—if not prior to purchase and settlement by a real estate agent or attorney, then upon joining the community.
– Appeal to appropriate community leaders those decisions affecting non-routine financial responsibilities or property rights.
But, what we keep hearing from POHOA Board members is that they are “just volunteers!” and that they “have jobs!” or “have kids!”, and therefore cannot be burned with knowledge of the law that guides them. But, the same Rights and Responsibilities page from CAI above is definitive on the matter:
Under the section on Community Leader Responsibilities:
– “Understand the association’s governing documents and become educated with respect to applicable state and local laws, and to manage the community association accordingly.”
Source: https://www.caionline.org/HomeownerLeaders/Rights%20and%20Responsibilities/rights.pdf
These excuses voiced repeatedly are directly contradicted by the organization that has advised state legislators that no law (particularly one with teeth) is necessary because willfully ignorant Board members don’t exist. It’s clearly not true, and is the pattern, not the exception – particularly when the law has changed and both the General Counsel and CAM have been lax or failed in their responsibility to educate the HOA Boards they work for – demonstrating an inherent issue in self-regulation.
But, this is the thing: While some of us would like a Homeowner Bill of Rights adopted as part of CCIOA, CAI, again, advocates for HOAs to simply customize their documents themselves.
CAI’s advice: “Have your board vote to adopt a resolution endorsing Rights and Responsibilities for Better Communities. The principles will be more meaningful to homeowners and community leaders if they are formally adopted.”
Source: https://www.caionline.org/HomeownerLeaders/Pages/RightsandResponsibilities.aspx
That sounds like a start. The problem is, after raising the issue of putting Homeowner Rights on the agenda as far back as November of 2018, we have had not just a Board, but attorneys who say that homeowners have no right to add to the agenda – so all the Board has to do is simply decline to take action.
But, CAI’s opinion on the matter is not authoritative. It is merely an opinion. And, while CAI may hit the mark the majority of the time, as we saw with their opposition to Hostile Environment Harassment changes to the Fair Housing Act, sometimes they get it wrong – and in that case, for a period of over 4 years before they finally admitted that compliance was no longer optional.
In a sense, we can forgive POHOA for being influenced by CAI-member attorneys or CAMs who followed CAI off this cliff. They put all their eggs in that basket, presuming that CAI’s opinion would win the day. Instead, they invited and experienced litigation challenging that interpretation, and literally while the case was ongoing, found that CAI reversed course and suddenly recognized the validity of the interpretation that would require that they both write a policy and intervene when criteria were met.
But, this begs the question: Could POHOA have sought out legal opinions from other sources to become educated on a matter that was obviously contested by non-CAI attorneys?
This is probably the most important part of this education process. While CAI has a virtual monopoly on educational credentials, they are not the only source of information. As seen above DORA also offers educational materials that should be reviewed, consumed, and considered. And, a simple google search on any HOA topic will reveal other attorneys and firms that specialize in HOA law – from the homeowner’s perspective.
While there are disputes over interpretations of vague laws, the key for Boards is to recognize that they are not to follow the DIRECTION of the attorney they hire as legal counsel. No such obligation exists in CCIOA or any other statute. They are vendors, and vendors can sometimes be wrong.
When the Board recognizes that they may be getting information that is biased in a contested matter, they have a duty to weigh the pros and cons by considering information from other sources – and then make a deliberate decision about the path forward. Instead, at POHOA since 2019, Board members have sought to simply turn over anything that even remotely resembles a legal question to the attorney, as though they are in a corporation with an IN-HOUSE attorney vs. taking advice and weighing it.
Not to be insulting, but this is a Board of DIRECTORS. They DIRECT the actions of the Association, not the attorney they hire. Otherwise, if this was the design, CCIOA would have statutory rules about having in-house attorneys who then could be held accountable when they get it wrong. Attorneys bank on the concept that once hired, their advise will be taken and adhered to (but are not responsible if they do not!), but this does not mean Boards should take direction or orders from them. That is a mistake, and one repeated several times at POHOA.
We should learn from this example and mistake which led to unnecessary litigation had the Board or the parties that they sought legal counsel (including the attorneys at their insurance company), when firms like Robinson & Henry were cited, and that firm offered a free 30-minute consultation that would have affirmed that FHA law was the law they should be respecting.
Moving forward, however, POHOA has yet to follow CAI’s new guidance on the matter, which is encapsulated in the same January 2021 paper on racism and the requirement to intervene on behalf of that protected class to comply with the Fair Housing Act.
According to CAI, their attorneys who are members should:
– Encourage boards to adopt a harassment-reporting policy for residents to report third-party harassment under the Fair Housing Act. This decision should be made after much deliberation and consultation.
– If the association decides to adopt a harassment-reporting policy for third party harassment claims, the association should provide annual training on what constitutes actionable harassment and how residents should comply with the policy.
Source: https://www.caionline.org/Advocacy/LegalArena/CCAL/Documents/Best%20Manuscripts/2021_Overcoming%20Racism%20in%20Community%20Associations%20-%20ETHICS.pdf
Because neither Trademark, who has a CEO endowed with the CMCA credential requiring Trademark to notify POHOA that they are out of compliance in order to follow their Standards of Professional Conduct, nor it’s prior HOA attorneys have guided the POHOA Board to do any of these things, my litigation was drawn out in the typical way that corporate lawyers do – to run the other side out of money to force a settlement vs. having the merits considered by jurists in a Court – as intended by state and federal statutes. The last thing they wanted is for this to be decided by a judge, jury, or administrative judge.
So, they settled. And, apparently declared this a victory instead of an honest assessment – a complete failure of the system by which they should have been properly educated about being non-compliant on a law that went into effect several years prior. They dug in their heels, and during the course of the litigation, portrayed me as raising a “frivolous” issue that had no basis. The Court, at least, did recognize the validity of my concerns by granting me the fact that the case was brought in “good faith”.
We can’t change the past. But, we can change the future, and among those changes needs to be an overhaul of how we educate Board members and homeowners to be compliant with CCIOA, and ultimately to write the policy that is necessary per CAI’s interpretation of the Fair Housing Act. And, once and for all, stop saying the Board doesn’t get involved in “neighbor-to-neighbor kerfuffles”.
There’s a final point on that little phrase. It’s a micro-aggression, which, again, CAI has identified as a transgression on the part of Board members who choose such language.
“Microaggressions can be behavioral, but the vast majority are communicated through language. While they may seem harmless, microaggressions can cause great distress to those who experience them.
The reality is that you are the sender of a message through your words and actions, but the racism is experienced in the mind of the receiver – not you. You may not think there’s anything wrong with what you’ve said, but a person of color may nonetheless be highly offended. At extreme levels, it is easy to distinguish toxic behavior, e.g., yelling, verbal abuse, explicit threats, antagonism, violence, touching without permission, and sexual advances. However, microaggressions include a much broader range of behaviors that are equally toxic but more subtle and subjective. “Microaggressions hold their power because they are invisible, and therefore they don’t allow us to see that our actions and attitudes may be discriminatory.””
While Ms. Hutchinson and others who have repeatedly dismissed my concerns by labeling them as “kerfuffles” may think they are being smart and superior, in reality, they are making things much much worse. This is due to a lack of education on topics like “microaggressions”, which then leads to sub-topics of microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations. The latter being part of the issue.
Ms. Hutchinson, in the January 2020 Board meeting asked Mr. Tuminello to be the local expert on whether or not POHOA had an obligation to intervene in a case of neighbor-to-neighbor disputes. In spite of his having served for 9 years, including at the time the Fair Housing Act was changed, he too was unaware. Therefore, with his endorsement (which was noted in the legal record, the meeting minutes), POHOA established an unwritten policy that was based upon a lack of education. Ms. Hutchinson, and then the other Board members at the time, had the opportunity to review the matter with attorneys from January of 2020 until August of 2020, when I raised the question again, this time with a citation of the exact FHA language and statute. Again, they doubled down on their understanding, which was erroneous.
Even then, AFTER filing an amended complaint with the Court, and having the benefit of the attorneys hired by American Family Insurance, the Board once again used the microinvalidation of using the word “kerfuffle” to insult me and any others who were bothered by the lack of intervention in an obvious case of a hostile environment that not only resulted in a verbal and near-physical assault of Mr. Clark (who was serving as Association President), but also led to a verbal screaming match at the December 2019 Board Meeting that was so scary, Ms. Hutchinson claimed her children who were upstairs were afraid for their mother’s safety.
We both need to be educated about the law, AND the use of these microaggressions which escalate disputes. And, that leads to the other topic in education – the point should be resolution of disputes in a mutually agreeable manner. We should not be seeking to defeat others, and most importantly, punish them for raising the issue in retaliation.
In fact, Nevada has a statute in place to protect homeowners from having their complaints resulting in retaliation that is now being considered by the Colorado legislature.
NRS 116.31183 Retaliatory action prohibited; separate action by unit’s owner.
1. An executive board, a member of an executive board, a community manager or an officer, employee or agent of an association shall not take, or direct or encourage another person to take, any retaliatory action against a unit’s owner because the unit’s owner has:
(a) Complained in good faith about any alleged violation of any provision of this chapter or the governing documents of the association; (b) Recommended the selection or replacement of an attorney, community manager or vendor; or (c) Requested in good faith to review the books, records or other papers of the association.
2. In addition to any other remedy provided by law, upon a violation of this section, a unit’s owner may bring a separate action to recover:
(a) Compensatory damages; and
(b) Attorney’s fees and costs of bringing the separate action.
Source: Added to NRS by 2003, 2218; A 2009, 2808, 2895)
Until we have an education program in place that is used and relied upon to ensure we do not repeat past mistakes, we are likely to repeat them. The current efforts by the Board, which are mostly opaque to members who are not personally in their social circles, appears to follow a pattern seen at other HOA’s – revise the documents to make it easier to shut down homeowners who complain, and create policies that make it easy to accuse them of “harassment”, and then use fines based upon those policies to drive them into either financial distress or foreclosure, with the ultimate unspoken goal of driving their perceived enemies from the neighborhood.
This happens over and over throughout Colorado, and the process of participating in the legislative process has exposed me to numerous accounts, many of them outrageous and chilling. While the situation in POHOA has not yet resulted in such drastic actions, POHOA has received guidance from VF Law buried in their review that advocates putting “superlien” clauses into our governing documents.
For most, this just sounds like legalese, but it is the precursor to actions that result in using foreclosure over small matters that are out of proportion with this nuclear option.
In fact, this is why Washington State recently changed HOA statutes to forbid foreclosure on matters that are unrelated to assessments. It arose in particular in reaction to homeowners, who have an acknowledged duty to enforce the state laws on HOA Boards and Associations who are operating out of compliance, who were seeing those Boards use their power to fine to silence those who attempted to enforce compliance. Or simply wanted to drive someone they didn’t like or agree with from the neighborhood be escalating even small fines into huge legal expenses, and then rushing the process to force a sale of their home.
These practices are not what HOAs were intended to create. They are abuses of power that, unless HOAs choose to self-limit, will see other states follow in limiting such powers. CAI may be opposed, but the fact of the matter is that without a clearly defined process for homeowners to file a complaint, and then a reliable process that always follows, homeowners are often prevented from doing their duty – in states where there is no state agency to enforce rules on a rogue HOA.
Again, CAI has the template to follow in regards to complaints about CAMs who have CMCA credentials.
The State of Nevada has an Ombudsman’s Office that has a similar complaint process, except, of course, the first step is not to ask the HOA Board to first review and act. Other states have been trying to have a state agency oversee or regulate the parties (CAMs and Boards), but always receives stiff resistance to such efforts. Meanwhile, however, self-regulation is easily ignored or shut down by HOA Boards – which then leads the next level CAMICB to act like a court, and dismiss the complaint for having failed to “mediate” the dispute.
It cannot be that parties who may be responsible for acting per the Fair Housing Act are also the final judge and jury on the matter, particularly when they may be reluctant to hold their friends accountable, or act against their vendor, who may also enjoy the a level of personal friendship, not to mention being a conflict of interest if they don’t want to take action because it might be personally disruptive.
The system is currently broken, and CAI advocates that we should fix it ourselves as opposed to the state creating statutory mandates. Therefore, unless we want to have the State of Colorado having administrative and regulatory authority over HOA Boards, it’s time we stop kicking this can down the road. If we have Board members who don’t want to learn or acknowledge these details, then they should consider serving the community in a different capacity. The powers and authorities of an HOA, which includes foreclosing on someone’s home over a dispute, should not be in the hands of people who refuse to be educated, even minimally.
I seek a position on the Board to advocate for these and other changes to our approach to Board and Homeowner education, rights, and responsibilities. The status quo is not acceptable.