Posted on April 6, 2009 by Marilyn Perez-Martinez

Can a Director Sit on More than One Association Board at a Time?

Recently I was asked whether it would be a conflict of interest for a director to serve on both an association and master association at the same time.   Assuming the governing documents of both the association and master association do not prohibit this, one must look to Florida Statutes to determine permissibility.

Florida Statute 617.0802 provides a basic set of criteria for a person to be eligible to sit as a director on a board. The most important thing to know though is that it defers to the governing documents of the corporation for limitations on who can hold such a position. In other words if an association’s governing documents require a person be a member of the association to serve on the board then it trumps the premise under Section 617.0802(1) that a director need not be a member of the corporation. 

In a Homeowner's Association setting [720.306(9)] all members of the association shall be eligible to serve on the board of directors while in the Condominium setting [718.112(2)(d)(3)], directors can be unit owners or other eligible persons. Ownership of a property is not required by statute, but the governing documents may impose ownership or membership criteria.

Once a director, the person shall pursuant to Florida law [617.0830; 718.111(1)(d)] discharge his or her duties:

  • In good faith;
  • With the care an ordinarily prudent in the same position would use; and
  • In a manner he reasonably believes to be in the association’s best interest

Director conflicts of interest are also addressed by Florida Statute [617.0832]. Whenever there is a relationship or interest between a director of an association and a person or entity the association is doing business with there exists a conflict of interest.   The conflict in and of itself does not or invalidate the agreement if:

  • Disclosure was made to the board or committee which authorized, approved, or ratified the agreement (the vote of the director with the conflict is not counted); 
  • Disclosure was made to the members entitled to vote on the agreement and they authorized, approved, ratified it; or 
  • The agreement is fair and reasonable as to the association at the time it is authorized by the board, committee or members. 
  • In the Condominium the setting the following additional criteria [718.3026(3)] apply to avoid conflicts:
  • The disclosures to the directors shall be entered into the written minutes of the meeting where they are made; 
  • Approval of the agreement shall require an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the directors present; and
  • The disclosure to the members shall be made at the next regular or special members meeting after the agreement is made.

Going back to the question at hand, it appears that there is no language in the Florida Statutes which prohibits a director of a master association from sitting on a sub-association’s board or vice versa. 

For information on master associations and their elections, read Master Associations Required to Elect Board by Joe Adams.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted on January 26, 2009 by Marilyn Perez-Martinez

Attorney-Client Privilege When Board Members Sue the Association

Many Associations have just completed their election season and find that a person or persons newly elected to the Board are involved in a case being defended or prosecuted by the Association. Now what? Clearly, a conflict of interest exists but participation in a lawsuit against the Association is not one of the factors that makes you ineligible to sit on the Board. Therefore, the person(s) can take their seat on the Board so long as every other aspect of the election process was valid.

The Board however still needs to take measures to ensure that the strategy and legal opinions obtained from counsel on behalf of the Association continue to be privileged. This can be accomplished in a few ways. One option is for the person(s) with the conflict to recuse themselves from participating in any meeting/vote regarding the lawsuit. Their fiduciary duty to the Association would be fulfilled but what if that means there is no quorum of the Board to make a decision? Also, they would have to know of the meeting in order to recuse themselves and this would tip them off that something was up?

The better alternative is to have an open Board meeting for the sole purpose of creating a committee of members of the Board who do not have the conflict of interest. This meeting would be open to all members of the Board and the Association. The persons with the conflict should be allowed to vote on the issue and their fiduciary duty should dictate that they vote in favor of such a committee. During this meeting the Board should also vest all powers necessary to allow settlement or resolution through appeal in the committee. Otherwise, if the committee continually had to return to the Board for more authority, the person(s) with the conflict would be able to deduce what was going on and the creation of the committee would be for naught.

 

If the Association is one in which the majority of the Board makes up the person(s) with the conflict, there will not be enough disinterested Board members to create a committee which could handle the litigation. The option then is to have non-board members partake in the committee. In this instance, the Board should decide how many additional persons are needed. My recommendation would be if you have a 5 person Board with 3 persons having a conflict, that you add 3 additional non-board members to the committee. The most diplomatic way to do this would be to have an open Board meeting for the purpose of the creating the committee but advising on the notice that the Board will seek 3 volunteers to sit on the committee from the non-Board members. During the meeting, the Board would explain the purpose of the committee, the fiduciary duty to the Association and the requirement that the privileges afforded a litigation be preserved despite any friendship with the person(s) having the conflict. For obvious reasons, relatives of the persons with the conflict should not be allowed to sit on the committee. Should only 3 volunteers seek to be part of the committee, nothing else is necessary. Should however more than 3 volunteers seek to be part of the committee, the Board should vote on each one until the 3 spots have been filled. Another option would be to have the members vote on the volunteers. Please note, if your governing documents provide another procedure for setting up a committee (such as landscaping, architectural, etc.) you may want to follow that procedure all together. Similarly, if the governing documents require that you have a litigation committee, then you need follow that procedure, always ensuring that the person(s) with the conflict do not sit on the committee.

Regardless of how this committee is seated, the first thing to do is set a closed meeting with counsel. This will permit the attorney to meet the persons she will be dealing with during the litigation. Additionally, the attorney will be able to explain the duties of the committee as they pertain to the Association in terms of the suit and bring the committee up to speed on what is going on in the case. The attorney will also be able to get an understanding of what the committee wants in terms of resolution (i.e., settlement or trial).

One last thing, when creating the committee, it should be clear that the committee is created solely for the purpose of the case at hand and all that goes with it (counterclaims, third party claims, etc.) and that it dissolves immediately once the case is resolved. Again, if your governing documents create a method for dissolving a committee, the Association should follow those procedures.
Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted on January 11, 2009 by Joseph Adams

Q&A: Management Company Conflict of Interest?

Question: I am a member of a homeowners’ association. Our board recently hired a new management company. The owner of the management company is also a resident/property owner in our community. Some of us feel that this creates a conflict of interest. What is your opinion on this? T.W. (via e-mail)

Answer: As long as the owner of the management company is not also a member of your association’s board of directors, I do not believe that conflict of interest concerns in the traditional legal sense are presented.

There is no legal prohibition against contracting with a property owner within your community. I have seen a few associations which have bylaw provisions which prohibit contracting with association members, but such provisions are certainly the exception.

There are a couple of different ways to look at this. Some may argue that because the owner of the management company also has an investment in your community, he or she will go “above and beyond” to ensure that the community’s needs are served, thus protecting their own investment and keeping their friends and neighbors happy. Others would argue that contracting with an association member is a bad idea, because friendships and internal community politics could obscure the objective viewpoint the board should have in dealing with contractors.

Whether contracting with a neighbor or a total stranger, I always recommend that contracts between community association management firms and associations contain a liberal termination clause, with or without clause, upon reasonable notice (such as thirty days).

Tags: , , , ,