Author: gks256

CAI attempts turning volunteers into HOA leaders

Tom Skiba, CEO of CAI, is concerned about the lack of member volunteers to lead their HOA in his Ungated post under the column, “News and Insights on community association living.”[1] As he argues for more volunteer leadership and activism, he doesn’t realize that he’s admitting to 45 years of failure to solve HOA problems.

That’s why, for more than 45 years, we have supported the belief that homeowner involvement is essential, and that education is a critical component to an association’s success. . . . At CAI, we know there is usually a correlation between the level of homeowner involvement and the long-term success of a community. . . . it’s the homeowner volunteer leaders who are accountable to their neighbors.

Skiba’s concern is understandable when, illustrative of the problem, a large, active adult resort style HOA has been facing failure and having difficulty attracting members to become active in management. And that’s after 3 years earlier an independent and professional strategic plan recommended an educational program to assist in obtaining members to serve in management.  It has been ignored.

CAI has introduced a program designed to educate volunteers to become effective and productive HOA leaders by taking its CAI Board Leader Certificate Course and obtaining the CAI Board Leader Certificate. It seems however, that Skiba is a little bit unsure of this program to create leaders from average people: “After completion of the course, students will acknowledge that they’ve read and understood three key CAI educational resources:” Why the acknowledgement? For what purpose? Is this an oversell of CAI’s attempt to bolster the ego and acceptance of board directors and officers as being “somebody” and an authority? “Community leaders who complete the CAI Board Leader Certificate will receive a certificate of completion and recognition on the CAI website”.

This course, recognizing that “leaders are responsible for setting policy and making decisions . . . . highlights what every board member needs to know to serve effectively,” contains 5 modules:

    • Module 1: Governing Documents and Roles & Responsibilities.
    • Module 2: Communications, Meetings and Volunteerism.
    • Module 3: Fundamentals of Financial Management.
    • Module 4: Professional Advisors and Service Providers.
    • Module 5: Association Rules and Conflict Resolution.

From what is available online, as indicated above, my thoughts are more of the same. There is nothing to make me believe that this course addresses questions of effective leadership. It appears to make use of the inbreeding and indoctrination by the CAI School of HOA Governance.[2] A doing it my way program without any discussion or presentation of effective local government management[3] or any general qualities of what makes a genuine leader.

Travis Bradbury explains leadership:

Leadership has nothing to do with titles. Leadership has nothing to do with personal attributes. Leadership isn’t management. Leadership isn’t something that anyone can give you—you have to earn it and claim it for yourself.[4]

In addressing the management of nonprofit organizations, eminent management consultant Peter F. Drucker wrote: “The first job of the leader is to think through and define the mission of the institution.” [5]

In the inbreeding atmosphere within HOAs where the volunteers are sought who are not disruptive — who do not dare criticize the BOD — Terrin Allen warns about YES men.

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.[6]

Summary

I appreciate Skiba’s concern for responsive HOA management, but CAI’s approach is severely lacking. There is the continued absence of democratic institutions and principles. that would send a message to those truly seeking to create a healthy and productive community; a true community not focused on property values and enforcement of the governing documents alone.

A healthy society and community must be supportive of their membership who still naively believe their HOA is a democracy in action and protective of their individual rights and freedoms. Where they truly have a voice and fair elections to make that happen. I offer an alternative legal model of HOA governance to accomplish this task. See HOAs are in need of a major restructuringg and sequel under Restructuring.

consulting SIG image1Notes

[1] Tom Skiba, “Effective leadership: How board leader education moves communities forward,” (March 5, 2020).</p>

[2] I collectively refer to CAI’s policies, best practices, guides, communications, seminars and certifications, and in its Manifesto as the CAI School of HOA Governance.

[3] Roger L. Kemp, “Forms of Governance,” Managing America’s Cities: A Handbook for Local Government Productivity, McFarland & Co., (2007).

[4] Travis Bradbury, “What Makes a Leader?”, Success.com (May 25, 2019).

[5] Peter F. Drucker, Managing the Nonprofit Organization: Principles and Practices, HarperCollins (1990).

[6] Terin Allen, Are You Creating ‘Yes Men’ And Hindering Your Own Leadership Success?”, Forbes.com (Nov. 10, 2018).

Goldwater Institute ignores HOA unconstitutionality

Reading through the highly respected Christina Sandefur’s paper in the Harvard Law Journal,[1] I was deeply disturbed by the absence of any discussion of similar conduct by homeowners associations (HOAs). Her paper criticized city ordinance prohibitions on short-term home rentals. “These cities treat home sharing itself as the crime.” It is a dangerous proposition that government . . . [to] be able to criminalize violations of that judgment” [“on how to use their properties”].

Yet, in her one single sentence, Sanderfur holds HOAs harmless that, by means of the governing documents, use their “police powers” to prohibit short-term rentals and from criminalizing such acts by their members. “While that may be the role of a homeowner association when people contract to determine to how to use their properties, a city government should not have that power.”

Sanderfur’s arguments against government statutory prohibitions, include in part,

  • “Cities look at this as a way to increase revenues” by imposition of fines,
  • “They get to outlaw the activity,”
  • Intimidate residents [of the city] into giving up their property rights”,
  • “This is not only abhorrent public policy, and
  • “It is also unconstitutional”.

It seems that these arguments apply to HOAs also, but it appears that nobody is listening. I do not understand and cannot understand this blindness to the constitutional issues surrounding HOAs, especially from the prestigious, defending the Constitution, public interest Goldwater Institute.

What is the rationale behind this blindness when there is substantial legal authority in support of unconstitutionality, from the basic outlaw government of independent principalities that reject the US Constitution,[2] to placing the doctrine of equitable servitudes property law over constitutional law and contract law;[3] to gross misrepresentation in the selling and marketing of HOAs that invalidate and thought of a bona fide consent to be bound.[4]

When will Goldwater question the constitutionality of the HOA model of government? Why is Goldwater viewing an HOA just as a real estate subdivision package of amenities, landscaping, homes and not as a distinct form of local government[5] functioning outside the laws of the land as an outlaw government.

“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.” (George K. Staropoli).

 CIDS [HOAs] currently engage in many activities that would be prohibited  if they were viewed  by the courts as the equivalent of local governments.[6]

There is no compelling and necessary justification for HOA special treatment. It’s time to end these outlaw private governments that violate even the most liberal home rule, self-governing provisions of state laws and constitutions.[7]

I do not see Goldwater’s name on the list of Arizona’s Request to Speak positions on SB 1412,[8] a bill prohibiting HOAs from restricting the political free speech rights of homeowners in regard to political issues within the HOA community. California just passed SB 323, a progressive bill supporting homeowner rights, and Florida has SB 623 in the works also seeking homeowner rights and freedoms within the HOA legal structure.[9] This a very good time for Goldwater to speak out on this bill and HOA member rights, freedoms and privileges and immunities as US citizens.

 

The Goldwater Institute, including Sanderfur, has been on my distribution list for some time as well as Victor Riches, President & CEO, whom I met and discussed HOA problems as far back as the early 2000s when he was an Arizona legislative staff analyst. I also met with and discussed HOAs with Clint Bolick, now AZ Supreme Court Justice, who in 2013 accepted my request for legal assistance to sue the State of Arizona. He was preempted by Tim Hogan of ACLPI.[10] It was with Nick Dranias that I had a pleasant Arizona Capital Times exchange on HOA issues.[11] He offered, privately, some advice that I have incorporated into my Truth In HOAs position and Homeowner Declaration.

 

Notes

[1] Christina Sandefur, “Turning Entrepreneurs into Outlaws,” p. 45 et seq., Harv. J.L. & Policy, Winter 2020. Sanderfur is an Exec. VP, Goldwater Institute.

[2] See The HOA Principality (2005); HOA-Land: the product of the decline in democratic institutions in America. (2018).

[3] The Restatement advises judges — and is regarded as precedent — that its collection of laws known as HOA law dominates all others.   Section 6.13, comment a, states: “The question whether a servitude unreasonably burdens a fundamental constitutional right is determined as a matter of property law, and not constitutional law”. Section 3.1, comment h, states: “in the event of a conflict between servitudes law and the law applicable to the association form, servitudes law should control.” See CC&Rs are a devise for de facto HOA governments to escape constitutional government (2015).

[4] See HOA consent to agree vs. “the will of the majority”. (2019).

[5] The four recognized types of local government are : commission, and council-manager, the most prevalent. See in general, Roger L. Kemp, “Forms of Governance,” Managing America’s Cities: A Handbook for Local Government Productivity, McFarland & Co., (2007).

[6] Evan McKenzie, Privatopia: Homeowners Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Governments, Yale Univ. Press, 1994.

[7] See in general, HOAs violate local home rule doctrine and are outlaw governments, concluding paragraph. (2014).

[8] AZ RTS positions as of today, March 4, 2020.

[9] See Toward a democratic HOA subject to the Constitution (2020).

[10] See AZ Attorney General admits SB 1454 HOA to be invalid and without effect (2013).

[11] See Goldwater Institute: regulating HOAs “stands Constitution on its head” (2008).

Restructuring HOAs: “CAI School and member benefits” pt. 2

Mentoring: “CAI School of HOA Governance”

Part 2 addresses the heavy influence of the CAI and its affiliated, shill, organizations functioning as supporters of HOAs and the questionable claim of also supporting homeowners.

CAI heavy influence

Several HOA attorneys have maintained that the expression of the common interest of all the members is found 1) in the Declaration that they all agreed to be bound by and 2) because the members still remain a resident and a member of the HOA. It is through the Declaration itself that provides their benefits and the BOD is not derelict in its duties and obligations to the members. And that’s all there is to it!

However, herein and in my intents and purposes paper[1] I argued that the BOD’s mission statement, vision and values are one-sided and heavily influenced by the mindset created by the CAI School of HOA Governance[2] that neglects constitutional protections for the members. The alleged benefits for the members as contained in the CC&Rs do very little to provide the benefits of a democratic government. In fact, they restrict or deny the application of constitutional rights and freedoms, and the privileges and immunities of citizens of this country and their state.[3]

“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.”

In order to correct these serious defects in the HOA legal model the HOA must be restructured to conform to and be subject to the Constitution and laws of the land. It must begin with a declaration of citizenship to be made a covenant in all declarations, charters, bylaws and other governing HOA documents. State laws and CC&Rs must be amended according as proposed in my HOA Member Declaration shown in part below:

Therefore, the members of the association, having not waived or surrendered their rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and as citizens of the state within which they reside, the CC&Rs or Declaration for any planned community, condominium or homeowners association shall state that, or be amended to comply . . . .”[4]

In order for this revision to become a reality the BOD and HOA members must be reoriented away from the teachings of the CAI School and toward the forgotten and neglected principles and values of democratic America. The CAI School needs to be replaced with a qualified program of education and training on municipal government: its structure, objectives and mission, functions and operations.

CAI support of HOAs

Why does CAI oppose holding HOAs subject to the Constitution? How can CAI take this stance and still assert that it’s supportive of the homeowners? It seems by adopting the WW II Fascist philosophy of Italy’s Il Duce, Benito Mussolini, who proclaimed, “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”[5] And who described Fascism a being “for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State ”[6] Just substitute “HOA” for “state” and it all makes sense. Essentially, this is CAI’s true position on HOA governments.

While there is much to support and justify the need to remove the heavy influence by CAI over HOA-Land, a few instances are provided.

“In the context of community associations, the unwise extension of constitutional rights to the use of private property by members . . . raises the likelihood that judicial intervention will become the norm.”[7] (NJ).

In other words, CAI doesn’t want our constitutional judicial system to be applied to HOAs. They can rule themselves without judicial oversight. All other forms of local government, including the most liberal of self-government charters under the home rule doctrine are subject to the Constitution.

AGAINST

[CAI] Kathe Barnes, Self(02/10/2020); Jason Barraza, AZ ASSN OF COMMUNITY MANAGERS (AACM)(02/10/2020); Terry Carstens, Self(02/23/2020); Quinten Cupps, Self(02/06/2020); [CAI, AACM] Mary Jo Edel, Self(02/06/2020); Alexis Glascock, COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE(02/09/2020); [CAI attorney] Lynn Krupnik, Self(02/06/2020); [AACM] Linda Lang, Self(02/10/2020); Mark Logan, Self(02/10/2020); Dave Norton, Self(02/06/2020); Jeff Sandquist, AZ ASSN OF COMMUNITY MANAGERS (AACM)(02/10/2020); Vicki Sears, Self(02/06/2020); [AACM] Mark Wade, Self(02/06/2020); Donna Wood, Self(02/06/2020); [AZ]

The above quote represents the persons and/or organizations against Arizona Senate bill SB 1412 (2020). The bill would bring homeowner protections for HOA political activity and free speech rights. Note the absence of any identification of several persons who are members of one or the other mentioned organizations, CAI and AACM (AACM is a spin-off from CAI in 2003). That’s 8 out of 14 persons in opposition. Please also note that none of these persons have identified themselves with any HOA. Where are the HOA directors or presidents?

California’s SB 323 (2019) introduced fair elections procedures for HOAs that protect homeowner voting rights. It addressed one of my 6 substantive defects in the HOA legal scheme.[8]   It has become California law. Long time California lawyer Adrian Adams is heavily involved in CAI policy and management at the HQ and chapter levels. He writes:

Last year, the Center for California Homeowner Association Law (CCHAL), an organization hostile to community associations . . . The train wreck legislation . . . The bill also forces members . . . In another hostile move against associations . . . The California Legislative Action Committee (CLAC) is a volunteer organization consisting of homeowners and professionals serving homeowner associations by monitoring legislation, educating lawmakers, and protecting the interests of those living in community associations.[9]

CAI’s California LAC:[10]

The California Legislative Action Committee (CLAC) is a committee of Community Associations Institute (CAI), a national not-for-profit educational and resource organization dedicated to fostering vibrant, competent, harmonious community associations. CLAC consists of homeowners and professionals serving community associations.

We worked hard to defeat SB 323 and we came very close, especially on the Assembly Floor where the bill passed and was sent to the Governor. . . . Let’s work closely together to make sure legislators understand the negative consequences SB 323 potentially will have on community associations.

It should be obvious by now that CAI is not a friend of the homeowner in spite of its lofty, high sounding pronouncements, policies and Best Practices. The acts of its members both in CAI HQ and in the numerous state chapters speak an entirely contradictory message. CAI is there to support the HOA and the BOD that is the real person representative of the HOA association. It is obvious that granting and admitting individual rights and freedoms to the homeowners presents an obstacle to its personal agenda; CAI is a business trade tax-exempt nonprofit entity to make money for its members, the attorneys and managers for the most part, the

After consideration of the above and earlier posts under Restructuring HOAs, I ask and answer: Does the Declaration provide covenants that implement and accomplish the intents and purposes of the HOA that serve the interests of the members? My answer is NO. It raises the question of why BODs accept the HOA model of local government and resist revisions in order to bring the HOA within the Constitution for the protection of its members?

Notes

[1] See “Restructuring HOAs – intents and purposes,” George K. Staropoli, HOA Constitutional Government (Feb 2020).

[2] The basis for a definition can be found in “CAI claims Factbook 2018 at home with Democracy in America.”, in HOA Constitutional Government, footnote 9.

[3] See “Would the HOA legal scheme collapse under a democratic form of government?” in HOA Constitutional Government (2014); “HOA-Land and the decline in democratic institutions” in HOA Constitutional Government (2019).

[4] See “HOA member Declaration of US and State citizenship” in HOA Constitutional Government (2012).

[5] See Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932.

[6] “Fundamental Ideas of Fascism,” Benito Mussolini, Souciant, Inc. (2016).

[7] CAI amicus curiae brief in CBTR v. Twin Rivers, 890 A.2d 947 (NJ Super. App. Div. 2006).

[8] See HOA Common Sense: rejecting private government, Democratic elections, No. 5. (2019).

[9] Adams Stirling Newsletter, Adrian Adams, Esq. (Feb. 24, 2019). Adams is a member of CAI’s Community Association Research Foundation, CAI chapter director and CLAC delegate.

[10] CAI-CLAC Feb. (2020).

 

 

 

Restructuring HOAs: “benefit of the member” pt. 1

Mentoring: “inure to the benefit of the member”

Government of the members

Continuing my discussion of the Declaration’s intent and purpose[1] as expressed by “shall inure to the benefit of the member, ” the question arises as to how does the BOD accomplish this task when it has a contractual obligation to many owners. How can the BOD represent the individual interests of the buyer with those of all existing members? Must we accept the interpretation of “member” in the Declaration to really mean “members”? Really!

This concern is of importance and not a mundane, trivial concern because it involves concepts and principles of representative democracy, as claimed by HOA proponents, the will of the people doctrine, vote of the majority, and obedience in conscience. It is relevant because the HOA is not subject to municipal law or the Constitution, but under a binding, private contractual agreement. HOAs are allowed to exist as outlaw governments, operating and functioning outside the laws of this democracy.

Much too often the courts and legislatures have treated the HOA as if it were a municipal government, ignoring the CC&Rs contract and misapplying municipal doctrine and precedent; without applying those aspects of the laws that protect the member’s constitutional rights. For example: allowing the HOA to tax its members — called assessments — with a right of draconian foreclosure, but providing a laughable “due process” known as “a right to a hearing” where the judges are the accusers and judicial civil procedure is an unknown.

Ask yourself: Is this the benefit being provided in the best interests of the members? I think not! And the legislatures do not have clean hands in this matter, not at all!

Maintaining an orderly HOA

The philosophical theory, simply stated, behind a democracy as a direct democracy is the voice of the people. But what does that really mean? First, it means each person gets to have his voice heard in the governance of his community or society along with all others. And that combined, aggregated voice is measured not so much as by shouting but by a vote of the hands or a ballot. Second, our US representative democracy the people elect representatives to speak their voice. In HOA governments members choose a board of directors to govern the HOA as their elected representatives, or their voice.

In both cases the practical application of the voice of the people has been reduced to a vote of the majority and the majority rule doctrine.[2] These were issues that the political philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment — Rousseau, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Adam Smith — had to contend with as necessary for an orderly society even though it was not a true, direct vote of the people. But what about the minority, those who disagreed with the majority position? Well, they had to obey the general will of the people represented by the majority even though they were on the losing side.[3] However, they may not agree in conscience especially if they firmly believe the law is unjust and not fair.

Former AG Meese wrote,

Through deliberation, debate, and compromise, a public consensus is formed about what constitutes the public good. It is this consensus on fundamental principles that knits individuals into a community of citizens.[4]

Where is the consensus of the HOA members to constitute the public good? To knit individuals into a true community? Surely not by a hand-me-down contract that the buyer must accept as is without any give and take.

Randy Barnett, Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, wrote,

A law may be ‘valid’ because it was produced in accordance with all the procedures required by a particular lawmaking system, [the HOA amendment procedure, for example] but be ‘illegitimate’ because these procedures were inadequate to provide assurances that a law is just.[5]

With respect to the courts and legislatures upholding tacit (implied) consent, Keith Wittington, Prof. Politics at Princeton, wrote,

Tacit consent purports to provide a rationale for obligating those of us who, by chance or choice, have not made their approval of the government explicit. . . . Perhaps most significantly, we are taken to have consented tacitly to government action if we continue to vote for government.[6]

Understand that when your HOA says the majority rules maintaining that it represents the voice of the owners just remember it’s just a means to maintain an orderly society and to grant the board the authority to govern. What about a member’s agreement in conscience?

This topic continues with Restructuring HOAs: “CAI influence on member benefits” pt. 2 with the CAI School to be posted soon.

Notes

[1] See “Restructuring HOAs – intents and purposes,” George K. Staropoli, HOA Constitutional Government (Feb 2020).

[2] State laws governing corporations provide the legal basis for BOD authority and powers. Robert’s Rules provides widely accepted procedures based on majority rule.

[3] For a summary of the will of the people see my Commentary, HOA consent to agree vs. “the will of the majority”. For a detailed discussion of agreement in conscience and consent to agree see Randy Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution, Princeton Univ. Press, (2004); Keith E. Whittingham, “Chapter 5, Popular Sovereignty and Originalism,” Constitutional Interpretation, Univ. Press of Kansas (1999); Edwin Meese III, “What the Constitution Means,” The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (2005).

[4] Id, Meese.

[5] Supra n. 3, Barnett.

[6] Supra n. 3, Whittington.

 

Restructuring HOAs – intents and purposes

Mentoring: Purposes, intents, and mission of HOAs[1]

The larger HOAs, especially those that are planned master HOAs or resort style or active adult HOAs,[2] may contain explicit mission and vision statements as well as a declaration of values. Most other HOAs, also created as nonprofits, generally do not explicitly offer such statements. Here’s are shortened but typical examples of such statements used by an active adult, resort style HOA in Arizona.

Mission Statement:

To provide residents with a high-value community with resort-style amenities,

To maximize our investments.

Vision Statement: To become the premier active, age-restricted community in Arizona.

Values: We believe in a community culture having high standards and principles of conduct and behavior.

These boards of directors (BODs) believe that they are doing the right thing. Addressing nonprofit organizations, eminent management consultant Peter F. Drucker wrote: “The first job of the leader is to think through and define the mission of the institution.”[3] He makes the point that the worthiness of a mission statement lies in leading to “right action.” It has to be operational, otherwise it’s just good intentions. They set the policies that serve to guide the organization’s activities and conduct toward effective performance.

HOA contractual mission

We can ask: How are the HOAs doing with regard to accomplishing their mission? But first we must discover if the BOD is operating under its contractual CC&Rs obligations rather than adopted intentions. In HOA-Land, regardless of any explicitly adopted statements, all HOA nonprofits do contain a contractual statement of purpose and intent. They can be found in the CC&Rs usually in the opening paragraphs or in the articles relating to the duties, powers, etc. of the association.

In my sampling of CC&Rs of both large and small HOAs I found boilerplate wording that focused on “maintaining property values” or “for the overall development, administration, maintenance and preservation of the Properties.” Almost all, but not everyone, contain a statement directed toward the member: “shall inure [take effect] to the benefit of the member” [or “each owner”], and “be mutually beneficial.” I came across this one-sided statement: “intended to benefit the Association.” The most liberal and progressive statement of purpose mimics the Preamble to the Constitution “to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the Properties” (the general welfare clause). The inclusion of “health and “safety” are redundant in that “general welfare” includes these concerns.

Unlike other nonprofit organizations, the HOA comes with these contractual obligations and is not free to conjure up any mission that does not conform to the CC&Rs. What is quite clear is the absence of a frame of mind that addresses the requirement to benefit the members. The conduct, actions, intents and policies of the HOA must benefit the members just as our public government must serve the people.

Now it can be argued that that’s just what the CC&Rs and bylaws do is to benefit the members because of its enforcement powers, architectural guidelines, use restrictions, the right to fine, and the draconian right to foreclose. As Drucker maintains, the mission statement must lead to “right action,” which can only be such action that conforms to the HOA’s mission and leads to the effective and productive performance.

Best interests of their members?

Do the members really believe that their best interests lie with an authoritarian, contractual private government that denies fundamental and constitutional protections in the broadest applications of a deprivation of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law” and a denial of “the equal protection of the laws.”? I don’t believe so!

Yes, the above powers maybe necessary to maintain an orderly society, but where are the constitutional protections of the rights of a member that are required for legitimate and valid governmental powers?

Find out more about restructuring the HOA model and “inuring to the benefit of the member” in my sequel soon to follow.

 

Further reading:

 

References

[1] This is the first Commentary under the category of Mentoring. Mentorship is a relationship in which a more experienced or more knowledgeable person helps to guide a less experienced or less knowledgeable person. See About StarMan Group for credentials.

[2] I’ve classified HOAs as to resort style, retirement, and pure residential according to their CC&RS and operations and amenities. For a further discussion of types of HOAs, see Are there vibrant, competent, harmonious HOAs?; the CAI perspective, HOA-Land “one size fits all” injustice. The CAI 2005 survey showed 26.8% were resort and 44.3% were residential.

[3] Peter F. Drucker, Managing the Nonprofit Organization: Principles and Practices, HarperCollins (1990).