Tag: CAI

Why is CAI member firm of Adams Kessler allowing criticism of LA Times HOA column?

Scanning the Adams-Kessler Blog, Davis-Stirling Condo Law, under Davis-Stirling.com (not a government website) revealed some 6 comments critical of the LA Time column written by Stephen Glassman and Donie Vanitzian. Just in the past 3 weeks, and nothing before the week of Sept. 18th. I am wondering what’s up?

Glassman and Vanitzian are also the authors of Villa Appalling!: Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living (2002). Vanitzian is the author of the Thomson-West legal treatise, California Common Interest Development — Homeowner’s Guide (2006-2007). Glassman is a practicing lawyer and Vanitzian holds a JD degree.

Lawrence Stirling, co-author of the California laws, is a Senior Counsel at Adams Kessler. Adrian Adams and Gary Kessler are members of Community Associations Institute, CAI, and Kessler is active in CAI’s legislative action committees (LAC) helping to shape the national lobbying organization’s (that’s CAI’s) view of the HOA industry. Among other things, in 2004 CAI had cautioned the NJ appellate court in the Twin Rivers free speech case against “the unwise extension of constitutional rights to the use of private property by members (as opposed to the public) . . . .” (Amicus curiae Community Association Institute (“CAI”), Committee For A Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners Association (TRHA), Docket No. C-121-00., p.19).

It seems that CAI California is feeling the heat from homeowner advocates like CAI is feeling in Arizona. The criticisms of the column shown below, except for the outright hostility and ignorance of the posters of the Oct. 2nd and Sept. 25th entries, centered around the authors’ statement that the hired-hand (my wording) management company people have no place at a board meeting. “Management employees, like any other vendor, do not belong at association board meetings. Although they may be invited to attend, they should not be taking minutes or offering suggestions on the conduct or content of the meetings.” This reply came under the September 4, 2011 column heading, How can you break management’s hold on board? It concerned a homeowner’s letter that the “board is so entrenched with this management company that it can no longer act in the best interests of our owners and the association.”

I was surprised that A – K did not provide a response with respect to the legal status of the management people, who are neither board nor HOA members. In my view, they are like the typical member who can be seen and not heard unless asked a specific question, and otherwise not participate in the discussions.. Otherwise, the cry of “we are poor volunteers” rings hollow as the board has turned the management of the HOA over to hired hands, while forgetting its ultimate legal responsibilities to the HOA, and to oversee acts and actions of its management agent.

Given the Blog as is, with its entries and lack of A – K responses, it seems that CAI is feeling the heat and felt the need to counter-attack voices for homeowner rights, and to silence Glassman & Vanitzian, the true advocates who are fighting for homeowners who live in regimes that deny their constitutional protections.

Adams Kessler Condo Law Blog

(Oct. 2)  LA Times. The discussion I had with the LA Times “Readers Rep” in 2005 got me nowhere. I think having their authors billed as HOA specialists is akin to having a self-proclaimed racist writing a column on fair housing. Sure, they are somewhat familiar with the issues but their take on them is biased and does not serve the public well. -Marla H.

(Sept. 25) LA Times. The LA Times columnists who pontificate about HOAs and present such misleading information regarding the operation of HOAs are a thorn in everyone’s side. Their views are so inaccurate and counterproductive to creating harmony between owners, board members and managers. Surely there is some avenue for rebuttal? Why is the LA Times so resistant to permitting rebuttals to the content of the column? Any ideas as to how we can find an avenue to present truthful information? -Diana S.

FEEDBACK (Sept 18)

LA Times #1. Thank you for your thoughtful response to whether managers should attend board meetings and take minutes. Sorry to say, the Los Angeles Times places little value on providing balanced information. The writers of the column have a clear bias against boards, attorneys and managers. If they could, they would abolish all HOAs. Why would you abolish a form of ownership that has made affordable housing possible to millions of people? I think it’s important to make it very clear that these people give bad advice and boards should not rely on their column for any guidance. -Judy C.

LA Times #2. Thank you for your rebuttal to the L.A. Times article!!! -Jan H.

LA Times #3. It is clear that the author has a bias against management companies. The manager’s job is to provide advice to the board that keeps them on the straight and narrow. Can the board assign some of its duties to its manager? You bet! Should it? This is a matter of contract, but in most cases it is a resounding “yes.” It has been my experience that the larger the association, the more complex it becomes, and with this comes the need for a manager with greater and more diverse skill sets. -Jim S.

LA Times #4. Managers at meetings???? Of course. We pay them to help manage and advise us even though all final decisions come from the BOD. They advise us when we might need an attorney’s advice and many other issues a board member might not be privy to. Come on guys wake up and smell the roses! -Gloria F.

AZ CAI’s reaction to the “new era of regulation” of HOAs

In his Sept. 15th seminar, Best Practices for Meetings in an Era of New Regulation, Arizona CAI attorney Scott Carpenter realizes that HOA abuse can no longer be denied or hidden from advocates and from the internet. He asked HOAs to stop activities that will bring further regulation of HOAs, repeatedly using the phrase, “They know us.”

At the very start of the seminar, Carpenter stated that his purpose was not to get around loopholes in the law, or to get around the law, but to show how to “adjust to the new laws.” He then proceeds to play the same “redefine game” that he cautioned HOA boards to avoid — holding workshops rather than meetings because the statutes say nothing about workshops, or not to hold regularly scheduled committee meetings since they are restricted under the statutes. His recommended “adjustments to the law” read like plain, old “finding loopholes in the law.” For example, his advice included:

law doesn’t require you to meet monthly.”
don’t discuss everything – it may go viral on the web
always use closed meetings
restrict the publication of board videos by homeowners
don’t fear emails, but don’t overuse it — will lead to more regulation
hold non-regular committee meetings
use unanimous consent to avoid meetings — just have all board members sign off on the actions — but with care to avoid more regulation

The above is definitely not in keeping with the intent of the Legislature. Carpenter, as a self-promoted expert in HOA law and experienced lobbyist for CAI, denies knowing the meaning or purpose of these “It is the intent of the Legislature” sections included in several of the new bills. An experienced attorney knows well that statute and contract interpretations and clarifications often involve the court looking into the intent of the drafters. He is letting the HOA boards know how to “get around the laws” and the intent of HOA reform legislation, raising the question of good faith conduct by HOA boards if they pursue these loopholes.

And finally, one last point, Carpenter is feeling the heat of the activities by homeowner rights advocates. He laments,

It is the homeowner advocates who say they are on the homeowners side who gave the feedback, the evil conduct of the bad boys of the management companies [no mention of the attorneys]. They’re the ones who have drafted this type of legislation.

This only creates more “us agin them” hostility. It should be noted that he did not deny that abuse goes on in HOAs.

See also AZ CAI attorney Carpenter admits CAI is no longer in control and CAI attorney Carpenter’s view on OAH bad for HOAs

AZ CAI attorney Carpenter admits CAI is no longer in control

An advocate questioned the sincerity of CAI attorney Carpenter’s repeated use of the phrase, “They know us,” in his Sept. 15th seminar, Best Practices for Meetings in an Era of New Regulation. In response I wrote,

Earlier this year I wrote that the victories of Arizona’s HB 2441 (defeated), CAI soundly thrashed by Arizona Senate, and SB 1148 (passed, overcoming Carpenter’s DFBLS/OAH court victory), New Arizona laws for 2011 session — thanks to the legislators, signaled a major defeat for CAI in the power politics game at the Legislature. The tone of Carpenter’s remarks in the seminar only reinforces my view that a major setback took place at the Legislature for CAI. All as a result of the efforts of advocates, the real homeowner rights advocates, to get involved and expose, challenge and confront the CAI propaganda. It’s working!

I will just mention a few points from the seminar. First, Carpenter laments the new age of regulation, meaning a loss of CAI influence on HOA boards.

Second, his advice on what not to do is given with cautionary remarks that his, and the boards’, statements will go viral on the web (internet), like now. And he realizes that he is helpless to stop it. So he cautions the boards not to play “redefine” games — calling a meeting a “workshop” —which will only result more regulation when a homeowner (Sally was his example) runs to the legislature to stop some HOA evil. He further advised the attendees to shut up and not be recorded for the internet distribution. In fact, he suggested a reasonable rule, in his view, that would restrict a homeowner’s right to publish his taping of the meeting on the internet.

Third, he sought to confuse issues by identifying the management class of HOA members, the directors, as the true advocates because they are fighting for “what the members signed up for.” This serves to confuse the meaning and purpose of the bona fide “homeowner advocate” label.

In short, CAI is reacting to our issues and no longer controls the playing field. Congratulations everybody!

See also, CAI attorney Carpenter’s view on OAH bad for HOAs.

HOA advocates must deal with reality for success

In a study I did in 2009 on Bar complaints in total, using its reports, only 15% of the complaints submitted 2005 –2008 resulted either in a Bar sanction, or a Supreme Court finding of a violation of law – 9% for the SC and 6% for the Bar. Of all the cases involving the HOA attorneys, I am aware of only 2 cases that resulted in “guilty” findings – one brought by a court appointed Receiver and one by a judge.

The State Bar’s real name is, The Benevolent and Protective Order of Attorneys (BPOA).

Complaints filed against an attorney must follow the same process as in civil court: cite the laws and Rules of Conduct broken, and supply concrete evidence of wrongdoing.

In the past I posted copies of the Arizona AG’s response to requests for help, as well as ADRE’s “not my job” response.  Both agencies said, “Go tell it to the Legislature.”

Arizona Attorney General will not prosecute for HOA justice

ADRE: Licensed AZ R.E. agents can do as they please in HOAs — Not My Job

 

 

Will legislators stop CAI attorney acts of bad faith?

As a concrete example of a lack of good faith by HOA attorneys, that smells of aiding and abetting the board to get around the letter and intent of the law, is the newly effective Arizona statute permitting the videotaping of board meetings. Just 2 weeks after the signing of the bill into law, and still 3 months away from its effective date, the CAI member attorneys at Carpenter Hazlewood (CHDW) began their campaign against this open meeting law. They began by offering suggestions as how HOAs can adopt what CHDW considered reasonable rules. No board came forward and said, “How do I beat this law and protect the board?” as far as I know. (Such actions by a board would in itself be a violation of its duties of good faith to the owners as a whole).

Returning to the example at hand, Carpenter Hazelwood, through the management firm of AAM, the board informed the members of the Tatum Highlands CA board’s “reasonable” restrictions that, as usual, are one-way against the homeowner. Note that the HOA government is restricting free speech by not allowing dissemination or publication of the videotapes. Now, why would anyone videotape the meeting if not to distribute it for others who did not attend the meeting? What is the board afraid of? Some hanky-panky goings on?

It is quite clear that CAI does not act in good faith with respect to either the letter or intent of the laws. Rather than adopting the CAI Central propaganda that calls for creating harmonious, vibrant communities, which the homeowners can be proud of, its minions seek total advantage for the HOA.

State legislators must face up to reality of acts of bad faith by CAI attorneys and put a stop to this madness in no uncertain terms!

Read the complete Commentary here.