Tag: government

SB 1454: AZ House views legislator misconduct as “another day at the office”

In response to today’s Arizona Republic article, More bills on HOAs expected next year, by Caitlin McGlade I posted the following comment —

The real issue here is the ethical conduct of a legislator who violated the constitution to get a  special interest bill put into law, her 3rd try.  “I have a responsibility to the stakeholders” Ugenti told the Senate GOV committee (‘stakeholders’ are the spcial interests and does not include homeowners). And, the subsequent “no harm, no foul” attitude of the House of Representatives to treat Ugenti’s conduct as just another day at work.  WRONG!  See details at https://pvtgov.wordpress.com.

“Ethics” deals with right and wrong, and the House is saying this was not wrong by not pursuing disciplinary action per House Rule 1, because it happens all the time.  Is the Legislature saying it is above the law, above the Constitution? That it can do as it pleases?  Recall the anger that erupted regarding the former State Senator Bundgaard highway incident where disciplinary action was sought. He resigned instead of testifying before the Ethics  Committee.  But, not here with a direct violation of the Arizona Constitution.

To clarify the article, I was following Ugenti’s failed forerunner bill, HB 2371, that was incorporated into SB 1454 thereby making it unconstitutional.  It was done on the last day of the session in the wee hours of the morning (the session ended at 12:59 AM). By hiding the “HOAS” subject from the title it prevented  the public from reacting to the bill.  And there was time to write Gov. Brewer before she signed it.

Many believe that there was some good and some bad in the bill, but sadly its invalidation was the result of a direct violation of the law.  The end does not justify the means.

With its failure to discipline Ugenti, the Legislature cannot claim to be a legitimate government.  Political scientists and philosophers maintain that the legitimacy of a government rests in fair and just laws, and not in the illusion of justice. 

In his analysis of Machiavelli’s The Prince, Hadley Arkes wrote,

“The founders understood that the principal mission of government was to secure people in their natural rights — to protect them against the lawless private thugs as well as of ill-intentioned legislators.”

HOA reforms, SB 1454 and the inner workings of the legislature

Arizona’s Rep. Michelle Ugenti amended a bill in an underhanded tactic to bypass the Arizona Constitution[i] in her determined and overzealous efforts to have special laws enacted for special organizations. Attorney for the plaintiffs, Tim Hogan, Executive Director, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, explained the reasons for the complaint in his Arizona Horizon PBS interview.[ii]

In her interviews, Ugenti defended her amendment in terms of procedural legislative rules; my Staff said it was legal: “that the rules committee staff found her amendment to be germane to the original bill”[iii]  and “her additions to the bill are legal, if for no other reason than one of the changes does deal with elections.”[iv]    Her actions can be better understood in terms of the inner workings of state legislatures, so let’s examine the inner workings of the Legislature. 

The Bill to Law publication[v] of the Arizona Senate talks about the role of the Legislative (“Leg”) Council (my emphasis):

All proposed bills are drafted and prepared for introduction by the Legislative Council staff. Legislative Council may be requested to prepare a proposed bill draft by any legislator, by partisan staff at the direction of a legislator, or by direction from a committee of the Senate.

. . . .

Most importantly, legal staff in Leg Council may suggest changes intended to help the proposal pass Constitutional muster. For example, the Constitution (Article IV, Part 2, Section 13) [the very issue of the complaint] requires that, “Every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith…” If proposed legislation obviously covers two or more subjects, Leg Council will advise the sponsor that the bill must be trimmed, split into two or more bills, or face a potentially successful challenge on Constitutional grounds.

 The question remains: who told who?  And did Ugenti overrule the Legislative Council? Or, did the Legislative Council get it all wrong?  

And what about the Rules Committee, that functions as described in the Bill to Law publication[vi]:

Legislators on the Rules Committee, aided by advice from the nonpartisan Rules Attorneys, function as a sort of legal review panel for proposed legislation. Among other things, the Rules Committee reviews each bill for constitutionality . . . .  

It is in the Rules Committee that potential difficulties with constitutionality and form are worked out. In rare instances a bill is rejected entirely. Most often amendments are proposed to correct deficiencies noted by the Rules Attorney.

 In a surprisingly frank statement of the inner workings of the Legislature (my emphasis), 

It is not unheard of for proposed legislation to pass even though almost all parties know it will be ruled unconstitutional — sometimes there are political reasons for doing so. For the most part, though, a ruling by the Rules Attorney that proposed legislation is unconstitutional is enough to severely dim any chances of the proposed bill becoming law.[vii]

I guess the legislature “got caught with its pants down” with respect to SB 1454!  Or, is it a case of “The sovereign can do no wrong”?   I don’t think so under our constitutional system of government.

In regard to HOA legislation, the legislative inner workings are described in my latest Commentaries:

  1. CAI reacts to HOA Enlightenment Movement with targeted lobbying of legislators
  2. What is this “association law” thing all about?
  3. The questionable role of HOA attorneys
  4. SB 1454: crossing the line for HOAs

I raise the question once again: what was Ugenti’s motive for dogmatically and overzealously pursuing these HOA amendments?  Is she a diehard, true believer in HOA-Land?  Or, were there other factors that pressured or influenced her in her decision to sneak HOA reforms into SB 1454?

 

References

[iii] “Public interest group claims last-minute HOA bill is unconstitutional”, Arizona Capitol Times, July 16, 2013

[iv] “Lawsuit filed against Arizona’s new HOA law”, East Valley Tribune, July 17, 2013.

[v] “The Role of the Legislative Council,” From Idea ….. To Bill ….. To Law, State Senator Randall Grant (2000) , p. 29. (http://www.azleg.gov/alisPDFs/BillToLaw.pdf).

[vi] Id., “The Role of the Rules Committee”, p. 51.

[vii] Id., p. 51-52.

advocates sue State of AZ for unconstitutional HOA amendments bill – SB1454

Staropoli & Brown v. State of Arizona, CV 2013-009991, July 16, 2013

Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Timothy M. Hogan, Joy E. Herr-Cardillo

 

flag-arizonaNATURE OF THE ACTION

 1. This action seeks a Declaratory Judgment that Senate Bill 1454 enacted by the Fifty-first Legislature, First Regular Session 2013 (“SB 1454”) is unconstitutional because it violates Article 4, pt. 2 §13 of the Arizona Constitution,

 PARTIES

 2. Plaintiff George K. Staropoli is a citizen of the State of Arizona. Mr. Staropoli is an activist who advocates on behalf of homeowners on issues and legislation involving homeowner associations (HOAs).

 

Read the complaint here . . .

The HOA climate is based on fears and distrust giving rise to strict enforcement as necessary for compliance

 

In the real world of HOA governments, the climate of the community is based on a fear and a distrust of one’s neighbors. This fundamental basis for HOAs is supported by the following commonly expressed objectives of HOAs. We’ve been told, as well as having been set down in the declaration, that the purpose of the HOA is 1) to maintain property values first and foremost, which requires the enforcement of the governing documents, and 2) to provide for the general welfare of the members in terms of rules and regulations for an orderly community.   It implies that the survival of the HOA depends on an authoritarian government to coerce compliance with the objectives of the HOA state.

The climate of the HOA is formed by the attitudes, beliefs and values of its members who distrust their neighbors because their neighbors will,

1.      paint their house pink, or polka-dotted,

2.      repair and maintain their vehicles on their front lawns in front of their $200,000 homes,

3.      not properly maintain their homes and lots as determined by the HOA,

4.      refuse to obey the rules and regulations, which requires the application of penalties, as severe as may be required, to obtain compliance with the rules and regulation, and

5.      refuse to make timely payments of their assessments, for which there are no justifiable exceptions or excuses.

 

What is noticeably absent from the purposes of the HOA government are any references to the establishment of healthy, desirable, and vibrant communities based on the US Constitution with its protection of individual liberties.  Also noticeably absent from the above are any statements to the effect that HOA members are not protected by the application of the 14th Amendment, as they would be protected if the HOA were a public entity.  However, statements to the contrary have been made giving the appearance and illusion that the HOA provides the same democratic protections as found in the public domain, simply because members can vote for the board of directors.  This is decidedly false!

 Considering the above, the climate of the HOA is one of hostility, distrust, coercion to comply, and the fear of a decline in property values that necessitates an undemocratic, authoritarian government for its survival.   But, it doesn’t have to be this way.  The subdivision real estate package can exist without the HOA form of governance that is based on the distrust of its members.  But, the HOA cannot exist without the covenants running with the land as found in the declarations of covenants, conditions, and restrictions.

See also, Proposed HOA Study Committee issues of substance, and A further explanation of HOA Organizational Development

Proposed HOA Study Committee issues of substance

The following topics have been proposed as issues of substance for the National HOA Member Citizens League Study Committees,

    1. Have homeowners given their consent to agree to the governing documents and to the waiver or surrender of their rights and freedoms as citizens?
    2. Are fair elections procedures needed to protect the democratic right to vote for HOA directors and/or officers?
    3. Are HOA members being denied due process protections as are provided public government?
    4. Is the right for HOAs to foreclose on homeowners an effective and legitimate method to collect assessment debts?
    5. Are HOAs being given special consideration by state legislatures by not subjecting the boards of directors to punishments and monetary penalties for violations of state laws and the governing documents?
    6. Are HOAs state actors?
    7. Are HOAs de facto but unrecognized political governments?
    8. Should HOAs be made subject to municipality statutes rather than corporation statutes?
    9. Should directors be required to take courses in government and nonprofit management?
    10. Should HOA managers and management companies be licensed and subject to random audits?

For more information on the HOA Organizational Development fresh approach to HOA reforms, and the National HOA Member Citizens League pro-con study committees, see HOA Organizational Development.

See also, HOA Organizational Development – a fresh approach to the ills of HOAs 

A further explanation of HOA Organizational Development