By Kelly G. Richardson, Esq., CCAL, HOA Homefront Column

The office of HOA president is important, but sometimes misunderstood. In most associations, presidents are selected by board vote (in an open meeting). Here are some ideas as to what to look for in the HOA’s next president. 

First, know what is not required – a legal, accounting, or executive background. The highest educated or most successful person may not be the best president, since the president is not expected to be an expert in HOA law or accounting – the HOA has experts for that. A successful CEO of a for-profit company could be a terrible president if they are unable to adopt different leadership styles of the nonprofit corporation. 

Look for these qualities in a prospective president:

BACKGROUND

Experience. A track record of prior service to nonprofit organizations, including prior HOAs, may show an understanding of the different style of nonprofit leadership.

Past commitment. Has the nominee successfully headed committees, or served on the board for a few years?

Review. Have they read the governing documents and the Open Meeting Act?

Understands. Do they understand the Business Judgment Rule?

INTERPERSONAL SKILLS

Working with others. Is the nominee a team player or someone who “goes it alone”? HOAs are governed by boards, not presidents, and successful presidents must be able to cooperate with board colleagues.

Handling disagreement and divergent opinions. Is the nominee able to accept other opinions and even gracefully accept a vote of the board which goes against their views?

Gets along with people. Is the nominee a positive person and an encourager?

Consensus builder. Can the nominee work to build a consensus on the board regarding major issues? 

ATTITUDE

“Boss” or servant leader? Does the nominee have the attitude of a for-profit corporation in which the president is normally the decision-maker, or that of the nonprofit corporations in which the board is the association’s decision-maker?

Doesn’t need recognition. The best presidents view HOA leadership as service to their neighbors, not an achievement to be defended. Pick someone who is secure in themselves and not threatened by criticism or disagreement.

THE ROLE

Do-it-yourself? A president’s role is not to do all the HOA’s work for 40 hours a week – managers, service providers, and employees perform that work.

Know it all? The nominee should not think they know everything. Good presidents recognize that other directors, residents, and service providers may also have important knowledge and information benefitting the HOA, which knowledge and information the president may not have on a particular subject.

HANDLING MEETINGS

Listener or speaker? Is the nominee a good listener, or are they always the person talking? A president should encourage all directors to contribute to the meeting.

Parliamentary procedure. President normally chair meetings, and as such should have at least an elementary understanding of parliamentary procedure to help keep meetings orderly.

Balance. They must handle the balance well, encouraging directors to speak while also moving the agenda along.

AGENDA

No preconceived agenda. Avoid nominees who come to the board with “campaign promises.” The president should be committed to the HOA’s best interests, not their own agenda.

No single person will completely fulfill all these criteria – but in choosing the president, try to get as close as possible. If you the reader are currently your HOA’s president, consider aspiring to these qualities!

Story by Barbara Holland, Las Vegas Review-Journal
 

The Community Associations Institute Chapter of Las Vegas held its annual CAI Day at the Suncoast Hotel on Aug. 21. CAI Day consists of a three-hour class plus a major trade show for homeowners, boards and community managers.

Topics included fiber infrastructure and community systems, signs of construction defects, roofing maintenance laws and services, community insurance policies, contractors laws, reasonable accommodation under Fair Housing, reserve studies and a case law suit of USA vs Bradlet Heppner.

Speakers were interviewed by the monitor. Specific questions were asked which provided information concerning issues that faces managers and boards.

It was a full day worth spending.

For more information concerning the educational classes offered by the local CAI chapter, please contact Christina Snow at info@cainevada.org.

Q: How long can a ballot vote be held open on the matter of changing a portion of the CC&R’s?

Over three years ago the HOA board sent out ballots to change a portion, asking to change 67 percent majority votes to a simply majority of 51 percent.

Some ballots were returned, but the board kept the voting open. A second mail-out occurred and the vote still remains open after three years. They said they intend to keep it open until they reach the number of votes needed to make the change.

However, during these three years, owners have sold their lots. There is no guarantee that their vote (if they voted) was removed and new owner allowed to vote. When this convoluted situation was brought up at a board meeting, the management company said they are keeping track. Owners find that hard to believe.

Can a ballot vote continue for three years considering properties continue to be bought and sold? Each lot owner has one vote.

A: NRS 116.2117 does not establish a statutory time limit for how long an association has to gather enough votes to approve a CC&R amendment. Instead, the time frame to collect ballots or agreements is determined strictly by the association’s own governing documents (such as the bylaws or the declaration itself) and the specific voting procedures adopted by the Board for that measure.

In the reader’s case, if the voting on the changes has been ongoing for three years, the association must carefully record the votes. The association records must show the votes that were eliminated when homeowners sold their unit before the required votes were obtained to approve the amendment. The association records must also show the votes of the new homeowners who bought their units and who voted. Any existing homeowner who had not voted and did not sell their units, can still vote.

Barbara Holland, CPM, CMCA, AMS, is an author, educator and expert witness on real estate issues pertaining to management and brokerage. Questions may be sent to holland744o@gmail.com.

Habitat Magazine

Many cash-strapped co-op and condo boards are reluctant to spend money, even on such inevitable expenses as facade repairs, window replacements and energy-efficiency measures. Those boards usually learn that being cheap — deferring maintenance — can get very expensive.

“There’s a cost for not being prepared,” Amalia Cuadra, senior director of engineering at EN-POWER GROUP, an energy engineering and consulting firm, tells Brick Underground. “If you are told you have to replace your boiler but you put it off and it goes out in January, that’s a different type of capital project — that becomes an emergency.” 

There are also hidden costs to putting off repairs. Here are four of the costs boards can avoid by being proactive rather than reactive.

Local Law 97 Penalties. Higher energy consumption, particularly of fossil fuels, can boost a building’s carbon emissions and complicate compliance with the city’s strict climate law, Local Law 97. 

“New York City buildings have to take into account LL97 penalties into their operating costs and that’s a changing landscape,” Cuadra says. “In five years you can go from having a $6,000 [penalty] to an $87,000 penalty per year.”

Cuadra advocates for a capital plan that gives a co-op or condo board a clear direction to help avoid these rising costs. “A good capital plan should be able to clearly outline what the the cost of action and the cost of inaction are so they can make decisions,” she says.

When performing energy audits, Punit Shah, vice president of building decarbonization at Bright Power, routinely uncovers issues that have quietly inflated energy use for years. The biggest culprits are missing insulation on steam piping; boiler controls set up incorrectly; boilers that fail combustion testing; ventilation fans not operating, and steam traps needing replacement.

“When buildings address these issues promptly, the efficiency of the systems improves,” Shah says. “We’ve seen properties cut fuel and electric consumption enough to materially reduce their projected Local Law 97 carbon penalties.”

Utility and Operating Costs. When maintenance is deferred, minor issues can compound and quietly raise operating costs long before an catastrophic failure occurs. Major heating and cooling equipment all requires routine maintenance. 

“Without regular maintenance, equipment performance gradually deteriorates, leading to increased energy consumption, higher operating costs, and reduced equipment life,” says Matthew Strobel, vice president of high-performance buildings at energy consultant Bright Power.  “When minor issues are not tackled proactively, they not only accelerate wear and tear on equipment but can also increase utility consumption.”

Emergency Repairs. Unplanned or emergency repairs are often more expensive because a board does not control the timing. When a boiler fails in mid-winter, repairs become urgent. “There is nothing you can do about the fact that you just had to spend $40,000 repairing equipment that you are going to have to replace next summer,” Cuadra says. “They won’t be able to shop around and compare bids.”

Financing and Insurance. Deferred maintenance can trigger violations for failed systems, which can lead to financing problems. As a result of stricter Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lending guidelines, a building with deferred maintenance or a lack of reserves can become ineligible for conventional loans. These rules will become even more stringent in January 2027, when condo boards will need to increase their capital reserves from a minimum of 10% to a minimum of 15% of the building’s annual budget in order to remain compliant.

And finally, even the most far-sighted boards are feeling pain from today’s hard insurance market. Deferred maintenance can worsen the pain, leading to higher premiums, larger deductibles, coverage restrictions and, in some cases, denials at renewal time.

An analysis of transgressive leaders’ appeal and strategies to curb their influence.

By Gerben A. van Kleef Ph.D. Psychology Today

Key points

• Transgressive leaders enjoy growing support and influence.
• Evidence suggests transgressive leaders are appealing not despite their transgressions, but because of them.
• The appeal of transgressive leaders hinges on perceived benefits emanating from their actions.

Transgressive leaders are on the rise. News reports regularly feature fraud, racism, hate speech, sexual misconduct, democratic undermining, and other types of violations by leaders—from captains of industry to influencers to presidents of nations.

One might expect such transgressions to be met with sanctions. However, people often turn a blind eye to leaders who violate norms of fairness, honesty, decency, or care. What’s more, the outcomes of political elections across the globe indicate that people will willingly vote transgressive leaders into office.

Scientific evidence, too, shows that responses to transgressions are less negative than one might intuit. A qualitative study of 246 incidents of norm-violating behavior revealed explicitly negative reactions in only about a third of the cases; in other cases, reactions were neutral, mixed, or even positive.

This is puzzling. Cultures around the world emphasize the importance of doing good. The value of a virtuous life is highlighted in all major religions. It is reinforced through cultural products, from children’s books to Hollywood movies. Why, then, are transgressive leaders endorsed? Psychological research offers three interrelated answers.

Understanding the appeal of transgressive leaders

First, moral judgments are not absolute; they are malleable and context-dependent. What may seem like basic moral principles are not equally shared by everyone. For example, whereas notions of honesty and equality are central to the worldviews of progressive-liberal individuals, conservative individuals place relatively more value on (cultural) “purity” and loyalty.

Moreover, preferences for moral qualities in others are remarkably elastic. If people stand to gain from another’s transgressions, their preferences can shift from moral to immoral conduct. For instance, people respond more leniently to others’ norm-violating behavior when they derive (financial) gains from that behavior.

Other work shows that preferences for moral versus immoral traits in others depend on one’s current goals. In one study, participants playing the role of defense attorney (whose objective was to secure a non-guilty verdict from a jury) reported greater liking of a merciful rather than a merciless jury member. However, those in the role of prosecuting attorney (whose objective was to secure a guilty verdict) preferred a merciless to a merciful jury member. In other words, when a harsher approach was conducive to people’s goals, their preferences for moral versus immoral traits shifted.

Second, people who break the rules radiate an aura of power and dominance. Breaking rules comes with a risk of backlash. By knowingly flouting rules, people signal they can withstand any repercussions—a sign of power. Indeed, several studies show norm violators are perceived as more powerful and dominant than norm abiders. Such perceptions fit the romance of the “strong leader” and fuel the impression that transgressive leaders get things done.

Transgressive leaders are particularly attractive when their actions (appear to) benefit others. In a series of experiments, participants voluntarily granted power and leadership to another person who exhibited “prosocial” norm violations. For instance, in one study, participants conferred power and control over monetary outcomes to a confederate who stole coffee from the experimenter and also offered them a cup.

Third, research shows that dominant leaders are most attractive in times of economic uncertainty, conflict, and competition, when people tend to look for leaders who can ward off apparent threats. Accordingly, support for transgressive leaders increases in competitive situations. It is no coincidence that autocratic leaders habitually point to the danger of “hostile elements,” such as the independent press, immigrants, or the liberal elite. The greater the perceived threat, the greater the attractiveness of transgressive leaders.

Successful autocrats often spin their transgressions as solving the problems of ordinary people. By fabricating or exaggerating enemy threats, they pave the way for unlawful countermeasures that purportedly eliminate those threats. Thus, they simultaneously suggest a solution to a problem and bolster their perceived effectiveness as leaders by fueling perceptions of dominance and power.

Moralizing alone is ineffective

A common reaction to this spiel is moral outrage, which leads opponents to criticize the immorality of transgressive acts. Understandable as this reaction may be, it is not a sufficient antidote to transgressive leaders. The strategy of moralizing transgressions hinges on the assumption that normative behavior is uniformly appreciated and counternormative behavior frowned upon, but as we have seen, mounting evidence indicates this assumption is incorrect.

Transgressive leaders derive their popularity at least in part from their bald norm defiance, particularly when it appears to benefit others. Thus, although clarifying norms is important, harping on immorality is unlikely to be effective. What’s more, it can backfire as it makes the leader’s behavior seem even more ballsy.

How can we curb transgressive leaders?

If the appeal of norm violators hinges on the apparent utility of their behavior, as accumulating evidence suggests, then the remedy is obvious: debunking the idea that breaking rules solves society’s problems. The current analysis suggests two concrete strategies.

First, opponents could dispel the alleged benefits of leaders’ transgressions. While it is typical for transgressive leaders to frame their unlawful behaviors and policies as solutions to pressing problems, their transgressions often do not benefit society; to the contrary, they may damage it. Making that apparent seems critical in counteracting the appeal of transgressive leaders.

Second, opponents could challenge transgressive leaders’ common threat narrative. In the face of competition and conflict, transgressive leaders’ aura of dominance is seen as an asset in fighting off the “enemy.” Alleviating perceptions of conflict should lower transgressive leaders’ allure by reducing the utility of dominance.

In short, evidence suggests transgressive leaders are appealing not despite their deviant behavior, but precisely because of it. This paradoxical insight calls for different ways of dealing with them to uphold humane societies.

By Kathryn Farrell  for HABITAT

In the spring of 1979, a Barnard College freshman named Grace Gold died when she was struck by a chunk of terra cotta that fell from a building facade at the corner of 115th Street and Broadway. The city promptly passed Local Law 10, which required owners of buildings over six stories tall, including co-op and condo boards, to inspect and repair their facades every five years.

The law was later modified as Local Law 11 and is now known as the Facade Inspection and Safety Program (FISP). Has it made buildings safer? The answer turns out to be complicated.

A recent analysis of facade-compliance filings from the NYC Open Data project reveals an ever-growing number of “unsafe” buildings and delayed repairs. In the latest FISP cycle, 13.3% of inspection filings were classified as unsafe — up sharply from less than 1% two decades ago.

Does this mean that buildings are getting less safe? No, say engineers, who note that the striking statistics reflect something more complicated: the facade-inspection system has become far more aggressive and less forgiving over the past two decades. In fact, some engineers say, the city’s building stock is in far better shape today than it was twenty years ago, despite the statistics.

?”The way the law used to be is unrecognizable from what it is now,” says Stephen Varone, president of RAND Engineering & Architecture. “If you go back far enough, you literally had what were called drive-by inspections, because the whole thing was visual. You just do it from the street and whatever you sent in (to the Department of Buildings, DOB) was accepted. You almost didn’t even know what a rejected report was.”

That has changed — dramatically.

?”Since the sixth cycle (2005-2009), the DOB has been much more proactive in reviewing, policing, and doing forensics on reports,” says Gene Ferrara, president of JMA Consultants. “In the review of their reports, if they see photographs of conditions that are not safe, or not really SWARMP (Safe With a Repair and Maintenance Program) for more than 12 months, they ask the professional to reclassify and to file as unsafe.” 

That increased scrutiny has changed the work of engineers and architects who prepare FISP reports. Eric Cowley, an engineer and president of Cowley Engineering, says it has become increasingly difficult to get DOB approval on reports, forcing professionals to revise and resubmit them multiple times during an inspection cycle. “Every forty-five days I’m rewriting reports and submitting them and getting them rejected,” Cowley says. “And so it ends up, okay, it’s unsafe, put a sidewalk shed up.”

Which puts co-op and condo boards on a collision course with the city’s campaign to remove sheds as quidkly as possible. When the city launched its Get Sheds Down initiative in 2023, officials reported approximately 9,000 active sidewalk sheds citywide. More recent estimates place the number closer to 8,000, and sheds remain in place for an average of 498 days. 

“At the same time that the city is pushing to get the sheds down,” says Varone, “the hardest thing to get accepted is an amended report, where you’re in an unsafe status, you do a repair program, and you’re trying to get it signed off. It can take months and months, and the shed is sitting there.”

And the meter never stops running. 

“You have to renew your shed permits every three months,” Varone says. If a building does not show significant progress on repairs at renewal, the DOB can deny the extension, exposing the building to fines of up to $6,000 per month.

Some boards are tempted to delay repairs since a sidewalk shed may cost less than a major facade project, and the board may need time to raise money. But delay has its limits. “It is cheaper to put up a shed than to do repairs, but you eventually have to do the fix, and it’s not going to get any better,” Cowley says. “It just gets more expensive. So the rationale to put up a shed to delay doing something makes sense if you needed to wait a year to raise the money. But beyond that, you have to do the work.”

Hard conversations are not a sign of poor leadership. They are evidence that a leader is committed to accountability, transparency and growth.

By Melissa Powell for Chief Executive

Leadership often involves moments that feel uncomfortable. Directly addressing performance concerns, interpersonal conflicts or strategic disputes is the most difficult. However, many leaders put off or avoid these discussions altogether. Avoiding disagreement may seem like a short-term solution, but there are serious long-term repercussions for teams and businesses.

Silence Allows Small Problems to Become Systemic

Many workplace challenges begin quietly. Early on, a missed deadline, a pattern of disengagement or conflict among coworkers may seem manageable. However, problems seldom go away on their own when leaders ignore these signs. Rather, they become ingrained in team culture and day-to-day operations.

If performance issues are not resolved, they eventually affect the team’s expectations. Workers start to wonder if responsibility is really important. What first seemed to be a singular issue eventually turns into a commonplace behavioral pattern.

Leaders often assume they are preserving harmony by delaying difficult feedback. In reality, silence creates ambiguity. Without clear communication, team members are left to interpret expectations on their own, which often leads to misalignment and confusion.

Trust Erodes When Leaders Avoid Accountability

One of the most immediate consequences of avoiding difficult conversations is the erosion of trust. Teams closely observe how leaders respond to challenges, particularly when behavior or performance falls short of expectations.

When leaders avoid addressing issues directly, employees may begin to doubt whether leadership is willing to enforce standards consistently. High-performing employees, in particular, become frustrated when underperformance goes unchecked. They may feel their efforts are undervalued if others face no accountability for similar responsibilities.

Over time, this dynamic can create resentment within teams. Instead of fostering collaboration and shared responsibility, the workplace becomes divided between those who feel overburdened and those who perceive leadership as disengaged. Trust, once weakened, is difficult to restore.

Avoidance Undermines Organizational Performance

Beyond cultural consequences, avoiding difficult conversations has measurable operational costs. When leaders delay addressing performance gaps, teams operate below their potential capacity. Employees lack clarity about expectations, feedback is inconsistent and mistakes are repeated rather than corrected.

Unresolved issues also consume valuable time and energy. Employees spend hours navigating tension, interpreting unclear priorities or compensating for problems that were never directly addressed. In some cases, a single failed conversation can cost organizations thousands of dollars and multiple days of productivity due to rework, miscommunication and inefficiencies.

Innovation can also suffer in environments where difficult discussions are avoided. Teams may hesitate to share dissenting perspectives or challenge flawed assumptions if open dialogue is discouraged. Without candid conversations, organizations risk overlooking valuable insights that could drive improvement.

The Cultural Ripple Effect

Leadership behavior establishes cultural norms. Teams learn that openness and responsibility are expected when leaders are willing to have frank conversations. On the other hand, the message spreads swiftly throughout the company when executives routinely steer clear of tough discussions.

Workers may act similarly, avoiding confrontation with coworkers or refusing to provide constructive criticism that could improve performance. The culture gradually changes from one of openness to one of silent annoyance.

In these environments, collaboration weakens, morale declines and engagement drops. Employees who feel unheard or uncertain about expectations often disengage or seek opportunities elsewhere.

Courage Is a Core Leadership Skill

Addressing issues early requires courage, emotional intelligence and clarity. Leaders must balance honesty with empathy, ensuring that feedback is both direct and constructive. While these conversations may feel uncomfortable in the moment, they create the conditions for stronger performance, healthier relationships and clearer expectations.

Importantly, difficult conversations often become harder the longer they are postponed. What begins as a minor concern can escalate into a serious conflict if ignored for too long. Early intervention allows leaders to address issues while they remain manageable and before they damage team dynamics.

Leadership Requires Truth-Telling

At its core, leadership involves responsibility for the organization’s health and the development of its people. Avoiding difficult conversations may protect short-term comfort, but it ultimately undermines both.

Teams perform best when expectations are clear, feedback is honest and leaders address problems directly. Hard conversations are not a sign of poor leadership. They are evidence that a leader is committed to accountability, transparency and growth. In the long run, the cost of silence is always greater than the discomfort of speaking up.

By Kelly G. Richardson, Esq. CCAL, HOA Homefront Column

Dear Kelly: If our offsite owners use a management company to run their units and use the management company as their preferred address, how do we get them to vote for restatement of governing documents when we need a super majority? Thanks, C.L. Pasadena.

Dear C.L.: Many older CC&Rs have a completely unrealistic requirement that 75% of all owners must approve amendments. At the same time, California homeowners often are less motivated to vote on such a matter, because CC&Rs are often complicated documents with parts that are quite technical. So, many homeowners treat amendment votes just like the way they handle public ballot propositions – if they didn’t have time to read all the material, or if they are not able to completely understand it, they “abstain” by not turning in a ballot. The problem is that when the HOA must have 75% of all members voting “yes,” an abstention functionally is the same as a “no” vote.

Just sending out reminders isn’t usually enough. HOAs should go the extra mile in trying to give members more opportunities to get information and understanding regarding major CC&R or bylaw amendments – such as special “town hall” meetings reviewing the proposed amendments. Even then, it’s a rare HOA that will have more than 25% of the membership attend such a meeting. The problem is compounded when many members rent their homes and do not live at the HOA.

I have found over the years that the best way to get out the vote is to have members contact their fellow members, and explain the need for the amendments and ask the members to support the amendments.

Of course, if the HOA can get at least a majority of all members (51%) to vote for the amendment, but can’t get meet the “supermajority” requirement (typically 67%  or 75%), Civil Code Section 4275 allows for a court petition to be filed asking the Superior Court to order the amendment deemed approved. That, in my view is a last resort. This solution can involve thousands of dollars in legal fees and still more mailing costs, but it is a viable “Plan B” for the HOA that really needs to amend its documents but cannot meet the supermajority vote requirement. Best regards, Kelly

Mr. Richardson: By California law, are non-titled spouses prohibited, in general, from serving on an HOA? W.C., San Diego.

Dear W.C.: In 2020, the HOA board eligibility statute was revised to make HOA membership mandatory as a requirement for board service. In years past, I would see a spouse occasionally argue that they actually were an owner because of the community property laws, now Civil Code Section 5105(b) clearly requires ownership – “An association shall disqualify a person from a nomination as a candidate for not being a member of the association at the time of the nomination…A director who ceases to be a member shall be disqualified from continuing to serve as a director.” Civil Code Section 4160 defines “member” as “owner of a separate interest.” Many bylaws or CC&Rs say that HOA owners or members are RECORD owners, meaning that a deed is on file in the county recorder office documenting that the person is an owner. Thanks for your question, Kelly

By Kelly G. Richardson, Esq. CCAL, HOA Homefront Column

Hello Kelly: My HOA bylaws include a section that specifies that the board is required to form a “Nomination Committee” at each annual meeting of the association. The requirement has been ignored for at least five or more years in spite of requests by a few members. Consequently, the board continually consists of a small group of members that support each other. What can be done by a member to force compliance with the section of our bylaws? MW, Chowchilla

Dear M.W.: Before 2020, California HOAs used a variety of different board eligibility standards, because the Davis-Stirling Act didn’t specifically address the subject. Some HOAs required candidates to have no unresolved violations or unpaid fines, and others required candidates to live within the association. Other HOAs banned candidates who were in active litigation with the HOA or who refused to sign a board code of conduct.

All of that changed in 2020, when amendments to Civil Code Section 5105 added one mandatory eligibility standard (HOA membership) and added several optional board eligibility standards which HOAs could include in their election rules or bylaws. HOAs can require that candidates be current in their assessments or that candidates be a member of the HOA for at least one year. They also can disqualify candidates who have a felony conviction that would prevent the HOA from obtaining dishonesty insurance or whose co-owner already serves on the board. Most HOA lawyers agree that these four optional eligibility standards are an exclusive list, meaning that HOAs no longer can come up with their own creative eligibility requirements. That list was expanded in 2022 when a fifth optional standard, term limits, was added to Civil Code Section 5105(b).

Even though many HOA bylaws still reference nominating committees, the adoption of this short list of eligibility options leaves little for such committees to do. If a candidate is a member of the association, and if the HOA adopted all five of the optional eligibility criteria, a nominating committee would only be able to determine if a candidacy was barred by any of those five requirements.

Since Civil Code Section 5105(a)(3) specifically allows members to nominate themselves, once the “call for candidates” is issued there is really nothing for a nominating committee to do. Civil Code Section 5103(d)(1) requires that all candidates be allowed to run if nominated, so long as they aren’t disqualified, so the committee has no decisions to make. Consequently, HOA nominating committees are no longer useful. Most of my HOA clients delete the nominating committee requirement from their bylaws when updating that document.

Some HOAs allow for nominations from the floor or write-in votes, which further reduces the usefulness of nominating committees. My view is that nominations from the floor or write-in candidates violate the purpose of Civil Code Section 5115(b), which requires the names of all candidates to be announced at least 30 days before ballots are distributed.

M.W., any eligible member can put their name into nomination during the 30 day nomination period required by Civil Code Section 5115(a). So, if your community wants new blood on the board, get volunteer applicants who will garner broad member support – and elect them! Best, Kelly

The official site of the Davis-Stirling Act – www.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (Civil Code 4000-6150).

Habitat Magazine

The recent outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease on the Upper East Side may have revealed an effective new tool for getting building owners to comply with rules on cooling-tower inspections.

Public shaming.

When the outbreak began in early July, the city ordered the immediate testing of 183 cooling towers in a swath of the Upper East Side from Central Park to the East River — and then released the initial test results publicly on July 10. At that time, Gothamist reports, 74% of the tested buildings were in compliance with new rules that require building owners to test the water in the towers for Legionella bacteria every 31 days instead of every 90 days. The stricter rule was the result of a deadly outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease in central Harlem in the summer of 2025.

In the two weeks after the city published the initial test results on the Upper East Side, the rate of compliance jumped to 92%, according to the health department. Among the cooling towers that actually tested positive for Legionella bacteria in the city’s initial round of testing, 97% are now in compliance with the new law.

It appears that public shaming had an impact — at least in the immediate neighborhood.

Citywide, the story is a bit different. About 80% of all cooling towers across the city are now in compliance — a minor uptick from about 77% at the time the initial Upper East Side test results were released July 10, according to the city health department.

In 2025, before the stricter inspection rules went into effect, the city issued more than $600,000 in fines for violations of cooling tower maintenance and testing laws. The city has conducted more than 630 cooling tower inspections since the new testing law took effect on May 8 and issued more than 700 violations for lack of compliance with the law and other issues, the health department said.

Rigorous inspections and reporting are critical because Legionella bacteria, which can cause a severe form of pneumonia, thrives in the warm water found in rooftop cooling towers in summer months. If released into the air, the bacteria can be inhaled by passersby or residents, triggering Legionnaires’ disease. So far, seven people have died from the outbreak on the Upper East Side.

Spokesman William Fowler said the health department is still trying to figure out how to increase compliance with the latest Legionella testing requirements. In addition to issuing summonses, he said efforts to do so have so far included sending email reminders and educating cooling tower operators, including co-op and condo boards. Meanwhile, the city health department is still addressing a staffing shortage that has hampered the pace of cooling tower inspections in recent years.

City Council Speaker Julie Menin and Health Committee Chair Lynn Schulman have said they want the health department to take more aggressive action as soon as test results are found to be missing from city records, and to provide more transparency around which buildings have been fined for not complying with the new law.

Based on those statements, the merits of public shaming will likely be part of the discussion in September when the city council holds an oversight hearing on the health department’s handling of this summer’s Legionnaires’ disease outbreak on the Upper East Side.

By Kelly G. Richardson, Esq. CCAL, HOA Homefront Column

Dear Kelly: I moved into my townhouse four years ago with the dry rot and termite situation apparent. I received a letter from the then-president that the situation would be handled shortly. I have requested numerous times over the years as to the status of repair and keep getting the same answers, we’re getting bids. The damaged wood is attached to the unit and also is very unsightly, not to mention the potential of termites entering the home. Do I have recourse? R.M., Tustin

Dear R.M.: Townhouses could be a planned development or a condominium. It’s important to know which kind of HOA you live in, because the HOA’s responsibilities regarding termite treatment are completely different. Unless the CC&Rs say otherwise, in condominiums, stock cooperatives, and community apartments, the HOA is responsible for termite repair and maintenance per Civil Code Section 4780(a). Subpart (b) of the same statute places the responsibility on the homeowner in planned developments. 

This can be very problematic in planned developments where homes are configured “townhouse-style,” meaning side-to-side attached homes. In townhouse-style planned developments it makes no sense to leave termite treatment to individual homeowners since tenting the entire building is the common method, and only the HOA would have the authority to do that. If your HOA is a condominium, stock cooperative, or community apartment, and termite damage is worsening without the HOA taking reasonable action, the HOA may be failing in its responsibilities to the members. If it is a planned development HOA, the answer could be quite different – check your CC&Rs.

Best, Kelly

Dear Mr. Richardson: I own a stock cooperative home and was informed that due to extensive infestation we were required to comply with tenting. I requested another opinion and a copy of the termite report but was denied. Units must be kept open for three days — doors unlocked and we are supposed to supply the keys to our units. I received calls from the association and a letter taped to my door informing me that if I do not comply then the association will fine me, charge me for all tenting expense, take me before the board and ultimately evict me. B.C., Laguna Woods.

Mr. Richardson: Is there a law that the homeowners association cannot inform homeowners about a scheduled termite tenting too far in advance? Thank you, J.L. Aliso Viejo.

Dear B.C. and J.L.: In wood-framed attached housing, termite prevention can be critical to the building’s long-term structural stability. So, Civil Code Section 4785 empowers HOAs to compel the occupants of the homes to temporarily leave so termite treatment can occur. The residents and homeowners must be given written advance notice at least 15 days but not more than 30 days before the residents need to be out of the residence. The notice must state the reason for the temporary dislocation and the dates and times treatment will start and is expected to end. The residents are responsible for their own temporary housing. If the HOA delivers the notice to the occupants and owners, the HOA can “summarily” remove the occupant (meaning, obtain a court order to that effect).

The HOA is trying to care for your property investment, which action while temporarily inconvenient should be in everyone’s best long-term interests.

Sincerely, Kelly