Successful Approaches...  Continued From Page 13


K


Apathy is the biggest problem. Communication and inclusion during the process may help. Persistence in gathering votes is always necessary.


If you have influential owners, get their support early. Providing a summary of changes, and a meeting to answer questions is usually effective to help owners understand the board’s intentions.


Choosing how much to change may make a difference. In some communities a targeted amendment for one or two issues may be easier to get passed than a full rewrite. But many proposed revisions may be unobjectionable to everyone, and a full document revision may be much more efficient.


T


Success is a function of trust. Owners who trust both the message and the messenger will generally support approving the changes.


Selecting the community’s most trusted member to spearhead the approval effort helps. Asking owners’ opinions up front on a handful of items results in owners becoming invested in the effort. And holding a town hall meeting at which contents of a discussion draft of a proposed change are explored in depth and at length surfaces problems, so you can fix them before asking owners to approve a final document.


Success is a function of trust. Owners who trust both the message and the messenger will generally support approving the changes.


In Conclusion


We recommend that boards review their governing documents annually to determine if there are necessary changes, to the rules or otherwise.


Evaluate the benefit of changes against the risk and cost.


Evaluate the cost and benefit of changes, against the risk and cost (money and your time) involved. Revisions to the documents should be an investment, with an expected positive benefit.


14 Community Associations Journal | June 2021 Deferred Maintenance


and the Business Judgment Rule — By Christian Colunga, RS —


I


t’s National Safety Month and board members should consider a sound decision-making process when


weighing a decision to execute a project or defer it to a later time. Let’s dive in and take a look at some factors surrounding deferred maintenance and the potential effect on the community and the liability of the board.


A Board’s Decision Boards have significant power and authority


to make decisions on behalf of an association. Within the limits of the governing documents, the board can decide to execute or defer substantial common area projects. What guides the decision process and when does a seemingly ‘good intention’ change to a potentially dangerous, costly liability?


Where the Rubber Meets the Road


Answering that question can be tricky and ambiguous, so let’s take a look at some decisions that might come up:


One of the first considerations should be the consequences of not completing the project.


Consider a board is trying to decide whether to replace the clubhouse television that has reached the end of its service life. One of the first considerations should be the consequences of not completing the project.


For most associations, there is very little consequence that would come from the tv failing to function. At worst,


The Potential Cost of Putting it Off


CAUTION CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS CAUTION CONSTRUCTION IN PRO


DANGER DO NOT CROSS DANGER DO NOT CROSS DANGER DO NOT CROS


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32