Although the Pine Hollow HOA Annual meeting was well attended, there were not enough properties represented to conduct the vote on the proposed Articles of Incorporation change. The change was a re-definition of eligibility to serve on the Board. It was a bit confusing because the proposal actually presented at the meeting was different than what the membership was sent in advance of the meeting. Originally it was presented to the membership that this was to be a bylaw change. However, at the meeting this was changed to an Articles of Incorporation change.
In our letter dated from the management company on February 11, 2014, the residents were told that the purpose of the meeting was “amend the Bylaws to require directors to be Pine Hollow HOA property owners.” The change that was actually presented at the annual meeting was, “all Trustees must be members of the Pine Hollow Homeowners’ Association at all times during which they preside as a board member.” This small change in wording has a big impact as to who would be eligible to be a Director and a small victory to those who opposed the Board’s proposal.
As discussed before, when the term “property owners” was being used, this allowed all owners of any property in Pine Hollow to be a Director on the Board. This included all of the easements and reserves which in some cases are owned by people outside of the subdivision. Whereas, the term “members” refers to only the lot owners (aka homeowners) in the Association. The use of the term “member” for eligibility has been the historical requirement for a person to be on the Board.
It seems that the Board listened to the posts on this website and other Association members who questioned proposed terminology used, its effects on the Board composition, how outside influences could gain access to our association, how the term “property owner” expands who is eligible to be on the Board and suggested that the wording be changed to “member”. Although not acknowledged by the Board that this change in wording was made, this is more acceptable and protects the neighborhood more than the Boards original proposal.
It is unfortunate that the Board Members didn’t highlight this wording change at last nights meeting. Other proposals were made at the meeting concerning additional changes to offer more protections to homeowners. It seems that if given the chance, a better result is reached when the members are allowed to give input.
Who knows when we will vote on this amendment in the future. It will be another year before the next annual meeting. Maybe there will be other proposed changes to our governing documents that will provide additional and better protections to homeowners.