In the small town of Washington, CT (Source: New Milford Spectrum), a Finance Board of 6 people has been penalized by the State for using public funds to influence the outcome of a referendum (Source: New Milford Spectrum, 08/18/16).
In a widely distributed mailing, the Board was found to have advocated defeat of the proposals in the referendum.
One citizen filed a complaint and the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) got involved.  Each Board member was subsequently ordered to personally pay $200 to the State, and $59.50 to the Town of Washington, CT - to cover his/her portion of the cost of the mailing.
Despite paying the fines, the Board insisted that any violation of the rules was “inadvertent and unintentional”.
The SEEC also ordered the Board to “henceforth strictly comply” with the statute authorizing only “concise explanatory texts” for public distribution.

 In another story (Source: ccfj.net), the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) responded to a complaint by the Secretary of Cove at South Beaches Condo Association in Melbourne Beach in March, 2006. DBPR found the following statutory violations:

  1. Altering a candidate information sheet.
  2. Sending out information sheets exceeding the allowed one page.
  3. Failing to properly notice the annual meeting/elections. 

Ballot irregularities were also discovered amid allegations that the President postponed the election in order to have more time to sway voters and complete pet projects.
The Board was ordered to conduct a new election by a specified date with corrected information sheets and proper notification. Failure to do so could result in a $5,000 penalty per violation, against the Association.

In both cases, Boards were perceived to be using their influence to manipulated election results. One Board used public funds, the other, Association funds. Complaints were filed with the appropriate authorities. Those commissions found wrongdoing, whether intentional or inadvertent. Both demanded corrective measures which were minimal in penalty but significant in delivering a clear message; the statutes are to be taken seriously, and someone is paying attention.
The main difference, however, is that in Florida, despite the Board’s errors, the financial penalties were threatened against the Association - the victims, not Board members - the perpetrators.
This begs several questions and points of discussion:

  1.  Should there be a minimum educational requirement for Board members regarding statute, rights and responsibilities?
  2. Whether paid or unpaid, should Board members be held financially responsible as individuals, for violations of statute?
  3. Should Associations have to pay for Board negligence, ignorance, or wrongdoing?

 Some argue that if members are held financially accountable, no one would want to run for office. In the case of Washington, CT, it doesn’t seem that the penalties were substantial enough to deter one from running. Hopefully, they were enough to precipitate positive change.
Perhaps Florida condo law could learn from Washington, CT, and move toward protecting unit owners from incompetent Boards, instead of  insulating Boards from being accountable for their actions or non-action.

At present, condo Boards have no motivation to be knowledgeable. Association attorneys show up at meetings to protect them, and intimidate owners. The DBPR has no teeth. They send letters of admonishment while Boards use their bully pulpit and mailings to vilify dissenters. They avoid elections through the appointee process. They organize budget and contract discussions during months when the fewest number of owners are present to question. They may avoid notifying owners of special assessments through the use of lines of credit. They have increasingly begun using new technology, such as the Internet, to conduct meetings, hold votes, and take actions, so that owners are kept uninformed. There are no regulations written yet on Internet meetings, except to say that any meeting of a quorum of Board members is considered to be a Board meeting and open to owners. These meetings are not held with a quorum of members simultaneously. Instead, Internet messages fly back and forth on an issue and, when a majority of members agree, it’s done. Or, at a regular meeting, with no discussion that owners can hear, a motion is made, and rubber stamped.  The list is long.

How can Boards be made to comply with existing statute, disclose information to owners, and be held accountable?
Only by being hit where it hurts most. The Board members in Washington, CT understands that.