CAIerelease : Message: CAI Unveils Governance Guidelines, 08/08/2007
I hope this link works. CAI is trying to stem the tide of bad press and reform legislation. The truth is that most CAI stalwarts see nothing wrong with the status quo except for the outside interference from meddlesome reporters and legislators. I'll look this over and react more fully later.
Community Associations Institute (CAI) is unveiling a series of guidelines to help association boards identify and meet basic benchmarks of responsible
governance: the cornerstone of any successful common-interest community. CAI's Community Association Governance Guidelines address a dozen of the most
potentially contentious components of association management and
governance: annual meetings, assessments, association records, communications,
conflicts of interest, elections, financial transparency, foreclosure,
governance and the law, grievances and appeals, reserve funding and rules.
4 comments:
Evan:
Hopefully you will take the time to actually read the document and consider the content and intent before opining to the world how our 28,000+ members think. The reality is that we, as an organization, represent a great diversity of views, work tirelessly to build consensus, and sometimes struggle to find policy positions that are acceptable to all our constituents including homeowners, managers, and a wide variety of business partners.
In fact, one of our principle goals and objectives is education. This document was designed and developed to get community assocations, their boards, and homeowners thinking about what makes for a well-run organization, one that is efficient, effective, and transparent. Those should be familiar refrains for anyone who has attended our courses, read our publications, and participated in any of our events.
Tom
Dear Mr. Skiba,
Who "fixes," what has been so broken in all this? What about the homeless families and individuals? Lives, careers, families, life savings, etc., destroyed! Those vulnerable, innocent and acted out upon by an affiliated group, or, chapter abusively, "out of control."
I don't think CAI wants anyone to know the truth about some of their groups, or chapters. The press should be free to tell the truth about each and every situation, or case, involving a planned comunity. The press should report the terror, intimidation, harassment and victimization experienced by the property owner(s) honestly and truthfully. It should not matter WHO is responsible and whether or not they are affiliates, or members of your "group." Let the truth be heard from those whom have been throught the horror! Accountability for actions, speaks much louder than a press release of potential promises and objectives. When does the accountability begin?
Tom:
You are missing my point which is: I don't need to read this new statement to know how many CAI members feel about the status quo. Regardless of what the latest missive says, the record is crystal clear. I have tons of independent data to confirm this.
I have heard CAI members (most recently, President Ron Paul in New Jersey at the conference Frank Askin organized) express themselves on the subject many, many times in many, many different settings. I have seen the positions CAI's LACs take on law reform across the nation (which are much more defensive of the status quo than the more temperate positions taken by CAI national). I have read the various public policy statements CAI has issued over the years, all of which are premised on the notion that everybody is happy in their HOA except a few malcontents.
And all of this, and more, makes it clear that the vast bulk of CAI's membership is basically happy with the status quo, except that community associations are getting a lot of bad press and a number of state legislatures are tinkering with law reform to give owners some minimal rights.
Like any good trade association, CAI is trying to regain control of the debate to protect the interests of its members. There is nothing illegal or immoral about that--it is classic interest group politics. I (and any other political scientist) would expect the same behavior from the American Medical Association or the National Association of Mung Bean Growers.
But the press has been educated, and the owners' rights movement is remarkably effective. The situation has changed over the last decade or so, and CAI no longer monopolizes the conversation everywhere as it once did.
An organization with so consistent a record cannot simply issue another in long line of policy statements and expect people to wipe their memories clean and cry out that a new day has dawned. I don't have any problem with CAI doing what it does. But please don't expect me to pretend that I don't understand what is going on.
I will comment on the document as soon as I can find time, as I have done with Rights and Responsibilities, the changes to UCIOA, the California Law Revision Commission proposals, and other such proposals. Who knows? Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.
The press release sounds like nothing has really changed, only repackaged.
The press release has no discussion about the rights of owners/members which are fundamental to the governance they are claiming to define. Imagine our country without the Constitution to define the rights of citizens.
Another of the hallmarks of good governance is the access to information by the citizens (owners/members). The freedom of information and open meetings acts create the required transparency, but the press release refers only to financial transparency. CAI just doesn't get it.
Just who is "Center for Community Association Volunteers, CAI's specialized member group for homeowners, board members and other community leaders"? I did a search of the CAI website on the term "Center for Community Association Volunteers" and got zero matches. How many individual owners, who paid their own money to be a member of CAI, actually participated? I had previously communicated with Mr. Rathbun of CAI on this question for the entire CAI membership. He refused to provide the information. My conclusion is that the guidelines were developed by anonymous. Transparency should begin with CAI — specifically disclosure of how many members of CAI have paid for their own money for memberships in CAI.
My overall conclusion continues to be that CAI is an organization of industry members, by industry members and for industry members. Governance of owners associations should be of the owners, by the owners and for the owners. After all, owners provide all the money to make the industry work.
The representation of the Zogby survey results continues to be misleading. The survey reported a 10% dissatisfaction rate, which is over 5 million residents in owners associations — a very large number by any standard. Moreover, the California Law Revision Commission at p3 "the survey asked whether a homeowner had ever filed a complaint against another homeowner, but did not ask whether the homeowner had ever filed a complaint against the board." Yet CAI continues to state high satisfaction with association boards. This is an example of how the Zogby survey was contrived by CAI to produce the results CAI wanted.
Finally, I believe much caution should be exercised in using any CAI recommendations that affect owners/members of owners associations. Typically, the CAI documents are very specific about owners obligations, but equivocal about their rights and benefits.
Don Nordeen
Governance of Property Owners Associations
Post a Comment