It’s only May, but there’s already important news out of Sacramento about bills concerning community associations.
Assembly Bill 1720 – Attorneys & Other Member Representatives at Board Meetings?
This bill was introduced by Assemblyman Wagner of the 68th Assembly District in Orange County. As introduced, it would have allowed attorneys representing association members to attend any board meeting the member was entitled to attend, and would have done so regardless of whether or not the member attended the meeting. The bill was subsequently revised to allow not just attorney attendance at board meetings, but also that of any person representing an association member.
Among other things, the bill would have overturned existing California case law confirming that board meeting attendance rights do not extend to members’ attorneys or other non-members. (See SB Liberty LLC v. Isla Verde Ass’n., Inc. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 272, a case handled by William S. Budd of our firm.)
Fortunately, on April 27, 2016, AB 1720 failed to pass through the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development. However, the bill was granted the opportunity for “reconsideration” by the committee — the chance to be heard and voted on again by that committee. If the bill ever gets back on track again, you’ll surely hear about it and be contacted for your grassroots opposition.
Existing law already provides association members with multiple ways to meet with the board, with or without an attorney or other representative. For example, members may request to meet with the board, bring an attorney or another person with them to an internal dispute resolution meeting, and invoke alternative dispute resolution procedures.
Due to well-reasoned, organized opposition to AB 1720 by community association volunteer leaders, association members, managers, service providers and organizations like the Community Associations Institute’s California Legislative Action Committee (CAI-CLAC) and the California Association of Community Managers (CACM), AB 1720 has been stopped at least for now. The more than 600 letters sent in opposition to the bill surely made the necessary impact.
Assembly Bill 1799 – Uncontested Elections: Going Through the Motions?
Authored by Assemblyman Mayes of Yucca Valley, whose 42nd District covers portions of both Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, AB 1799 is on the move. On May 12, AB 1799 obtained the overwhelming affirmative vote of the Assembly and moved on to the Senate for its consideration. It is supported by both CAI-CLAC and CACM, with CAI-CLAC reporting that more than 700 grassroots advocacy letters were sent in support of the bill during the two weeks prior to the Assembly floor vote.
If passed into law, AB 1799 would provide procedures for a community association board to declare an election uncontested. By doing so, AB 1799 would allow associations in which the number of candidates for election, including write-in candidates (if applicable), does not exceed the number of directors to be elected at that election, to essentially dispense with the secret ballot double envelope process otherwise required by the Davis-Stirling Act. This can result in cost savings to associations whose director elections are more of a costly “going through the motions” than a meaningful voting experience.
Note, however, that even an association which declares an election uncontested must, like all other community associations subject to the Davis-Stirling Act, still have duly adopted election rules pursuant to Civil Code section 5105. Among other things, the procedures which would be added by AB 1799 also call for giving general notice to the members of the board’s intent to declare an election uncontested, including disclosing the names of the candidates who would be declared elected.
Keep in mind that this is still an active bill, which may be amended after the preparation of this article. Until such time as AB 1799 becomes law, associations are reminded that the existing election procedures of the Davis-Stirling Act remain in effect.
