HOA Is Violating State Law. What's the Cost?

The Summit's HOA is currently violating State law in South Carolina. What's the cost?

The HOA Secretary resigned on May 17th.
The HOA Treasurer also resigned in May.

The Treasurer resigned because she moved out of the Summit. The Secretary resigned because - - - well, you'll have to ask her. It is a loss to the community that Ciara resigned. 

State law (§33-31-840(a)) reads "Unless otherwise provided in the articles or bylaws, a corporation shall have a president, a secretary, a treasurer, and such other officers as are appointed by the board." [emphasis added]

The operative word is "shall". There is no wiggle room there. It's not optional. The Board should have elected a Secretary and a Treasurer on June 3. It didn't. 

How serious is it not to have a Treasurer? Nobody is watching the money. 

How serious is it not to have a Secretary? Nobody is watching the corporate books. There is no one to attest to the President's signature on any official documents. 

According to notes (on the new unofficial HOA Facebook group) of a Voting Member who attended the June 3 closed monthly Board Meeting, Danny Trapp addressed the lack of a Treasurer. The VM's notes included: "Is the old treasurer still on the bank accounts? Mr. Danny stated no and that he can just sign the checks and that of course they always have two signatures.”

OK, so what's wrong with that response? 

If the former Treasurer is off the signatory cards for the banks and Edward Jones, how did that happen? Was there Board action to confirm that LaToya's signature is no longer valid at the financial institutions?

Are there still two signatures required? Whose?

If Danny can "just sign the checks", is his signature the only one authorized now? Does that worry anyone? No non-profit corporation should ever allow financial business to be transacted on one signature!

In six years of board meetings, I have never once seen the Board vote on a Resolution to authorize anyone to sign checks. Why are business matters so "loose"? Is it the lack of a knowledgeable Property Manager or the absence of legal advice? Is it just ignorance on the part of the Board members? Or does the Board just refuse to accept good advice?

I never kept track of all the times I suggested to the Board that they seek good legal advice. Had they sought that advice, gotten it, and followed it, they wouldn't have the problems that they do.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

June 3rd BOD Meeting now Closed to Members

What? No trampolines?

What Story Do the Financials Tell?