I had the honor of being invited to testify before the California Law Review Commission (CLRC) of the legislature at the Capitol in Sacramento last week. It was extremely interesting to participate in state governance, and get a peek at how it works – or doesn‘t, depending on one’s personal perspective on the issue under discussion.
Entering the high ceilinged chamber where the hearing was held, I was surprised to see the sparse attendance. There were about as many people up at the long dais in front as were in the audience. Seven commission members took their seats, along with two staff members. A mere seven attendees were present, only four of which testified. The atmosphere was very congenial and informal, which I found a bit surprising for such an august body.
The Executive Secretary of the CLRC framed the issue for us. The commission had been charged with the task of simplifying the Davis Stirling Act, which consists of a set of state statutes that govern homeowner association law. To begin the process, it had been decided by the commission to simplify elections for small homeowner associations. Exactly why this was being undertaken as necessary was a complete mystery.
First, an arbitrary definition was formulated, as to what constituted a “small association”. A “small association was defined as 50 units or less, e.g. 50 houses, 50 condominiums. The number was chosen out of thin air. Just as a matter of interest, 67% of all homeowner associations contain 50 units or less. Thus if the proposed legislation to simplify elections for small associations ever passed, it would apply to two thirds of them. I found that a very frightening notion.
My testimony occurred last on the docket. The argument I gave was short and sweet. I explained I was a volunteer attorney who practiced in the area of elder law, particularly on issues involving financial elder abuse. A description was given of a case that had been referred to me by Adult Protective Services. A 74 year old woman with multiple health problems had been foreclosed on by a homeowners association for a debt she didn’t owe. The poor woman died of a massive heart attack before I could get her case into court to save her house. My voice shook as I described the frail elder’s death.
During that time, the homeowners association Board had instituted an election. They were attempting to amend the governing documents of the homeowners association. The idea was to give the Board more power to raise association fees without homeowner approval. If the Board decided to assess homeowners $50,000 each to build a new association clubhouse, the Board could do so without homeowner approval and whether homeowners could afford such an extravagant expenditure or not.
Because I was involved in my client’s case, I made darn sure the homeowners association stuck to the letter of the law in how the election was conducted. It was no surprise the homeowners would not approve the amended documents. Homeowners were not about to give unbridled financial power to the Board. However, had election protection statutes not been in place, it is likely cheating would have resulted in a different outcome. (Call me a cynic!)
I vehemently made clear to the commission that if they chose to remove the election protections by “simplifying” existing law, it would be tantamount to aiding and abetting perpetration of the worst kind of financial abuse – the loss of an owner‘s home. When I finished testifying, you could have heard a pin drop in the room. There were a few seconds of silence, as the commissioners recovered from the shock of my impassioned speech. Then things really became interesting.
A lengthy discussion ensued, much of it having nothing to do with my testimony. In the end, two commissioners stated pretty emphatically there would be no support for this proposed legislation from them. A third commissioner indicated he was not particularly in favor either. A fourth chimed in that he had his doubts, which completely turned the tide. Then the discussion became one of whether this legislation could ever get passed once on the floor, with so much opposition siding against it.
Ultimately the CLRC decided to table the issue until October. I left the Capitol elated and deflated. I was ecstatic the proposed legislation had not passed out of committee, but not happy it could rear its ugly head some months from now. Was it likely? Probably not, but certainly possible. Nevertheless the most frustrating part to me was the attempt to undermine what were recently passed election law protections. So essentially what is the lesson learned here? Good legislation is always subject to being undone by those with political connections and a vested interest in doing away with such safeguards? Not a comforting thought!
