House Rules Vote
What Owners Lost When A Condo Board’s Judgment Goes Unchecked
September 26, 2026
On July 20, 2026, the Board of the 175 E Delaware Pl. HOA approved every proposed House Rules change, and the judgment behind the vote followed clear patterns: propose a rule written far broader than the problem it was meant to solve, deflect requests for legal review, and remove the right for owners to get answers to questions and concerns. The result: owners have more restrictions and fewer checks on how the rules are applied.
Brought to you by Drew McManus, your neighbor in 7908.
Bad Judgment
What A Good Process Would Have Produced
When a condo board skips the steps that catch bad rules, owners find out after the fines start.
House Rules do not require an owner vote to take effect. Only the Board votes on them, which makes the Board’s process the only protection owners have against a bad rule. Before any rule passes, that process should be able to show three things:
- The rule fits the problem: A new rule should address the problem it was written for, and the Board should first confirm its existing rules cannot already handle it. A rule broader than its problem restricts owners who were never part of it.
- The legal risk was checked: Vague rules invite legal challenges, and the Association pays for those from owners’ assessments. A review before the vote gives the Board a chance to fix problems before owners pay to defend them.
- Owners get answers: Owners who live under a rule should be able to ask why it passed and get a response. Without answers, owners have no way to evaluate the decisions that govern their homes.
On July 20, every proposed change passed, and the process failed at each of the three. The rule changes themselves are covered in my pre-vote breakdown. This article is about how they were decided and it’s worth pointing out that instead of passing unanimously, there were several board members that voted against adopting the rules.
Rule Design
Writing a Rule Before Checking the Rules Already There
When a board writes a new rule without asking whether its current rules already handle the problem, owners get restricted for something that was already enforceable.
In his July newsletter, Board President Scott Timmerman wrote that the new Quiet Hours rule (Section 3.6) came from complaints about house cleaners vacuuming before 7 a.m. The same newsletter states that vacuuming “is not an unreasonable noise disturbance.” The approved rule does not name house cleaners or vendors. It applies to every Owner, Resident and Guest from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m., and covers television, music, tools, and exercise equipment.
“We did get several questions about Quiet Hours that were added to the Rules. Our Rules already protect all Residents from noise that would be an unreasonable disturbance. Quiet Hours stems from multiple complaints with regard to vacuuming, which is not an unreasonable noise disturbance. However, the problem is that we have had several instances of house cleaners vacuuming before 7am, so this was the attempt to address that problem and give Management a way to solve this problem. Basically, Quiet Hours is meant to prohibit noise (like vacuuming) that is not otherwise an unreasonable disturbance except during Quiet Hours.”
The rules already in place gave Management tools to address the complaint:
- Owner responsibility: Section 1.4 makes owners responsible for vendors serving their unit.
- Management authority: Section 1.5 lets Management direct anyone on the Property.
- Disturbing devices: Section 3.4 prohibits devices that disturb another unit.
- Work hours: Section 7.2 starts in-unit work at 8:30 a.m. on weekdays, though the rules do not say whether cleaning counts as work.
What did the House Rules Committee, and later board members that voted to approve the rules changes, find lacking in the rules it already had?
Legal Review
The Risk Check That Never Reached a Vote
A vote on a vaguely worded rule is when a board most needs a lawyer’s opinion, because the cost of a legal challenge comes out of owners’ assessments.
Section 1.3 makes “noxious or offensive activity” a violation without defining either term, and applies whether conduct is “willfully or negligently” done. Owners raised numerous concerns about it at the meeting.
As a result, board member Pamela Francis highlighted owner concerns and asked that Section 1.3 be sent for legal review before the vote. Board President Scott Timmerman argued against her request and steamrolled the process before it could become a motion, so the Board never voted on whether to get a legal opinion. It then voted to approve the rule.
How does a Board know a rule is legally safe without a legal review?
Owner Questions
Removing the Obligation to Answer Owners
A board that no longer has to answer questions no longer has to explain its decisions.
Previously, the board scheduled a meeting dedicated to answering every question owners submitted. Those responses can from the Board President and the chair of the committee responsible for the motion. Without informing owners of the change, Board President Scott Timmerman replaced that process with the existing quarterly “Owner Forum” sessions, where the Board has no obligation to respond.
As a result, the vast majority of owner questions went unanswered and unacknowledged.
What happens to an owner’s question now that the Board no longer has to answer it?
Owner Impact
The Hidden Costs Owners Pay
Owners now live under rules that were written broader than their problems, passed without the legal review owners asked for, and are no longer assured answers to their questions.
- Quality of life: When a Board writes rules broader than the problems they target and no longer has to answer questions, owners end up getting fined for ordinary life at home without anyone explaining why.
- Property values: When a Board passes rules without the legal review owners asked for, every owner carries the risk. Buyers’ attorneys flag vague rules before closing, and if one is challenged in court, owners pay the legal bills through their assessments.
n his July 28 newsletter update, Board President Scott Timmerman told owners that some of their suggestions will be considered in next year’s review of the Rules.
Look at how that review works:
- Owners raise concerns at a forum where the Board does not have to respond.
- Owners ask for a legal review, and the Board President does not allow the request to be considered. This year, every change passed.
The process Timmerman implemented gives owners no guaranteed answers, no guaranteed legal check, and no accountability. Owners carry the risk, paying the fines and the legal bills, for rules they have no guaranteed way to question or stop.
How are owners supposed to trust next year’s review when it runs through the same process that disenfranchises their input and oversight?
