Most HOA homeowners don’t have clear ways to evaluate board performance—even though these boards control multi-million dollar budgets and make decisions that affect property rights, fees, and quality of life. That lack of oversight isn’t accidental—it benefits those who prefer less scrutiny.
Whether you're a long-time owner or new to a common-interest community, here are key warning signs that your HOA board may not be serving the community's best interests.
1. No Clear Way to Contact Board Members
Boards should provide clear, reliable channels for owners to contact directors—whether through published email addresses, phone number, or scheduled forums for in-person discussion. If owners have no formal and reliable way to reach directors directly it may indicate a deliberate effort to insulate the board from owner input. Emailing the management company to pass on to the board serving as the sole contact method should be viewed with great skepticism. Boards that do not provide for direct contact, do not host regular “town halls”, or do not hold open forums to engage with members further signal a reluctance toward accountability and two-way communications.
2. Virtual-Only Board Meetings
While virtual access increases convenience, eliminating in-person meetings altogether limits owner engagement and reduces transparency. This practice has become alarmingly common. Ask yourself, why would elected HOA directors exlcude direct owner interaction? A hybrid model offers better balance. (Read more Virtual-Only Meetings – An HOA Warning Flag)
3. Overly Restrictive Owner Comment Periods
Some HOA boards impose a rigid three-minute time limit on owner comments—regardless of how many speakers are present or how significant the issue may be. This practice continues even at sparsely attended meetings where time is not limited. While such time caps may technically comply with the law —which requires boards to provide a “reasonable opportunity to comment”—homeowners should expect more than just minimal compliance.
Best practice is to allow owner comment on each item after discussion, but prior to vote. Limits on time allowed for comments, if any, is at the discretion for board chair- typically based how many owners wish to comment. If your board follows this best practice, you may one of the luck few and are likley to find few if any of the following warning flags.
On the other hand, a uniform three-minute limit applied prior to agenda discusssion only for agenda items and just prior to adjounment open for general comment without context is common- but should be worrisome to owners. It risks silencing meaningful input and undermines trust in board decision-making. Boards should foster owner participation seeking open, responsive dialogue—not just meet the letter of the law.
4. Questions Go Unanswered
When homeowners raise issues during meetings and receive no response—or are told "we’ll get back to you" with no follow-up—it reflects either indifference or intentional opacity.
5. No Community Forum or Owner-to-Owner Communication
Lack of a blog, moderated discussion platform, or even a bulletin board for owner questions and ideas suggests a board that does not foster community dialogue or collaborative problem-solving.
6. Election results are limited
Boards that withhold election data—such as total votes cast, candidate totals, or who counted the ballots—raise concerns about fairness and legitimacy. Note: NRS 116.31105 (while about election procedures) doesn't require vote totals to be disclosed or even who won. While this highlights a regulatory gap it should be of concern to owners when your board only complies with the minimum under the law.
7. The Attorney Attends Every Board Meeting
While legal counsel should support compliance, frequent attorney attendance may indicate adversarial governance or excessive reliance on litigation over collaboration. This may also indicate the board is relying on legal counsel to insulate or rationalize questionable actions rather than engage owners directly.
8. No Publication of Meeting Minutes or Financial Reports Online
When important documents are not proactively posted for review, it leaves owners in the dark about key decisions and financial performance. NRS 116.31175 requires HOAs to make certain records available for inspection, but many associations go no further. Here again, boards should foster open, responsive dialogue —not just meet the letter of the law.
9. Last Minute Changes to the Board Agenda and/or Resistance to Owner-Requested Agenda Items
Some associations weaken transparency by allowing non-emergency agenda items to be added “up to the start of the meeting.” This practice effectively nullifies the 10-day notice period required under NRS 116.3108(1), contradicts the statutory obligation in NRS 116.3108(4) to provide a “clear and complete statement” of topics to be considered, and the intent of the subsection 6 emergency exception. Owners rely on the agenda to determine whether to attend, participate, or submit written comments. Allowing material items to be added at the last minute prevents meaningful engagement and invites procedural abuse. NVHOAReform has requested rulemaking clarifications aimed at precluding the above. (Read more published by NRED here).
Boards that refuse to consider or place homeowner-raised concerns on the agenda may be signaling that they don't view owners as legitimate stakeholders. Participation should be encouraged, not filtered.
10. Frequent Executive Sessions with Little Explanation
While executive sessions are sometimes necessary, overuse—especially without a clear explanation—suggests decisions are being made behind closed doors. This undermines open governance principles. NRS 116.31085(3) strictly limits what may be discussed in executive session.
11. Board Approves Contracts and Policies via Email Absent An Open Meeting
Under NRS 116.31083, boards are required to hold regular meetings with owner notice and open access for owners. NRS 116 does not address directors making decisions outside of a meeting. When boards deliberate and vote on material matters via email or informal channels, they deny owners the opportunity to observe, engage, and hold leadership accountable. Boards using email to approve contracts or policies effectively bypass NRS 116.31085(2)’s restrictions, even if they seek “ratification” during the next formal meeting, by conducting deliberations and votes in private. NVHOAReform has requested rulemaking clarifications aimed at precluding the above.
12. Manager Dominates Meetings While Board Remains Silent
If the community manager—not the board—runs the meeting and dominates discussion, it may indicate that board members are disengaged or overly reliant on vendors. Equally concerning is when directors ask few or no questions during meetings, signaling rubber-stamp governance rather than active oversight. Board meetings are to be where directors discuss and provide direction on issues of the association. If it sounds like the baord is rubber-stamping what the manager tells them - it proably is.
13. Board Holds "Workshops" That Skirt Transparency Requirements
Although Nevada HOAs are subject to state open meeting laws under NRS 116.31083, some boards label budget planning or strategic sessions as "workshops" to avoid providing notice and allowing owner attendance. These informal meetings, when held without proper notice or documentation, are likely a means to pre-decide matters outside public view, depriving owners of meaningful oversight and leave no public record of key discussions. (Read more Secret HOA Board meetings- "workshops")
14. Overuse of Threatening Legal Language
Boards that frequently cite legal opinions, demand letters, or litigation to suppress owner feedback signal governance by intimidation, not cooperation. (Read more Anti-SLAPP- what HOA owners need to know to protect themselves)
15. Management Contract and Performance Not Reviewed Publicly
In most Nevada HOAs—and across much of the country—management companies wield substantial operational control over daily association affairs. Yet despite this central role, their contracts and performance are almost never reviewed by the membership—let alone made publicly available. Unlike public administrators or corporate executives, management companies face no standardized evaluation process. Most boards do not publish or even conduct annual performance reviews of their management firms. If performance declines or fees spike, homeowners are rarely in a position to demand change, because they lack the data and legal standing to evaluate alternatives.
Why It Matters
Warning signs like these don’t necessarily mean corruption—but they can signal mismanagement, weak governance, or disregard for owner voices. These behaviors erode trust, discourage participation, and reduce oversight—the very conditions that allow problems to grow unchecked.
What Owners Can Do
Ask Questions: Raise concerns during meetings or in writing and document the response—or lack thereof.
Use Your Rights: Nevada law provides owners with rights to inspect records (NRS 116.31175), petition for meetings (NRS 116.3108), and nominate board candidates (NRS 116.31034).
Run for the Board: NRS 116.31034(5) guarantees a unit owner the right to nominate themselves or another eligible owner for election to the board.
Vote strategically: Director elections are the most direct check on poor governance.
Organize with Neighbors: Build consensus with fellow owners to demand changes or support better board candidates.
Push for Reform: Consider broader policy reforms at the state level that mandate transparency and accountability in HOA governance.
Dysfunction thrives in silence. But informed, engaged owners can change the culture of an HOA—one question, one vote, one conversation at a time
