Senate Bill 323 added Civil Code section 5105(e), which provides that “[a]n association shall not disqualify a person from nomination if the person has not been provided the opportunity to engage in internal dispute resolution.”
Read literally, Section 5105(e) appears to provide that an offer of internal dispute resolution (IDR) by an association is required in order to enforce any candidate qualification, even those which are generally not subject to "resolution," such as membership status, duration of membership, or disqualification based on co-ownership. SB 323 also fails to reconcile the conflicting requirements that associations shall disqualify non-members but also shall offer IDR before doing so.
Read literally, Section 5105(e) appears to provide that an offer of internal dispute resolution (IDR) by an association is required in order to enforce any candidate qualification, even those which are generally not subject to "resolution," such as membership status, duration of membership, or disqualification based on co-ownership. SB 323 also fails to reconcile the conflicting requirements that associations shall disqualify non-members but also shall offer IDR before doing so.
One obvious solution to these imponderables is to include a blanket IDR offer by the association in the notice required at least 30 days prior to the nomination deadline by new Civil Code section 5115(d). This invites questions, however, as to whether aspiring candidates could use IDR to game their qualification. For example, an unqualified member could threaten to appear at IDR - possibly with a lawyer in tow to help "explain their position" - which could intimidate a board into qualifying the member for the ballot out of a desire to avoid confrontation, legal fees, or both.
Please contact me today to request an update proposal.
Please contact me today to request an update proposal.