Asking about self-benefit of board members case, in a Town House Article II from the California Association Inc,

Question

Article II: The Board of Directors is prohibited from accepting any commission or profit related to expenditures for the homeowners association. When recommending services, board members must disclose any financial benefits they may receive. This article emphasizes the need for transparency to prevent self-benefit among board members. 
 
Case : A board member has pushed for a contract with a company owned by her fiancé, which raises concerns. 
 
Questions: 
Does this situation violate Article II, especially since other board members might claim they knew of the relationship? They cannot vote against one another due to potential conflict. 
Does allowing a board member to benefit from her own company undermine the principle of volunteer service, turning the role into a profit-making venture? 
Is there a violation here, considering the benefit extends beyond commission to direct financial gain through personal relationships? 
Does article limited to commission or extends to direct benefit

James L. Arrasmith · Answer

This situation likely raises concerns under Article II. The provision clearly prohibits board members from receiving financial benefits related to the association's expenditures. Even if other board members are aware of the relationship, the fact that the board member is pushing for a contract with a company owned by her fiancé presents a potential conflict of interest that should be scrutinized. Transparency is key, but simply disclosing the relationship may not be enough to resolve the underlying issue of self-benefit. 
 
Allowing a board member to benefit from her own company, even indirectly, can undermine the principle of volunteer service. The board is meant to serve the interests of the homeowners, and any financial gain could shift the focus from service to personal profit. This erodes trust in the governance of the association and could lead to further issues within the community. 
 
The restriction in Article II extends beyond commissions to include any financial gain, especially when personal relationships are involved. Direct financial benefits, like those stemming from contracts with a fiancé’s company, are a clear conflict of interest. Therefore, this situation appears to violate the spirit, if not the explicit letter, of the article.

Q: Asking about self-benefit of board members case, in a Town House Article II from the California Association Inc,