The most important thing about a community association board of directors is not its procedures, but how faithfully it follows its procedures. Rules can be written, changed, and interpreted in different ways, but faith is hard to get back once it's been lost. That's why rules about conflicts of interest are so important to running a group. They are not just formalities; they are what separates making legal decisions from making choices based on ease.
As Attorney Carole Briggs explains through her work advising community association boards, the most difficult legal issues rarely start with bad intent. They start with unclear boundaries. A board member’s family business winning a landscaping contract, a treasurer influencing which vendor gets renewed, or a president voting on a project that benefits their own property value and not everyone else. These situations don’t always begin as misconduct. They begin as oversight. Without structure, that oversight grows into potential liability.
A conflict of interest doesn’t always wave a red flag. It often hides in familiarity - the contractor who’s “always done good work,” the lawyer who’s “a family friend,” the vendor who “knows the property best.” In the absence of written policies, those relationships can quietly shift from helpful to harmful.
Carole Briggs says this is one of the most common places where boards may err without meaning to. A lot of neighborhood groups are run by volunteers who really want to help. Personal relationships and fiduciary duties can sometimes make choices that seem self-serving, even if they are made with the best of intentions. And how you look is important. When it comes to community association law, the idea of bias can be almost as bad as the act itself. Boards that treat conflict policies as mere formalities often find themselves managing more than budgets - they end up managing mistrust.
The District of Columbia, like most jurisdictions, expects condo boards to act with loyalty, care, and obedience to the association’s best interests. Yet these principles only work when applied with consistency. A clear conflict of interest rule defines what counts as a conflict, how disclosures must be made, and when abstentions are required. For many community association boards, this starts with a review of the association bylaws that normally contain an “Interested Director” section, which addresses potential conflicts of interests. This language spells out exactly when a director may not participate in a board matter. If a board member is uncertain about its applicability, the safest answer is for the person to recuse themself from the decision. Association counsel can also help analyze a situation for conflicts of interest.
Carole says that clarity is the best kind of preventive rule. Boards make things more predictable by laying out in either the bylaws or in rules exact situations where directors need to recuse themselves from involvement in a matter pending before the board. That ability to predict the future protects you. It keeps members from being suspicious and keeps the group from having pointless arguments. Without it, the board’s credibility erodes. Owners start asking questions, vendors sense opportunity, and a once-functional community becomes divided by doubt.
Many boards unintentionally weaken their own policies by leaving loopholes or neglecting enforcement. Some of the most frequent missteps include:
Each of these gaps may seem minor, but they collectively erode the foundation of fiduciary responsibility.
Strong conflict of interest provisions in the bylaws or the rules don’t exist to accuse; they exist to assure. They reassure owners that choices are being made in an unbiased way. They promise suppliers that the processes are fair and competitive. They also reassure board members that their honesty won't be called into question in the future.
When boards write or review their bylaws and rules, they should keep these three concepts in mind:
As Carole Briggs observes in her practice, the most effective boards view compliance with rules as a shared commitment, not a constraint. They communicate openly about ethical standards, set expectations early, and normalize disclosure as a matter of pride, not suspicion. When everyone understands the boundaries, no one feels accused.
Strong policies also change the way people think: they support thinking before acting. Members should not ask, "Can I do this?" but rather, "Should I?" That question, which is simple but deep, protects both the person and the organization.
Every community association board, no matter its size or history, depends on integrity as much as legality. Both are safe with written rules. They hold people accountable for their actions when they have good intentions and keep their credibility when perception can change the results.
Through her experience in community association law, Carole Briggs continues to remind boards that ethical consistency isn’t self-policing - it’s structural. The strongest associations aren’t defined by their amenities or budgets, but by the trust that binds their members. And that trust begins, quietly but decisively, with a single policy or rule written the right way.
