“That being said, should a condominium’s members vote to amend that condominium’s bylaws, as provided by those bylaws, to mandate owner service on the board, a court could very well validate same. The standard employed by a court in the review of amendments to bylaws is a liberal one, whereas the standard employed by a court in the review of a board decision is not. Obviously, any bylaw provision mandating service on the board would have to be connected to a policy providing for a consequence should an owner fail to so comply. To the extent that such a consequence was part of a bylaw amendment it could, as above, be validated by a court.
“Any such amendment by which members could avoid the mandatory service of the board by payment of a fee to the association could be found to violate the condominium act’s mandate that condominium expenses be paid via the proportionate contribution of members. Such would also be subject to attack as it could be seen to constitute the compensation of board members. This could be so given that those that comply with the mandate, and serve on the board, will be paying less to the association than those that do not serve on the board. A non-monetary consequence would likely be viewed more favorably by the court. Absent any such amendments however, it is very unlikely that a court would validate these policies. In the end though it should be remembered that the motivation of a person seeking to serve his community as a member of that community’s board only to avoid the consequences of not serving, or to receive compensation for such service, will typically not be consistent with the fiduciary duty of the board.”