The House voted down first substitute HB 262, the HOA Board Education Amendments, after a floor debate that spanned policy intent, enforcement mechanics and whether such requirements should be imposed by state law or by associations themselves.

Representative Acton, sponsor of the bill, said the measure would require board members to receive a small amount of training each year — one hour, in person or online — on topics such as fiduciary duties, insurance requirements and reserve analysis. The sponsor said the requirement is not meant to be “onerous or punitive” and that the Department of Commerce would host a list of available educational resources on its website.

Opponents questioned whether the state should impose an educational mandate on largely private contractual entities and raised enforcement concerns. Representative Ward cautioned about legislative mandates for education, noting that some harmful HOA actions described to him were not simply a lack of knowledge but deliberate conduct. Representative McPherson asked whether unit owners could each file enforcement actions and whether that could lead to multiple suits; Acton explained there is a compliance window and removal mechanisms for a noncompliant board member, and that enforcement varies by CC&Rs and HOA rules.

Representative McPherson and others argued the board — not the state — is the proper party to resolve noncompliance and expressed concern about unintended consequences for volunteer board recruitment. Supporters, including Representative Fitzsimani and Representative Lisenby, said the bill was substantially improved by amendment and would help residents and volunteer board members better understand duties and reduce disputes.

The House voted to reject first substitute HB 262 by 30 yes and 42 no; the bill failed on the House floor and will not proceed in its current form.

Ending: The debate captured tensions between consumer-protection aims and concerns about state intervention in private association governance; the sponsor framed the policy as an educational “hand up” for boards and residents, while opponents warned about litigation risk and dampening volunteer participation.