Agenda topics - Is it okay to identify person who proposes new rule?

I don't know if my thread title makes sense, so my explanation may help. At our last Board meeting, one of the agenda items was to add a rule banning smoking outside of units. We have a small 10 unit complex, and what is interesting is that none of the homeowners smoke, but one unit frequently has guests that smoke and the owner doesn't want them smoking inside his unit, so they smoke in his back yard and in the common area and often leave butts around the common area.

When the agenda came out, it had this person's name attached to the new rule proposal and this is the first time I have ever seen anyone's name printed on an agenda for any reason. The person who requested the rule change (a Board member) lives next door to the one unit that has the smoking problem and is now getting the cold shoulder from the neighbor and is quite uncomfortable and fears retaliation of sorts.

Is it okay to print the name of the person requesting the rule change on the Agenda, or did the President make a mistake?

Hi Jennifer:

You can go here if you want to review California statutes: http://www.associationtimes.com/stateInformation.htm

However, since it is a board member proposing the change, is he not therefore going to be presenting his information at the meeting? Everyone would know then.

My thought is if someone wants a change and it will affect everyone, then they should be willing for everyone to know and why. Many times once someone explains their reasons, others then can better understand why.

Something to keep in mind is if you ban smoking outside ... when anyone goes to sell their property down the road this would limit potential buyers. A potential buyer might be a smoker and would not purchase after reading the documents.

Jennifer,

Typically, when recording minutes of a meeting, the name of the person making a motion and the name of the person seconding the motion is noted, followed by the vote count (3 yea, 2 nay). Not being at the meeting, I would expect that a proposal could easily be considered a motion. Therefore, it would be proper to identify the person proposing the change.

Tim

Link for Robert Rules of Order Online

Just make the motion, take the vote, record it in the minutes, and MOVE ON.

Why belabor such things?

There is VERY little secrecy/anonymity from the membership allowed in most HOAs.

I wouldn't put it in the Agenda. It's not necessary to further the discussion nor is it required. Why inflame a situation unnecessarily? However, anyone who doesn't like the proposed rule has the right to review the minutes when the proposal first surfaced, so he would in the end be able to find out who was behind it. But I wouldn't advertise it.

Jennifer,

Unless that info is required to be given to the person receiving the violation notice -- either by state law or in the gov docs, then it would be at the board's discretion whether or not to divulge it.

TimB4,
Are you saying a CM (closed meeting) can be used for such purposes in Ca. & Va.?

Your use of the CM clause or similar would be considered illegal in Florida.

Here, it is only allowed to protect attorney/client(HOA) priviledge when discussing possible/pending/current litigation or personnel disciplinary actions.

A public notice must still be made and an agenda item indicating the meeting's purpose must be included.

Making such broad statements about laws across state lines is misleading and in Florida, not true.

I thought I had read somewhere that in CA, homeowners can file a complaint and ask to remain anonymous, but the person accused of wrong doing has the right to know the true details of the complaint, including the name of the person who complained. Of course, I could be wrong, but I have been looking through Sterling-Davis to try to get it figured out.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Suresh,

I don't know about CA. However, in VA it is allowed. I should have included that State laws vary and that they should be checked.

Tim

Mary

Please read Applebaum v. Board of Directors (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 648, 657. Due process applies to Non-Profit Corporations also.

Richard,

All I'm saying is that there is nothing addressing this issue in D-S. Also if there is CA case law then why didn't the attorney who wrote the opinion state it?

To answer the original question, there is no reason to put an individuals name on a proposed rule change. Generally, it is the Board who makes the motion for a rule change, unless the Associations has a Rules Committee. Regardless, The person's name should never have been mentioned. If the issue being address was for a fine or violation notice, the names of either party would never be posted or noticed to the membership. In California, this matter would be handled in Executive Session, which specific rules THAT MUST BE followed.