TX HOA minutes

Our recently elected Board as agreed to open HOA Board meetings to members before the legislation making that mandatory passes into law. Their October meeting allowed members to address the Board BEFORE the meeting was adjourned.
I was at that meeting with several other HOA members not on the Board. I spoke to the Board about amending bylaws NOT affected by the new state laws--like our section 12 that gives the Board total authority to suggest/amend bylaws w/o any interaction from the HOA...I know the new TX law will require NOTICE to the members but I don't think the law requires the HOA general membership to be involved in approving or suggesting any bylaws changes.
Another HOA member spoke in support of my suggestion.

A third HOA member (former Board member) spoke about the conflict of interest between a current Board member and his attorney being used as the Board's attorney to revise our bylaws...and the fact that THAT Board member is paying directly to the attorney the first $3K of legal fees as a tacit "donation" to the HOA...which he will subsequently write off as a charitable deduction on his taxes...He also suggested the Board establish a formal process for handling architectural review committee submission, including posting them on the HOA web site for all HOA members to review and comment on if they cared to...

Another member spoke to the Board about the submission made to the ARC for their house which requires a variance..there was some discussion about whether or not a setback variance had been granted, how large it was, if the entire set of plans had been reviewed, and the fact that the lot owners wanted to appeal the granted variance for a larger one...So the Board voted to have a meeting to discuss this house submission with the entire Board at a later date--to be determined.

Two other former Board members spoke mainly to downplay comments that could be considered slighting of past Boards' actions--

NONE of our comments were mentioned in the meeting minutes that were just posted on the HOA web site...
These comments were made WHILE the Board was still in session
One of them involved setting a future Board meeting for special agenda just for that ARC appeal determination...

I think I know why none of them were included--because the current Board has members who don't want anyone in the HOA to know that some people are still trying to get this Board to enact changes they don't want to make...
they don't want people who don't attend the Board meetings to know there is dissention in the ranks of the HOA...

I don't think it is LEGAL to adopt minutes which do not include a full version (even if abbreviated) of what transpired IN the meeting...
a question of conflict of interest on part of at least ONE Board member was brought up--surely that has historical/probative value if there are subsequent problems relating to using that Board members private attorney as the Board/HOA's attorney...

I understand that minutes are not verbatim accounts of discussion play by plays...but I checked the city we live in for the minutes/agendas of their committees like traffic/safety and senior citizen advisory committee...
they all have place on agenda for public comments and IF someone from the community spoke at the meeting their comments, names/addresses are provided...
So there is an ACCURATE record of what transpired...

I don't know if the person taking the minutes misunderstood what he was supposed to include or if there is "conspiracy" within the Board members to keep people who are in the HOA and might check the minutes out of the loop as far as any comments that might show dissention with Board actions...

This deliberate ommission does not seem legal--
and if we don't call their hands on it and stop them from doing this right now--then they will persist and twist information to suit themselves...which the past Boards did in spades...
Some members of this Board campaigned on the promise of MORE transparency--obviously TRANSPARENT and OPAQUE mean the same thing to some of them...

Any comments as to how to get the minutes REVISED before the next scheduled meeting which is not until January--
some of us are already viewed like Vlad the Impailer by Board members and probably some HOA members because we do criticize and are trying to pull these people into transparent actions--and hold them accountable for their actions--which they don't want to happen...

VickiC,

Per standard parliamentary procedure, only the ACTIONS taken during a meeting need to be recorded in the minutes. What was SAID during a meeting need not be recorded. By ACTION it is meant the exact wording of a motion, who made the motion (the person who seconded the motion need not be recorded, but often is) and the outcome of the vote on the motion. Any debate concerning the motion need not be entered into the minutes, but subsidiary motions must be.

Some people often confuse the minutes of a meeting with a transcript, which is an account of everything that was said during the meeting.

In practice, minutes of organizations often generally fall somewhere between the two. The minutes of municipal entities (town and city councils, etc.), as a courtesy, often contain comments or other information that is not required to be entered into the minutes according to accepted parliamentary procedure.

The minutes are legal as long as they contain the minimum required by parliamentary procedure, unless your governing documents or state law require otherwise. Anything in addition to the minimum required is optional and is at the discretion of the secretary and the board.

At our board meetings, a comment from a non-board member is usually entered simply as: "Mrs. Smith commented on the condition of the walkway in front of her unit" or "Mr. Brown commented that he felt the expenditure for the new bulletin board in the clubhouse was excessive".

What did the Board say when you politely asked them why the comments were not included in the minutes?

Someone who also spoke at the Oct Board meeting did ask why the comments/questions to the Board were omitted from the minutes of the Oct meeting...

He got a reply from the Board president that said they were doing it under advice of council--to avoid any "confusion" if remarks were edited...
of course this is the same attorney who is the personal attorney of a Board member and who was the subject of the "conflict of interest" comment this same person made at the Oct meeting...
Any confusion over what was going in the minutes could be resolved by having the person being quoted confirm/deny the accuracy of the remarks...IF they wanted to include them in the minutes...but they don't...

The point was also made that the person who WAS elected Secretary at the intial Board meeting at the end of August--is now considered the "temporary" Secretary...something definitely not mentioned in the minutes of that meeting...

I was not in attendance but I read the minutes several times after they were posted...and I spoke to my neighbor who is the person elected Secretary...she never said that it was a "temporary" post...

so what they have done is take her out of the Secretary post--either because she never really wanted it and did not resign when they moved her into it...
or because she refused to sign off on the abbreviated minutes of the Oct meeting when the homeowners' comments were omitted...
that is why the minutes show they were posted by another Board member...

Now the issue is should we try by other methods to bring this information to the attention of the entire HOA? By flyers or emails?

I sent two emails after the Oct meeting to people within the HOA that I thought shared my concerns about lack of transparency and the motives this Board is operating under...and got feed back from only two people...
there were probably 8 or 10 on the email list...
I only sent to people I thought cared about what was happening...
so apparently even those people don't really want to get involved...

I am not sure that IF we tried an education campaign that people are going to care...
I cannot point to anything illegal this Board as done at this point...
I could only say that I feel there are issues that have the potential to be abusive and that this Board does not seem willing to rewrite bylaws that put all the power in their hands...
I don't think most people understand the difficulty that a conflict of interest situation between an attorney and a particular Board member to the HOA in general might create...

And I think there definitely are people within the neighborhood who are basically afraid of one of the Board members because of his personality and his penchant for threatening lawsuits...
my next door neighbor warned me about making an enemy of him--that he could "hurt" me...whatever that means...and he would not be more specific...