Lawyers Advise NOT to televise HOA Board meetings

Our HOA Board (very large gated East Coast community) recently decided that Community Association Board Meetings would not longer be televised on our internal TV channels (shown on local cable services). The reason given was that they had been given a legal opinion that it was a liability. Additionally, they were allegedly advised at a meeting of a national association management company that associations "were crazy" if they televised their board meetings because "someone could hold you to something you said".

A secondary excuse was that competitors would "know our golf sales strategy". I think they can read our golf course prices in the newspaper!

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. There are dozens of LIVE witnesses at Board meetings who can "hold you to something you said", if you are worried about such.

Am I the only one who fails to understand the sophisticated logic of this over-lawyered action?

David,

I'm not an attorney. I do not work within the legal profession. However, I do work in the media and open microphones are considered hazardous to your health

The minutes are considered the official record of the meeting. If a tape recording is made, this is also considered an official record of the meeting. Depending on the Associations policy, the tape might only be kept until the written minutes are accepted. However, those tapes are under the control of the Association.

If you broadcast the meeting, anyone may record the meeting in their home or even stream it to the world. The Board has no control over this. An attorney's job is to protect their client, in this case the Association (not the membership). Since broadcasting the meetings remove some of the control a good attorney would recommend that the practice be stopped. Irregardless of the reasons given, I believe that the lack of control of the media would be the main reason behind the opinion.

Granted, broadcasting the meetings can have several positive benefits. An attorney's job is to protect the client from the negative aspects of an action irregardless of the positive benefits.

I suspect that we have all said something we wish we hadn't to a room full of people and had to suffer the consequences. Imagine if you said something you wish you hadn't but instead of a room full of people the entire community knows. With the internet, it could be the whole town, State, Nation or World. Yes, it's easy to say think before you speak but if your passionate about an issue, or someone is good at pushing the right buttons, this isn't always done. This is what the attorney is trying to protect the Association from.

Don't blame the attorney, they were doing their job. It's the Board who chose to act on that legal opinion and cancel the broadcasts. If you would like to see them restored, then don't reelect those individuals and elect those who will restore the broadcasts (perhaps you).

David,

I didn't say if I agreed with the opinion or not. I'm was just pointing out the expected responsibilities. As you posted, it's up to the Board to make the decision.

The Board must always weigh the risks vs. the benefits to every decision. Operating a pool can be risky. Having a trained lifeguard, fences, lighting, etc. can minimize the risks enough to make the benefits worthwhile. I suspect that your board felt the only benefit in broadcasting the meeting was to keep the membership informed. However, keeping the meeting open to the members (if they desire to attend), using newsletters, websites, etc. still keeps the membership informed but reduces the risk to the Association.

As for the potential of the members in attendance having a tape recorder, that is certainly possible. Not having read CO law, I do not know if the members have a right to record the meeting and/or notify the members that they are making a recording. Irregardless of the members right or obligation to notify others of the recording, it's been my experience that most members aren't going to go through the bother of making a recording unless they have an existing issue with the Board. Most members don't even bother to attend a board meeting unless they have an issue with an agenda item. Therefore, the risk of this happening is likely minimal.

Out of curiosity, do you know how many members do attend the meeting?

No, this is just plain nuts.

Part of a lawyers' job is to point out potential risks. You would be foolish to ignore risks, no matter how remote, but you would be more foolish to live your life trying to avoid all the risks that lawyers have pointed out.

As you noted, the liability is there whether the camera is present or not.

I think your board should be commended for taking the initiative to make the meetings more open. Keep the cameras. Ditch the lawyer.