Review of violation notices.

Generally speaking no, you are not entitled to see other homeowner's violation notices. Would you want them to be able to see yours?

While I tend to agree that violations are typically between the board and the owner/violator, I dislike the concept of calling everything "privileged". Privilege is reserved for those items between a legal counselor and their clients that relate to the matter of a lawsuit, or to things with a reasonable potential of a lawsuit. Just because you discuss something with a lawyer doesn't make it privileged.

So, while it's possible that some of this information is privileged, I doubt that much of it is.

That said, it's just a pet peeve of mine. I disklike tossing that word out like it solves everything, it doesn't. The board should have told you "We do not disclose that information because it is typically private, between individual owners and the board."

If you feel you are incorrectly assessed, follow your appeal process (it's in your rules/by-laws), and rather than focus on what might have happened in the past, keep your focus on on the condition of your home compared to others currently documentable. Get out there, take pictures, and document the incorrect assessment of your condition, or unfair treatment of your home, and present that as well, with a call for equal enforcement and action. You won't have much luck with "well, two years ago X happened", but you might gain traction with "This is my home. This is Bob's. I fully expect equal action to be taken against him, as you can see, his is three color steps darker than mine (or, seven times larger, etc.).

Also, I think you meant intimidate. I would hate to see a lawyer try to intimate you in a public meeting.

I agree with Jay. Check with the Maryland Office of Consumer Protection and ask if violations are privileged documents. I don't think they are.
Jeanne

Any owner in an HOA is in a contractual relationship with not only the HOA but all other owners. As a party to a contract, an owner should have the right to know whether others are performing as agreed. Unless explicitly prohibited by statute, all records of the association should be open to all owners.

When the HOA issues notices of violation, the association is acting as a judicial body. American public policy requires openness in judicial proceedings and the records thereof. Secret charges, secret proceedings, and secret penalties are all offensive to public policy and more fitting to a Soviet-era Balkan state than to America.

The other side of the coin, however, is that like any police agency the HOA has the discretion as to what violations to cite and what to ignore. Unless there is a clear abuse of power, an individual owner who is in violation of the contractually agreed upon rules has no defense in claiming that he has been singled out. The association gets to pick and choose what battles it will fight. Most CC&R's permit the owners to bring their own private action in court against other owners who are in violation and this is the remedy for one who feels that he is being picked upon.

For Maryland it is the 1970 Public Information Act, but there should be one for HOAs or Common Interest Developments.

Thank you for all the input. As I stated, I was cited by the BOD for having dirty siding that in my opinion is barely noticeable. Neighbors on either side of me have very dirty siding yet were not cited. They showed me their violation letters and one was cited for the need to paint the mail box post and the other to replace a shutter. I feel, as a member of the HOA, I have a right to know about violations that have the potential of devaluing my investment. I feel the BOD has a fiduciary responsibility to fairly treat all members equally. I feel that the BOD has “targeted” me because I have caused a stir in the community about some unpopular decisions that they have made. On a side note: the BOARD has published all the names and addresses of the residents in the community on the HOA website… but have “conveniently” omitted the names and address of those on the Board yet they feel violations are “privileged” information.

Posting all the names on the website is IMO... not a wise move.

Ron with all due respect the system does not operate according to how YOU feel things should or will be handled. There are laws and rules and documents that set these standards. Now can you be the target of "special" enforcement certainly but as you are dealing with human beings and you have suggested your relationship is strained at best do you really find this surprising? Many times those not having an understanding of the system begin to determine their own view of right, wrong and how things should be. "devaluing my investment" "Fiduciary duty" all might sound like they hold water but in reality they do not.

If you wan to now make a federal issue out of this then don't address the violation. Play right into the hand of hose who might be targeting you. Give them cause to fine you. hen you can hire a lawyer fight this in court and explain o the judge how you think things should be. Won't cost the Board members a nickel will cost you a lot more than the cost of washing your siding. Whether you notice it or not. Again, your judgement is NOT the deciding factor.

He who turns and walks away lives to fight another day. Pick the fights you might win. Pick the fights you need to win. Pick the fights you can win.

If the website/blog is private (only open to members), then that would probably be in line with the requirement for a membership directory.

In California, this is a requirement although there is a debate about what exactly is a mailing address (e.g. should that include email). The CC&R for the condo association we belong to specifically mentions that the phone numbers should be included. Members can opt out. It also mentions that the contact info for the secretary should be prominently displayed in a common area.

If you've been following my complaints (we are going into mediation on Friday), then you could probably guess that we were given a membership list without the phone numbers and we didn't know who the secretary was until our last court date (first Friday of this month).

I don't know the parameters for the website. The names of the officers and the official address for legal correspondence should be a matter of public information (at least in California) and for that reason, would be more reasonable to list on a public site. That appears to be the opposite of what is happening here and, if so, is suspicious conduct.