Censure of Board Member

We have a board member that mentions notices of violations regarding homeowners in open session. The remaining Board is looking at bringing up a motion to Censure that board member. I have a number of questions. I have looked at the Davis-Stirling site.

Is this an agenda item? If yes, is it an item for Executive Session or the Open Meeting?

If this is in Executive Session, will the minutes released indicate that "Board Member (name of board member) was censured for (reason of censure)" or just mentioned that "A board member was censured for (reason of censure)".

If this is handled just in Executive Session, how will other homeowners ever know who this person is and maybe not vote for them next time if they know how bad they are?

I know that the homeowners should attend the meetings, but we get only 5 of 50 that ever show up.

Thank you for your help.

Brian,

Davis-Stirling.com has info if you wish to Censure a Board Member.

Typically, executive Sessions are entered into from an open meeting. The reason for the executive session is to be included in the open meeting minutes. When Executive sessions end, the Board returns to the open meeting to take a vote on any action discussed in executive session.

I certainly want to keep it as open as possible and in the minutes so when they are distributed to the members, they see the action and hopefully do not vote for him in the future. I am not sure how this gets addressed in California.

If I had my way, it would be an agenda item in the open meeting, voted on and the minutes would reflect that "The Board voted to censure (name of party) for (reason).

Does your HOA have an attorney?

I think you need to impress upon all directors the reason violation hearings are held in closed (executive sessions).

So I would also ask the attorney to explain this reason and then lead into a discussion about the censure and a vote to censure or not. Votes should include a record of which director voted for what action. I see no reason to name the person if the person stops doing this action.

If the person continues to mention violations in a way that opens the board to possible lawsuits for slander or defamation, then the president or another director should give a warning as soon as it happens again and this should be included in the minutes with the name of the director.

At that point, it might fall under willful misconduct.

In the case that the majority vote against censure, should there be a charge of defamation against the board (because the board allowed this action to continue), those board directors who made an effort to stop these discussions about violations as evidenced by votes or requests during meetings to stop discussions about specific people and associated violations in open meetings could argue they are not legally liable because of their efforts to stop these actions. Check Robert's Rules of Order for this.

As someone who was charged with a violation, taken to the board's kangaroo court and then to small claims court (where the violation and fines were dismissed), we are pressing defamation in mediation because the hearing (which we did not attend) was held a few yards away from the public sidewalk and in the open (in front of the mailboxes). In addition, the charge was stated as fact in published board notes before there was even a motion for a hearing. So libel and slander.

An attorney can explain why it is always better to have hearings in private executive sessions. However, if the violation results in a small claims court claim, once filed that becomes public information. Disclosure of public information in an open meeting should not be a problem if the information remains factual as there is no expectation of privacy. This is my opinion. I am not an attorney. I am a fan of the Law & Order series.