Homeowners in BOD Meetings

If you are following proper parliamentary procedure, those who are not members of the assembly that is meeting (eg., not members of the board) have no rights, including the right to attend, make motions, participate in discussion or debate, or vote. (Roberts Rules, 11th ed., page 3). State law trumps rules and may permit non-board members to attend and make comments or speak (subject to board rules as to time and duration), but normally does not permit non-board members any other rights. Simply put, you are required to do no more than your state or local laws require.

Tell them it's against parliamentary rules. Period. End of discussion.

Oh Bruce. Your attitude offends me. HOA's are supposed to be a democracy. Let your neighbors be heard!!

Here in CA per the Davis-Stirling Open Meeting Act, we must allow Members to speak during an Open Forum period and our Board is happy to comply. We have Open Forum both before and after the biz portion of the meeting.

We also encourage Members to email the Board proposals, ideas, etc. via our PM as agenda items that Members may present during meetings. We let Members know that this method is best as (1) it permits time to do any necessary research prior to the meeting, e.g., cost, feasibility.

(2) Again in CA, agenda items for open meetings must be posted 4 days before the meetings. We, as a Board, may not make decisions about topics members bring up AT meetings, but must postpone such decisions, if any, till the next meeting. Sometimes, though, Members have short simple questions that we or our PM can answer. No director should try to guess at an answer, but let the Member know that an answer would be coming or a work order generated.

We do not permit Members to speak during the business portion of our Board meetings, unless their item is on the agenda, which actually is rare despite our repeated encouragement.

Our ground rules are pretty simple: Stating one's name & unit number; one question or topic at a time, not interrupting, being civil, limit of 3 minutes. Not presenting a second topic until all Owners have had a chance to present their initial topic. The ground rules are on the back of the agendas that members pick up when they sign in. These ground rules discourage complaint about engineering or custodial stuff (we're a high rise), but we get them anyway, "why is my hallway so hot?" We have an actual meeting room.

Despite a lot of openness and transparency, we have low attendance at our monthly open meetings usually the same 6-10 people.

Just curious Sharon where do you get the idea an HOA are supposed to be a democracy???? And just what in your mind does that mean??

I would suggest you read your documents. Is the word ever used? I have read those on my property and the existance of a democracy is never suggested.

Most HOAs and certainly yours MIGHT be an exception are set up as coporations. So as corporation a Baord is elected and the Board makes decisions not the entire membership or each shareholder.

And lets go one step further. Lets look at the US Congress which is supposed to be a democracy. Can you as a citizen go into the next session and offer your views before Congress as to waht you think should be done.

Seems you have some idea of how things SHOULD be and how things WOULD operate in your world if that was possible.

Just that this is not the system most people operate under.

And while Bruce's explanation might "offend" you the reason is you have no true understanding of how or why an HOA Board operates.

HOA Boards are not democracies because you say so.

Jon, I've served on our Board for 6 years and attended board meetings for 2 years prior to being elected. I can assure Sharon and others that we DO get business handled during meetings.

I'm not sure how Jon knows whether or not anything gets done when there are open forums given that his HOA does NOT have open meetings.

Good Lord! Talk about being misunderstood. The OP stated, in part:

"Our Board is discussing how to handle homeowners who want to come to our Board meetings and make presentations, proposals, or discuss issues they feel strongly about."

I never stated that the homeowners shouldn't be heard. There is a period during which homeowner input should be encouraged. (We have two such periods, one before the board begins it's deliberations on motions, and one following.) Homeowners, however, should not be allowed to interrupt during the period when the board is meeting, nor should they be allowed to make motions. Not only is that against parliamentary procedure, but if you're going to allow that, then you don't need to have board meetings. Simply have homeowner meetings "town meeting style" and conduct business that way.

Decide what you want. Chaos or order. That's why we elect boards to begin with. By the way, if you look up the definition, that's not democratic. It's a republican form of government. (And don't try to catch me on that one, because I'm a registered Democrat.)

Glen,

Where, in my original statement, did I say or imply that the board should operate in secret?

Steve,

I recommend placing the "audience participation" AFTER you've conducted your business. Any audience presentation, if worthy of board consideration, can be received and considered at a later meeting after board members have digested the information. Nonetheless, unruly audience behavior during the public portion can be stopped by a simple adjournment or board members may leave as they wish or need to depart.

I do support dues payer involvement in meetings, whether by speaking or listening.

you control the agenda, so ask the member what the topic is, and how long the presentation will be. set limits if needed (i don't want a 30 minute powerpoint, etc.). Five minutes, ten minutes, three minutes... you set it and then schedule it into the agenda (typically, for me, in the "members opens" portion).

And have the board absolutely practice this sentence: thank you for that information, the board will take that information under advisement and consider it further.

We always had open meetings. Our documents actually had the meeting agenda in them that we were to follow. It may have been in the Articles of Incorporation near the responsibilities of officers. We went by that boiler plate of what we were required to cover. Your rules may have the same thing.

I use this scenerio. Imagine leaving your checkbook on the dining room table for all your family to see and make recommendations on spending. You and your spouse are like the board members and the general membership the children. Since you and your spouse handle the money on the behalf of the family how do you factor in your kids opinions on how to spend the money? A HOA works alot like that. The adults make the decision to pay the bills and then the kids get to criticize why you didn't spend it on them...LOL!

Keeping meetings secret and not open has nothing to do with democracy. It is NOT the boards money it is ALL the members money. Which means there has to be transparency so that the membersip understands and acknowledges that the people they elected to manage the HOA on their behalf is doing so in the best manner. It's not off buying pool chairs when the water bill hasn't been paid. It's a HARD concept to do and many HOA members have a difficult time with it. It's not easy to have to listen to other people who demand the money gets spent this way or that and they are complete idiots. However, they do have a right for input. It's just a fine balancing act on how you do that with still having some common sense. That's by electing good people onto the board for the most part.

Lots of dissenting opinions on this thread.

For those that feel HOA's are not following democratic processes or follow a republican form of governance and that they are in fact, just corporations in which the membership has no rights lets just look at it a second.

HOA's are at their very best, a hybrid of a few things. They are, for want of a term, classified as corporations by most states. They have to have articles of incorporation. Most are non-profits.

many states have certain requirements for these corporations. In Calif for example, they have to do a bunch f things because of the Davis-Sterling Act. Yet the only LAW enforcement action that can be done by the State Attorney General is if there is any sort of Financial Impropriety (No Annual budget or refusal to let any member audit the books for example.

Here in the USA the concept of corporations does seem to follow and embody basic forms of Democracy such as the entire membership votes and elects Representatives to the Corporate government (in this case the Board of Directors).

These Board members supposedly have a fiduciary responsibility to the entire membership to care for the money coming in and going out. Along with that, the Board is entrusted to protect and preserve the value of the shareholders in the corporation (your HOA members).

The remains that HOA's are a hybrid because they are not subject to *ALL* the rules and regulations required of public corporations (like businesses that exist for a profit). HOA's do not have to make filings with the SEC or anything other than the IRS and State Tax boards. yet, these HOA's and their Board members have direct impact on property values and quality of life issues for their members.

The feeling I get from reading this website is that in many states other than Calif, the general membership is not allowed a voice and in many cases not entitled to representation. It seems like the only time members have any say or power is only at election time.

HOA's in my view are tiny pseudo governments. They collect *taxes* (dues/regular assessments) which are used to fund the infrastructure. Since this is tax payer money (for the HOA government) then the same transparency that you get from your public cities, towns and other levels of government needs to given to your members.

See, HOA's are a Hybrid for they are BOTH a Corporation and a localized pseudo government (by definition in that HOA's levy fines and have the ability to confiscate property). Even many towns and cities also incorporate and still have full transparency.

There should be no secrets in running an HOA. If there are then you have to ask "What is it they are so dead set on keeping secret?"

Sorry for going slightly off topic - How to handle members at meetings... well regardless of your state laws and governing documents, I would hope that you would allow members to attend meetings and allow them an opportunity to speak. Probably the best answer to your question is "What would you like to be able to do if you were a member and not on the Board?" How much member participation would you want as a member only?

Kelly, it works really well for us to have Open Forum before we directors conduct business and then a second Open Forum after we as a Board have made decisions. Though we directors have board packets about a week before the monthly open meeting, we don't always think of every possible perspective about any given agenda item. So Members' comments or questions (if any) after the business portion of the meeting can be useful. Generally, but not always, these homeowners are members of our committees and so have some knowledge about certain aspects of our HOA.

As a Board, we even have reconsidered a decision previously made during the meeting and overturned it. I think it was twice in the past year. I'd say we make about 90 decisions a year at open meetings.

I agree and things can be done smoothly even on hot button issues such as I have seen at town council meetings where one registered and was given a defined amount of time to speak to a specific issue.

Being open and allowing owner comments is an issue I believe we all agree with.

The HOA Chief Complaining Officer (CCO) drowing on, rambling incoherently, and interuptting whenever are different issues and this is where controls must be placed on people.

In many states, as a matter of law the board cannot discuss or vote on matters not on the posted agenda. The best approach would be to add the item to the agenda for the next meeting.

We have a "member voice" section in our meeting agenda. Usually the first item so they can talk/ask questions and leave if they want. We invite folks to stay, except for violation hearings. We try to keep to a schedule and adjournment time to keep things moving on task. We only have a few people show up, so we don't spend much time on member voice. If we do have a hot topic or many attendees, we'll put a time limit on members speaking. Has never been an issue. When members want to do a presentation or proposal, we ask that they prepare it in advance, announce it as part of the agenda, and set a time guideline, just like a business meeting.

Valerie,

I went back to reread what Jon had written. I do not believe he was comparing himself or Associations to Congress.

Sharon had stated that HOAs are supposed to be democracies.

Jon commented on Sharon's statement and said that HOAs are not democracies.

He then stated that since the U.S is supposed to be a democracy (and by the way, despite what merriam-webster says, it's not. It's actually a republic)
he was using Congress as an example of how, even in a democracy, the general public doesn't vote on everything as this is done by the elected (or appointed) officials (i.e. Congress).

Openness and transparency doesn't fix everything. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for transparency and openness. However it can only help if (and only if) individuals take the opportunity provided by that openness and transparency to become involved. My Association has open meetings. In the past 10 years, I can count on one hand the number of non-board members who attended and of those only 1 didn't have business before the board. My Association places minutes of all meetings on the website. In the past 10 years, only 2 individuals who were not on the board reviewed those minutes (and I was one of them when I fighting with the board). Even in open and transparent boards, members have to chose to utilize that transparency and chose to become involved. Typically most won't until something affects them directly. Usually, it's too late then as the decision had been made and you can't always undo the effects of what the decision started.

I agree and certainly am for all the openness and transparency that can be done.
I was just trying to make the point that if the members don't utilize that transparency, the wolves might not be as timid.

ok

I agree and disagree with this.

Granted, as I posted earlier, we rarely have anyone other than those that must attend board meetings. However, when it does happen we encourage them to provide constructive comments on the issue being discussed. This is because they may seeing the issue from a different perspective or have an option the Board hadn't considered.

I do agree that questions that require the board to explain the issue that is well known to those who attended all the meetings about the issue can slow the meeting to a crawl. Hence, I agree with the need to limit or eliminate them so the meeting can accomplish what it needs to do.

Yes, I concede that allowing comments tend to allow questions (sort of a catch 22). This is the reason why I both agree and disagree with the statement I quoted.

I suppose that what a board allows will be dependent on the number of attendees, the length of the agenda and the temperament of those affected by or dealing with the issue.

Shelia

I say let the owners speak before the meeting. Once the meeting has started they can only speak if called upon.

If someone insists on interrupting I would at first explain to them when they can speak and that by interrupting that they are out of order. If they insist on interupting I would say that unless we can restore order to our meeting then I will make a motion to adjourn until another time. Usually by then they have gotten the idea and they will be quiet.

I suppose if it was one person always doing it and they would not not follow proper precedure then maybe someone would feel threatened by their actions and would consider pulling a restraining order on them....hint...hint.

Some would say call the police (which if out of hand, I agree with) but I have never seen it go that far and if for some reason my HOA was in such disorder that we needed police, I would not be part of it in any way shape nor form. I would let the inmates fight it out....LOL

Jean

I like the idea of a town meeting format yet could not an open Q&A session before a BOD meeting suffice as well?

My last HOA had a 1/2 hour Q&A session prior to every meeting. Not that all questions could be addressed/answered. Often the answer might be we are unaware of this but we will take a look at the issue. Rarely did the same person show up at the next monthly meeting and ask the question again. Many just wanted an opportunity to tell the BOD their concerns, ideas, beliefs, etc. I am all for this.

The only real issue I see is not about about Q&A, recording the meeting, observing the meeting, etc. The issue I see is controlling interruptions, shouting, yelling, etc.

I am all for openness but there has to be decorum and rules of order or else it become a horror show. Town Meetings have rules of order.

Many people, especially those with no real understanding of HOAs, live under the belief that they are democracies where in EVERYONE gets a vote and chance to express their views. The reality is not many it any at all are set up as democracies. Most are corporations which do not operate under the doctrine everyone gets to play an equal role. Hence the Board being elected into office.

Now what I was trying to suggest was IF you believe that HOAs are in fact democracies and that means to you everyone gets a say well than where is the word deocracy ever found in any governing documents on any property?

And if you were to use the governemnt of the United States as an example not even there does it operate as you might suggest.

I was not suggesting I was equal to Congress I was suggesting the form of representation you might think should exist does not exist either in HOAs, government, of corporations.

Well said Jon.

As someone one said. Lead or follow, but the F out of the way.

FYI, this format would not be legal in some states. In Arizona, the board is required to allow any homeowner to speak on an issue during board discussion and before a vote is taken.

"And while Bruce's explanation might "offend" you the reason is you have no true understanding of how or why an HOA Board operates."

JonD has an ironic idea of what is "offensive". His condescending remarks are indicative of a lack of tolerance and understanding of views that do not closely align with his own. Take his rhetoric with a hefty grain of salt...