reviewing who paid assessments at board meetings

We only discussed the people who owed by lot numbers and not names. It would include the status of lien or action we were taking on that lot. We would just reveal the overall collection amount of that month and then move on to the expenses. It leads to vigilantism if you reveal the names of individuals even though a person savvy enough could figure it out.

I established a lien policy in our HOA. 6 months of unpaid assessments we would place a lien on the property. This policy helped alot. It put in place a way for any of those behind in dues to make payment arrangements and identify those who won't pay. When it came to collections then we would state that we have placed a lien on Lot #X because they have met the 6 months mark. Later after a year we would then talk about foreclosure. However, that really depends on the situation if we started foreclosure proceedures. If the bank was already foreclosing we wouldn't do it. The HOA basically does the work of the bank if they do foreclose on a property so never foreclose on a property if it's in danger of the bank foreclosing. Just make sure to have the lien in place.

Your method is good one. That is similar to what we did. As long as the membership understood we were taking actions and the cost of those actions, that should be enough. The names should be irrelevant. That's just personal.

thanks for the quick thoughtful and complete response.

Ray

Understand there are some of us that say as we fellow owners entered into a contract/burden we all share, it is onlt fair we are told who is behind and how much rather then hide them.

Some call it public shaming and are against it. Some of us are not.

In our association three board members, on a rotating basis, serve as the Delinquency Review Board (DRB). The DRB meets monthly in executive session to discuss specific owner delinquencies, decide on collection efforts, and negotiate repayment schedules with delinquent owners. This has taken the place of automatically referring delinquencies over 60 days to the association attorney for action. This has greatly reduced our legal expenses and has also resulted in a dramatic reduction in total delinquencies.

As others have indicated here - at regular board meetings and in the monthly financial report that is posted on our website we show only the number of owners delinquent 30 days, 60 days, 90 days and over 90 days as well as the total dollar amount delinquent.

We've always discussed delinquencies at the meeting (no names - account numbers only) because previous presidents said it made for better transparency and since most homeowners don't attend or leave after the resident's forum (long before the treasurer's report) it's like we're in executive session anyway.

We have to make a formal motion and vote on any action that will cost the Association money (e.g. file a lien), so as treasurer, I make those recommendations at the meeting. We may discuss them a bit, take the vote and that's that. Although I manage the details, the board is always informed of what's going on because someone will have to take this over someday (the end of next year specifically!) and that way they can remain consistent.

If you prefer to discuss this only in executive session, that's a good idea, also - you might want to schedule this at a certain time in the meeting, so if anyone else is at the meeting you can cannounce the Board is going into general session and why and they need to leave. I know others on this board would like to know names and addresses of who hasn't paid, but I've always felt that usually won't lead to the Association getting its money.

Once upon a time, most people were shamed into doing the right thing because it wasn't cool to be a deadbeat, but today, everyone seems to love the idea of getting something for nothing, even if it hurts a lot of people. If revealing the names of delinquent homeowners would get the Association its money, I'd say bring it on, but I haven't heard of any association where they named names and got anything.

Then, we have the people who got into financial difficulty because of job loss, major medical illness, etc. - they're already scared and embarrased about their situation, so why complicate matters by splashing their name all over the community - especially if they're making an effort to bring the account current?

Our Board doesn't take the "shaming" route either--we just think it would be wrong given that some folks have fallen behind due to personal tragedies, etc. "Shaming" suggests that those behind are solely deadbeats.