Can a homeowner send his representative to a open board meeting?

Started by YijiaW • 24 replies • 2343 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

YijiaW (California)
Posts: 23

Posted:

Hi, one of the homeowners wants to send his brother in his place to our open board meeting later this week. Our governing documents do not limit who can or can not attend open meetings but David's Sterling Act specify that according to industry standard, spouses are allowed. What about a relative that has been authorized by the homeowner?

Thanks

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 1,767

Posted:

If challenged, they would probably need a power of attorneys signed by the homeowner and notarized.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

You've told us in a previous post, Yidjia, that you are an HOA of seven units. And that your Board only is two directors even though your bylaws call for three. You, a directors, & the president have some differences of opinion.

If I had some say, I'd include the owner's brother because your HOA is so small. As you probably read at davis-stirling.com (note correct site name), you aren't required to allow him to attend, but it's up to your board since some boards permit tenants to attend.

Another option is to have the owner participate by conference call so long as the owner can hear all of the deliberations, and everyone present can hear heim

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

I was initially going to say no. There is nothing at a Board meeting that the member is voting on therefore, there may be no right to proxy. davis-stirling's site seems to support this.

However, I will defer to Richard as he is far more knowledgeable than I in CA laws.

If you are attending a Hearing before the Board, you would be allowed to send a representative or bring an adviser with you.

Note: Board members may not attend a board meeting by proxy.

YijiaW (California)
Posts: 23

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By KerryL1 on 08/18/2014 10:12 AM
You've told us in a previous post, Yidjia, that you are an HOA of seven units. And that your Board only is two directors even though your bylaws call for three. You, a directors, & the president have some differences of opinion.

If I had some say, I'd include the owner's brother because your HOA is so small. As you probably read at davis-stirling.com (note correct site name), you aren't required to allow him to attend, but it's up to your board since some boards permit tenants to attend.

Another option is to have the owner participate by conference call so long as the owner can hear all of the deliberations, and everyone present can hear heim

I have no problem with the homeowners brother attending any open board meetings. But the other board member and the management company are the ones we have to fight against. The management company has kicked out members spouses including my own husband because they are not on the title, hence no membership privilege. This was before I discovered Davis Stirling Act and we didn't know that spouses can attend. I just want some concrete information so that when the management company tries to kick him out we have something concrete to backup our reason.

YijiaW (California)
Posts: 23

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 08/18/2014 9:52 AM
If challenged, they would probably need a power of attorneys signed by the homeowner and notarized.

Thank you Richard. I will let him know about this option.

Thank you.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By YijiaW on 08/18/2014 10:28 AM

This was before I discovered Davis Stirling Act and we didn't know that spouses can attend. I just want some concrete information so that when the management company tries to kick him out we have something concrete to backup our reason.

What is technically allowed and what is industry practice are two different things.

Technically, as I read the statute, only members may attend. Members are defined by whose name is on the deed.
However, common courtesy and industry practice has been to allow spouses to attend.

Therefore, technically your MC would be correct (based on the statute) by not allowing anyone other then members attend.

If push comes to shove, since there are only two of you, vote on the matter but word the issue this way:
"motion to not allow xyz to stay in the meeting."
Vote: 1 yea 1 nay.
Tie vote, motion fails - xyz may stay for the meeting.

LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099

Posted:

FYI, the answer to this varies by state.

In Arizona a member may send someone in his place to attend a board meeting with written authorization, per statute.

RwT (Florida)
Posts: 154

Posted:

The law typically spells out who has a RIGHT to attend, as does the D-S one cited.
It does not prevent or specifically exclude non-members per se.
Thus the corp. has the law on their side if they do not wish non-members to attend. Whether this is in the best interest of the corp. is another matter.

* Non-Lawyer spokesperson.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

So far as I know, Yijia, only directors can ask people to leave meetings. I don't believe your PM has any such authority.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

So far as I know, Yijia, only directors can ask people to leave meetings. I don't believe your PM has any such authority.

BillH10 (Texas)
Posts: 1,217

Posted:

I agree the PM does not have the authority to exclude a person from the meeting, that is the duty of the President or whomever is presiding.

However, it is our experience that board members are not cognizant of Robert's Rules and other "guidelines", including association governing documents which may describe how meetings are to be managed. That is one of the reasons for having a PM. He or she should have that knowledge.

If any of you are fans of "Big Bang Theory" you will have observed Rajesh whispering into Howard's ear from time to time. As the PM, we do the same, although the whispering of Rajesh is far more entertaining than ours. In fact, in the association in which we live, the PM chairs both the BOD and Annual Meetings at the direction of the board and we are recommending to the boards of associations we manage that they consider the same approach. With some exceptions, the Presidents are relieved they do not have to chair meetings. The meetings run more smoothly and we can be more effective at managing processes without creating resentments.

As a real life example, during a meeting some months ago in which a President was presiding over a meeting, a property owner in attendance entered into the discussion between board members which was taking place after a motion and second had been made. A genuinely offered, not disruptive or belligerent stray comment or two, while technically out of order, is often best left alone. The comment itself was worthy of consideration, just not in that context.

However, this person continued to engage the board in a discussion of the merits of the motion. This was clearly out of order and it was necessary that we quietly advise the President that the property owner in attendance was out of order unless he choose to ask for input from those in attendance.

We asked for a brief recess and briefed the President and the board that he had to either ask the property owner to refrain from commenting or, he should open the discussion to the the floor for comments. Now, I doubt the council of the city in which we live would ask for comments under similar circumstances after the resident comment period which is always offered, and I know both the Texas legislature or the Congress of the United States would not do so in similar circumstances.

This was an HOA, not Rick Perry being indicted, and the matter was not earth shattering. It generally makes more sense in a small meeting environment to allow property owners to provide input during a clearly defined period opened for comment by the meeting chair and which is clearly reflected in the minutes should there be subsequent fallout.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 1,767

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By BillH10 on 08/19/2014 6:33 PM
I agree the PM does not have the authority to exclude a person from the meeting, that is the duty of the President or whomever is presiding.

However, it is our experience that board members are not cognizant of Robert's Rules and other "guidelines", including association governing documents which may describe how meetings are to be managed. That is one of the reasons for having a PM. He or she should have that knowledge.

If any of you are fans of "Big Bang Theory" you will have observed Rajesh whispering into Howard's ear from time to time. As the PM, we do the same, although the whispering of Rajesh is far more entertaining than ours. In fact, in the association in which we live, the PM chairs both the BOD and Annual Meetings at the direction of the board and we are recommending to the boards of associations we manage that they consider the same approach. With some exceptions, the Presidents are relieved they do not have to chair meetings. The meetings run more smoothly and we can be more effective at managing processes without creating resentments.

As a real life example, during a meeting some months ago in which a President was presiding over a meeting, a property owner in attendance entered into the discussion between board members which was taking place after a motion and second had been made. A genuinely offered, not disruptive or belligerent stray comment or two, while technically out of order, is often best left alone. The comment itself was worthy of consideration, just not in that context.

However, this person continued to engage the board in a discussion of the merits of the motion. This was clearly out of order and it was necessary that we quietly advise the President that the property owner in attendance was out of order unless he choose to ask for input from those in attendance.

We asked for a brief recess and briefed the President and the board that he had to either ask the property owner to refrain from commenting or, he should open the discussion to the the floor for comments. Now, I doubt the council of the city in which we live would ask for comments under similar circumstances after the resident comment period which is always offered, and I know both the Texas legislature or the Congress of the United States would not do so in similar circumstances.

This was an HOA, not Rick Perry being indicted, and the matter was not earth shattering. It generally makes more sense in a small meeting environment to allow property owners to provide input during a clearly defined period opened for comment by the meeting chair and which is clearly reflected in the minutes should there be subsequent fallout.

Be careful about talking about Rick Perry, as my name is Rick Perry!

BillH10 (Texas)
Posts: 1,217

Posted:

Yes Rick but you apparently live in California, my home state. ( I am a corporate transplant to Texas, class of 1997) I met a woman here from Arkansas (Arkansas? California? What can one do, oil and water. But here we are)

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 1,767

Posted:

My wife was stationed in Fort Hood.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By YijiaW on 08/18/2014 10:28 AM

I have no problem with the homeowners brother attending any open board meetings. But the other board member and the management company are the ones we have to fight against. The management company has kicked out members spouses including my own husband because they are not on the title, hence no membership privilege. This was before I discovered Davis Stirling Act and we didn't know that spouses can attend. I just want some concrete information so that when the management company tries to kick him out we have something concrete to backup our reason.

There appears to be 2 questions:
1. Can the brother attend?
2. Can the brother speak (and attempt to influence the proceedings)?
I would ask your other board member why he does or doesn't see the distinction between these 2 roles.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 1,767

Posted:

Why would there be two questions.

People are there to observe the proceeding, but have an opportunity to address the Board during Open Forum, which is mandated in Civil Code. If they can influence, more power to them.

YijiaW (California)
Posts: 23

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 08/20/2014 11:22 AM
Why would there be two questions.

People are there to observe the proceeding, but have an opportunity to address the Board during Open Forum, which is mandated in Civil Code. If they can influence, more power to them.

Hi Richard, are you saying that family members of the homeowner can attend open board meetings if they choose to come? I understand these meetings are off limit to the general public but I would think families are ok.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 1,767

Posted:

According to Civil Code, Any member may attend Board meetings, except when the Board adjourns or meeting in executive session. It doesn't state "Only". The Board may and should set their own policy as to attendance at Board meetings. As long as they are not disruptive, I see no problem. Questions should be directed through the Members, not others in attendance as guests.

In regards to the Annual Meetings or Special Meetings of the Members, I feel it should be reserved for Members only.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Personally I would allow only owners and/or their appointed representative to attend HOA Meetings.

I also say unless ones name is on the deed, they are not an owner.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

There may be a distinction between who has a right to attend/listen and who has a right to speak/vote/influence/be heard.

It depends on the HOA. The opportunity to "address the Board" that you speak of does not necessarily apply to all "people" who attend a meeting.

For example, in our HOA, all residents are invited to attend meetings. They could be renters or household members but not HOA members. If they are not HOA members, they lack voting authority unless the homeowner gives them their Proxy. And even then, it depends on the specific wording of the Proxy.

We have not had the occasion, but if needed, we would be comfortable restricting non-members from doing anything more than sitting in on the meeting. In our opinion, the right to sit in and the right to speak out are quite different.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 1,767

Posted:

Again, the question poised by the OP was attending, not speaking.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 08/20/2014 1:27 PM
Again, the question poised by the OP was attending, not speaking.

Yes. And by dividing people into 2 classes (those who can attend and those who can attend/speak), there may be a way that the OP can get things changed to her liking.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 1,767

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By NpS on 08/20/2014 1:42 PM

Posted By RichardP13 on 08/20/2014 1:27 PM
Again, the question poised by the OP was attending, not speaking.

Yes. And by dividing people into 2 classes (those who can attend and those who can attend/speak), there may be a way that the OP can get things changed to her liking.

That shouldn't be too difficult, there are a total of 7 homes.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

With only 7 homes, you certainly have a point.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here