Resident doesn't want name listed in minutes

Sounds like a good idea but in my association we record the names of all who attend whether they speak or not.

I had a policy of IF you wrote a letter it would be read at the OPEN meeting in front of everyone in attendance. It was a BOARD meeting after all and it was OPEN. Now we did not usually reveal names. We referred to people in terms of lot numbers. That way we are still OPEN but have some kind of decorum.

However, if you wanted something or had a complaint, that was requested you do that in person at the meeting. My opinion is if you want something bad enough or it upsets you, then doing it in person is the way to go.

People were still upset I read their letters but what else where we supposed to do? You want a board decision, the board is only together at the open meeting. So expect your issue to be discussed in such a way the membership can see the decision and why it is made. Plus we welcomed membership feedback too. It is the membership money we are in charge of. They had a right to know how and why we decided.

Duane

My first blush is your minutes are to long/inclusive. Generally there is not need to enter what anyone specifically said.

Minutes do not contain word for word what happened or what was said nor by whom. If they did, they would be 50 pages long. Motions made must be recorded and the resulting vote recorded but there is no need to list what was said and by whom. You could have an hours worth on conversations, comments, etc, on a Motion before it was acted on.

There should be a general comments in the Minutes: Landscaping was discussed with owners making several complaints. There were also several letters from owners about the same issues. The BOD will take the complaints under advisement and discuss them with our landscaping company. There is no need to identify each person and what each person said.

If somebody says well I want to go on the record about so and so, then ask them to write a letter to the BOD and it will then be on the record. No need for their letter nor name to be in the minutes.

Many BOD's have an open session prior to the BOD Meeting. Some call it a Question and Answer Session. It is a time for the BOD to listen and take things under advisement. The BOD does not even have to respond other then yes we have heard what you have said and we will take it under advisement. This session is not part of the minutes.

In some states once the BOD Meeting is called to order only Members of the BOD can speak. Others can only speak when called on by the BOD to do so. This makes for an orderly, not a cluster "kiss" meeting.

clarification: when referring to recording of names not being a requirement, I meant other than for attendance purposes.

Meeting minutes are the record of official actions taken during the proceedings. What is an official action? It is this: "I move that...", "I second the motion...", and the results of the vote.

Minutes should not contain the details of discussions. In the case of homeowners who present various concerns to the executive board, the minutes may simply state: "The board heard the concerns of several homeowners and took the matters under advisement."

Minutes, when properly done, are marked by clarity and brevity.

The Board was on, would only respond to anonymous letters if they concerned a health or safety issue. Sometimes people fear retaliation if they report a neighbor. IMO owners should be able to have a valid health or safety issue addressed without having to identify themselves and risk creating friction or bad blood, between them and a neighbor. We had to apply discretion in these matters, and paid no attention to gossip and rumors.

While our official position is anonymous letters get trashed. That said, we will still look at the issue and if we find it warrants action we will commence the action under the BOD's name.

common sense & balance all that's needed.

..... then resident should remain silent

DOH

IMO
The more unnecessary details included in the minutes, the more likely that the homeowners will overly scrutinize them which leads to more problems and headaches for all. They're meant to be brief and concise, that's why they call them minutes not hours, right? They're about actions taken at a meeting, that's the most important part to be officially recorded. Board members or anyone really can take their own notes, keep record of them and even ask that they be kept on file, there's no law against that.

Although that would be in compliance with most governing documents and applicable laws, I personally think that if a non-member resident took the time and made the effort to attend a Board meeting, that I would want to hear what they had to say. It may or may not be beneficial to the Association. However, providing it's not just a gripe session, it would be the civil thing to do.

I agree recording would be an easy solution to address any concerns one may have.

Has this been going on for a long time? Have you or anyone else brought this to the attention of the board? Would recording the meetings be an option or allowed?

I think it is always problematic when you raise the question of who rather than what. The question IMO should be centered on what goes in the minutes, and in that regard, I follow all of JohnC's perspectives and not JanetB's. (If you are focused on inclusion for CYA purposes, I don't think it will work because disgruntled people can always find fault with the way you present their perspectives.)

Our approach in my HOA is simple. Decisions of the Board and Votes of the Membership are described in irrefutable detail. Anything else gets a reference. Either we say ABC was discussed (if the Board participated in the conversation) or concerns about DEF were raised (if the dialog came mostly from the floor). No individual names attached. If you want to know who said what, then come to the meeting. If you want to see your name in print, too bad.

Our most recent addition to our practices is - If someone expresses a very strong opinion about an issue, we authorize the formation of a study group to discuss and make a written recommendation to the board. We announce the formation of the group and openly recruit participants. Usually, it dies on the vine because people don't usually sign up to do the heavy lifting of deciding how to deal with two sides of a controversy. But two groups have formed and been useful to our HOA.

IMO, this approach could work in reverse for Cf. Rather than complain about what the Board is doing wrong, ask if the Board would authorize and endorse a group to study and make written recommendations about how to better comply with the state/HOA requirements. Then recruit members to come up with a recommended action plan. The larger the group, the better you will be heard. Your plan should have a one page executive summary in plain english that makes a few simple recommendations that would improve your meetings. It may be that your board doesn't know any better. But by taking these steps, you will be advancing your agenda (about how things are done) in ways that are hard to suppress.

Differentiating between Process (how things are done) and Outcome (what ultimately happens) is critically important. Yet many people have a hard time distinguishing between the two. The first thing you may need to do is make it clear to your board that if the process is fair and reasonable, you are willing to accept the consequences even if you don't agree. Sounds simple, but many board members I have met become extremely defensive when challenged - and they retreat into their shells when challenged for any reason whatsoever.

So the choice really is to keep on complaining or to figure out how you can get your message across in a way that might have a better chance of success.

NpS,

I was simply pointing out what our board practices in the board meeting minutes. There needn't be a study group to figure out that this practice is very wrong, and based on the posts here most would agree. Minutes shouldn't be used as a canvass to paint a story.

I also agree with Jon and Janet as to what should be included in minutes and what shouldn't be.

But we disagree on the need for a study group to recommend to the board how they should comply with the law and our governing documents. Best practices and resources for BODs are readily available. We also PAY a property manager to guide our board to comply with the governing documents and state law, and the property manager is regulated by the state of Virginia. Compliance shouldn't be a study group recommendation.

You said this: "Differentiating between Process (how things are done) and Outcome (what ultimately happens) is critically important. Yet many people have a hard time distinguishing between the two". Not sure what you are implying, but I have no problem distinguishing between the two. "Process" is as important in an HOA as "Outcome", maybe more important. What was your point?

In fact, as often cited on this site, homeowners are often disapproved, fined, or brought to court because they failed to adhere to the application approval "process", regardless of what the outcome was.

http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_9b119670-e83b-570f-a28d-97b3009d7f24.html

Thanks for the clarification NpS. Will look into your book recommendation.

Thanks for your comments Amanda.