Putting Security Cameras to a Member vote

Call your local police department to find out their opinion. You may want to form a neighborhood watch system. That would be completely separate from the HOA. The video system sounds good but without laws to be able to enforce what it tapes, does nothing. Video only captures AFTER the crime is committed. Not very often does it ever stop a crime. If it did, how would you know?

The police would be the best resource to tell you how best or even if you should install such a system.

Board vote not owners.

I like the idea of cameras but why would they want everyone to have access? They should only be checked after something happens to see if they show the offender.

Douglas while I agree with others that this is a Board decision, if this many members are for it, why not take a vote since the homeowners will ultimately be the ones who pay for not only the cameras but their upkeep and eventual replacement. Although if it is a gated entrance, I don't know that cameras there would be all that effective in preventing crime, I doubt the bad guys are ringing the bell and hoping to be let in, I would imagine if mischief were afoot they would climb the wall or scale the berm, whatever else besides the gate protects your little slice of Utopia.

BTW What do your CC&R's say about Capital Improvements? Ours requires a HO vote if the amount is over $2,000.00.

I saw nothing in FL Statute 720 that gave authority for capital expenditures to the membership. Therefore, the only ways the membership could force the Board to install cameras would, in my opinion, be:

1) Replace enough individuals on the Board who agree with having the cameras

2) Propose an amendment to the governing documents that cameras will be installed and call a special meeting of the membership to vote on proposed amendment

3) Bring enough pressure that the Board finally gives in. Pressure can be brought by the use of surveys, attending every board meeting and constantly speak about the subject, letters, e-mail, advisory petitions, etc.

This is the Boards decision. However, if desired, the Board can relinquish this authority to the membership with a binding vote.

The Board sets the agenda of membership meetings that they call unless the governing documents specify otherwise.
I would recommend providing an opportunity to discuss said issue (make sure you have the facts and figures (for both installation & upkeep) and the stats of the polling) at the meeting.

Keep in mind that the survey was likely more of an indication then holding a vote (as attending said meeting is more effort then filling out a short survey). If the Board holds a vote, then the membership will expect it to be a binding vote. Therefore, it's best to not hold a vote unless the Board will abide by it (because this will cause other issues if the Board goes against the vote).

The Board needs to put together a one page, paper explaining the issue. Use bullet points rather then long explanations (simply provide the longer explanation on the Associations website).

One way to turn pressure off of the issue is, using the facts (perhaps actual bids) for the installation of said camera, power, internet service, etc. mention that as this is a capital improvement, the Board would need a special assessment to make such improvement. People tend to turn down things they don't really need if the money comes out of their pocket.

Thanks for the responses, especially those who answered the questions asked and didn't go off an other camera related tangents.

Our docs require 1/3 of the owners (22) for a quorum at the member's meeting. One concern I have about voting at the annual meeting is that they typically aren't well attended, and we often struggle to get a quorum. If this happens and we vote at the meeting, a fairly small number of owners will make the decision for everyone.

George,
There was much discussion about who could have access and under what circumstances. There were concerns that some owners felt the board was "keeping secrets" if they didn't share the access to everyone. That's also what the proponents (president et al.) suggested. The other thought is that if anyone gets a call from the gate, the owner could look at the camera before deciding to allow access.

Kerry,
We've had a few problems with car "break-ins", mostly from vehicles left unlocked. Since the president's last name starts with "A", he is the first name on the gate panel, and on a couple occasions he has gotten middle of the night calls from the gate that he deems "suspicious". Another owner noted that one of those coincided with an occasion where we appeared to have a replacement newspaper delivery person, who might have not had the access code.

Glen,

Our docs don't say anything about capital improvements needing homeowner approval.

Tim,

I'm going to suggest option 1, and respond to the president that this is the boards decision, if he and his cronies aren't happy with it, then vote in some board members who are in favor. Since the rest of the board is against, they probably would not agree to put cameras to a member vote during the annual meeting. It has already been decided by the board, for around the 3rd time in 4 years.

The amount of money (assuming the president's numbers are correct and he hasn't missed anything) is around $30/house for install and $20/house per year on-going. This would be incorporated into next year's budget and wouldn't require a special assessment.

We're still concerned that the president will try some end run to get a vote on the annual meeting agenda. I'm not sure that we shouldn't consider replacing the president before then. He is mainly in that role because the long term prior president wanted out from the position (he is still on the board and might be convinced to take on that role again) and nobody else wanted the position. Now he seems to be letting the title go to his head.

We have a gated limited access community with a guard at the entry area 24 hours per day. We also have video surveillance - only the management company and/or board members are able to access the information.

We have lots of residents who ask to look at the cameras, but we don't release footage unless the police ask us directly for it, or if it is subpeonaed.

It was originally viewable online by all residents, but it was felt that kids were utilizing it to see just what areas were out of range (we had a big issue with vandalism at that time).

douglas

With all those open approaches to your neighborhood, I say a camera system is a waste of money.

That's how 4/5 of the board feels about it too, but the president and a vocal minority won't let it rest.

We have a similar situation of open access on foot. We installed dummy video cameras at the entry/exit roads. The cameras have motion sensors, so lights flash when there's activity. No actual recording. If I remember correctly, cost for 2 cameras and batteries was less than $100. Cheap alternative.

Thx Kerry. Here's what DS has to say:
"Even if they deter some criminal activity, dummy cameras create potential liability for the association because they create an expectation in owners and visitors that the association is monitoring the common area. In my opinion, it is better to spend the money to have working cameras. In addition, some insurance companies may offer discounts to associations that have working security cameras."

Will look into the insurance benefit of having real cameras.

Not really concerned about liability of the dummy cameras. In our opinion, better than nothing. Most homeowners don't even know that we put up the dummies. Got maybe half a dozen inquiries. Always tell anyone who asks that they are dummies.

I agree George. In 2008 a few days before I moved into my apartment in the condo, I was a movie about a gated community. In this gated community, one could even see by television into the neighbors homes. Without going into detail it was more of a horror movie than anything else.