Meeting recordings

CF,

Refresh my understanding, are these recordings part of Association records (as the Board recorded them) or are they your personal recordings?

Depending on the site you use, password protection is certainly an option.

However, I would only give the password to those who request it, vs. blanket authority to all members.

Better control.

This way you know that the individuals you gave the password to are:
1) Actual Members of the Association
2) Are actually interested in finding this info out.

Additionally, this may limit the number of passwords that are tossed out with the trash, left in e-mails, etc. (that will be hacked sometime in the future - as this will happen with all e-mails at some point in time) which may delay what you desired - access to everyone.

As a side note: Just as I believe every e-mail account will, at some point in time, be compromised, I strongly believe that anything you place on the internet will also be compromised. Expect it and only place those things out there that you don't mind being shared.

Granted, I may be cynical a bit in that side note. However, I've been notified that my SSN has been hacked at least 5 times (mainly from Government systems), that my Credit card info has been taken 3 times (that I know of - mainly from retail) and my full credit history has recently been taken (thank you T-Mobile). I can only expect that there are a lot of other times this has also occurred and I wasn't informed of the issue.

I'm not offended, but I am surprised Larry. Most board members posting here consistently say homeowners need to be more involved in some capacity. In my view, this would be a start for some. The whole idea of volunteering for a committee or being elected to a board is intimidating to most homeowners I talk to. In my view this could help some get past that fear.

I agree most would be put off with hours and hours of mundane board meeting rhetoric...but some of our board meetings are rather interesting, even exciting!

I'm thinking of developing a blog site that highlights the many good things our neighborhood does, and of course, the areas where our board and committees need guidance. You may suggest that is what a property manager is for, but most of you already know our PM also needs guidance.

I'd probably post every meeting recording in its complete form, but also have shortened, edited versions of perhaps 5 minutes or so for each meeting to act as a sort of highlight reel. These are audio recordings.

The minute anyone gives their "personal" overview or summary (the meat) of a meeting I say it becomes suspect. Give them the word for word transcription/recording and let them decide versus "slant" it.

I believe that anyone showing up at all meetings and recording all has an issue, axe to grind, or looking to create havoc but that is just my personal view. Participate he!!. They are looking to hang someone.

For the following reasons I would not advocate video taping all meetings:

1) People act differently on camera then off camera.
2) Some individuals may not like the way they look or sound on video/audio. This can prevent them from speaking up or (worse) serving at all.
3) Archival of Video - Video takes a lot of digital space.
4) Association maintained video/audio is discoverable in any legal action.
5) Video and audio recordings can be edited.

I have zero problems if a member wants to record a meeting. I'm simply against the Association recording a meeting.

Streaming a meeting live has the same issues associated with it as recording a meeting. However, it can eliminate #3, #4 and #5.

My personal opinion is, if a member is interested enough to view live video or recorded video of a Board meeting they should actually come to the meeting where their input can be made during the decision process.

Is this a board member/non-board member opinion poll? I read lots of excuses/reasons why board members should not be completely transparent and accountable to their constituency, and this is disappointing. This cannot reasonably occur in the business Minutes which, as people have commented, can be a nearly-unrecognizable version of the meeting. There is a depth and breadth of information in the statements and comments and body language of Board members that cannot be captured in Minutes--which only records the end action taken. Video-recording provides the information that owners will use to judge the performance of board members and either re-elect them or let them go. Isn't that how the "system" is supposed to work?

Board members put themselves out there when they volunteer to serve and they do it for personal reasons. If transparency is a desired business model of an HOA, it should be understood that board members are public figures and will be observed closely. This includes video recording, which is both protective of board members as well as possibly injurious on review.

I endeavor to be as objective as I can when summarizing and I do understand the unavoidable risk of spinning reality in a summary. That is why I started with transcription; one cannot spin a transcription. Indeed, I use transcription when the conversation is hot during a meeting. Best judgement is always flawed, but my goal is to be an accurate reporter to the people who cannot attend a meeting--and this includes a lot of the elderly in my community as well as the people who live 2000 miles away and rent out their units. If I stray too much from objectivity, people will stop reading--and I will have failed to accomplish the goal.

Here is an interesting sidenote; my HOA has purchased Very Expensive Video Recording equipment. They routinely arrange video records of informal weekly KoffeeKlatches and Sunday morning church services. We record "special events" and board-sponsored "informational meetings" and posts these videos on the official website. Despite MANY MANY pleas over the years that video records pf board meetings be made available to owners who are absent from the park/meetings, Boards have refused to even discuss this. They have not said "NO"--they simply and steadfastly refuse to discuss. Nature abhors a vacuum and that is why I produce independent board meeting "unofficial minutes".

IMO, there ARE many legitimate reasons to video-record these meetings!

The media in this country do this every day of our lives John. Everyone is free to interpret what they hear and add any opinion they wish. Sadly, fair reporting went out the window decades ago.

Where I agree with you is that care should be taken to fairly represent the truth without slanting or skewing the facts.

CF,

You may have only heard them from Board members because that is who you deal with. I've dealt with government and recordings. The same concerns apply there as well.

Keep in mind, I said that live streaming (vs. recording and archiving) eliminates many of those issues. To better clarify the basis for those issues:

1) People act differently on camera then off camera.
I work in broadcasting. I have worked in high level broadcasting. I've personally seen people act differently on and off camera (talent and guest). Additionally, there are several U-tube videos of people saying stupid things thinking that the camera or mike was turned off.

2) Some individuals may not like the way they look or sound on video/audio. This can prevent them from speaking up or (worse) serving at all.
I'm not saying everyone is like this but there are a few and anything that may limit the number of individuals willing to serve can be an issue for any Association. Personally, I would be one who would not serve if the cameras were always rolling.

3) Archival of Video - Video takes a lot of digital space.
Anyone who has edited their own home movies knows that video storage takes a large amount of digital space.

4) Association maintained video/audio is discoverable in any legal action.
Video is being used in courts (and the court of public opinion) all the time. Look at Police body cameras as an example.

5) Video and audio recordings can be edited.
I, and I am not an editor, can edit video to slant the issue to a specific position.
If your good, and have the right equipment, time code can be edited as well.

What we bring to the table as directors, ultimately, is our votes. Just recording motions, etc., is not "sugar coating." That's all that's supposed to be in the minutes.

Minutes should not record who said what to whom during discussion whether is was complimentary, snide or disgusting. Occasionally, though, a director might want something in the record, e.g., reasons for a "no" vote, which can happen if other directors agree. Or sometimes a thank you to committees, or some other volunteers for their service.

Tomorrow night, for instance, we're presenting a retiring director with a gift thanking him for his six years of service. That'll go in the minutes.

But, surely some other Owners attend your board meetings and tell their neighbors jerks some directors are, yes?
what
In the world of qualitative research methods, which often includes audio recording research subjects, they forget about the recording device very quickly, This is documented repeatedly in the research about such research methods. But I don't know about video recordings except that it's much harder to control one's body language and facial expressions than one's words.

But, so....more homeowners, IF they listen/watch these recordings, will know about the conduct of directors and that some are nasty, some are incompetent, some are arrogant. I guess that can help wonrs choose their votes at the next election. But I can 't say the best way to disseminate these recordings.

Well put, Sue!

Dangerous, in what way? You must mean the board members may be in danger of having people actually "hear" some of their idiocy at times.

If all the talk means nothing, then what do you believe executive session is for?

I'm of the opinion that if no "discussion" needs to take place, there should be no meeting at all.

Ah, now it seems that the division is between the "bottom line" folks and the "process" folks. If you are a bottom line thinker, it's only the votes and actions that count and Minutes are sufficient disclosure to owners. If you are a process thinker, you want to know how the bottom line was arrived at i.e. who said what, the tone and manner of discussion, the interaction between directors and owners in the audience (if permitted by directors), who voted which way on a motion.

I have found that there are rich contextual metamessages in the process and that is what being present at meetings conveys to the attendees. There are no substitutes for actually being there. But, owners who are at their northern homes (80% of owners)or cannot attend the early morning meetings deserve access to their business meeting! IMO, the best and easiest way to do this is video recording and posting on the corporation's official website, along with the Minutes.

Absent that, the information void will be filled by someone or gossip. The casual reporter has a responsibility to convey both an accurate bottom line and also a contextual framework. Anyone can read the Minutes and get the "bottom line". My readers-absentee owners-want more detailed information and that is why I attempt to convey with a variety of communications: description of environment, summary of actions taken and discussion of business, transcription of words spoken, and audio posting. Audio posting is very important to validate the summary should there be any doubts as to accuracy.

Well, I will repeat my HOA's story as to why meetings should not be recorded and written minutes need to be short and factual:

Our HOA takes care of several bridges. A homeowner damaged a bridge during construction. The bridge was closed to car and truck traffic. Only the construction companies continued to use the bridge. Another homeowner complained that he could not get his family (grandma) over the bridge for thanksgiving dinner. The president said, "I don't care if grandma can't get over the bridge, that bridge stays closed to traffic." That quote was put into the minutes, verbatim.

Long story short - our HOA was sued by the homeowner (emotional distress and rule was not equally enforced). We settled out of court for $12,000 and it cost us another $20,000 for court/lawyer costs.

These meetings are not hearings. You have common citizens discussing things, trying to come up with the best solution. Some folks don't have a filter on their mouth. Things are said that are opinions and often emotional. Just where those comments land- whether in written minutes or in recordings - can be a liability for the HOA.

Look, Kerry, it doesn't surprise me at all that you would turn an honest question with honest intentions into an accusation against a poster. Anyone that looks at your previous posts can easily see your history of verbal bashing.

Aren't all opinions biased? That's why they call them opinions.

Sue

The President was an A$$ for saying such and should pay some type of penalty. He could have easily said I am sorry but for safety sake, the bridge must remained closed.

Shame on him, not shame on the recording.

JohnC46 posted:
I am all for recording (video and/or audio) and making it in its entire context available to any member requesting such.
My issue is with those "reporting" on portions and the slant they can bring to such a report.

Gosh, John you are talking about two different things here: discussion as opposed to reporting! Responsible reporters/journalists go to great pains to avoid introducing bias in their reports. "Slants" (spins)are a discrete layer of usually intentional distortion of facts--misinformation--disinformation--misdirection--innuendo--lies--.

What a boring world where no one discusses community business or offers different points of view! What could be so dangerous about owners reading alternative opinions? What is so treacherous about editorializing that gives you an issue? Do you think people are so gullible that they would not recognize a slanted report and judge it accordingly?

IMO, reporting is one thing...and thoughtful and knowledgeable editorializing is another. I do both on my forum. I also transcribe selections and post complete audio for all to access at will. All these vehicles of communication are valuable to provide facts and encourage thought and discussion.

Again, I could not agree with Gwen more. She is exactly right.

If anyone here sits on an HOA board and is worried that someone may have a different opinion than you, and actually voice it to other homeowners, you have no business sitting on a board, period.

Multiple individuals here have repeatedly said we agree that deliberately misinforming the members, or otherwise deliberately painting a board member in a bad light would be wrong. Kerry and John, in this we agree.

But the simple fact of the matter is, unless a board member is being slandered in any way, unless there is liable, or unless defamation is occurring, a board member can't do anything about anyone sharing their opinions concerning what the board is deliberating. Opinions are just that, opinions...even if they are "slanted".

In my HOA I don't even think I need to add anything at all to a 5 minute version of each board meeting. I'm sure I can simply let the board members own words speak for themselves. That's how sure I am that homeowners will see that our board intentionally distorts facts, misdirects information, and otherwise sometimes deliberately uses obfuscation to confuse the homeowners in the minutes or through email sent to individuals throughout the neighborhood.

John and Kerry, I respect your right to have your opinion, but I'm genuinely curious...can you share with us all an example of this "slanting" you are so fearful of.

CfD

As asked for:

When we write, we depend on a store of knowledge, acquired in the past or being currently acquired through research. This knowledge is based on what we notice, that is, what we select, from a larger body of information available. This selection, consciously or unconsciously, is determined by our personal interests and objectives.

Take, for example, the examination of a large tree in the forest by three people: a lumberjack, an artist, and a tree surgeon. There are, of course, an infinitely large number of facts and observations which could be made about a tree, but the ones chosen by each of those three would be very different. Each of the three would select observations particular to his/her own interests and purposes. The lumberjack would be thinking about how much wood he might get when he cuts the tree down and would be considering the best way to cut the tree and to transport it. The artist would be focusing on the color, the shape and the beauty of the tree in order to depict it in art. In turn, the tree surgeon would be looking for signs of the tree’s health and age.

Before committing to audio recordings, make sure your written minutes are of a depth and information quality as to make a listening session a moot point. The board's official decisions are what matters, not the chatter leading to the decision (at least, in the vast majority of cases).

Good meeting notes are of a much better importance than audio.

CfD posted:
Yes, they can go to the meetings and hear this themselves, but few have the time.

And in the case of my retirement community, people do not go to 9am board meetings for various reasons; such as:
1- most physician appointments/tests are in the morning -or- people do not get up that early
2- some cannot hear, see or walk well and have difficulty with unfamiliar physical obstacles
3- some have personal hygiene concerns which cannot be easily attended to in a public setting
4- some need to sit in a larger chair with feet elevated that is not a cheap, uncomfortable folding chair
5- MANY owners live thousands of miles away in another country

There are many more legit reasons why owners cannot attend their board meetings. There is no really good substitute for being there to get the facts, the between-the-lines impressions, a clear identification of speakers and the metamessages. Meeting Minutes only satisfy a legal requirement and are no substitute for actual audio and/or visual records. Summaries done by persons striving for objectivity and neutrality are the next best way to convey a lot of information.

In my Florida community, there is a longstanding recognition of the demand for videorecordings of social meetings, special events and church services and these are all provided and watched by many retired owners who have lots of time on their hands. Owners here do not understand why their board refuses to even discuss videorecording the board meetings. The only remaining remedy is owner-self help. If the board resents owners doing recordings and posting summaries and editorials on websites, they can choose to provide videorecordings and extended, detailed Minutes of board meetings.

Create an MP3 file and send it via email to any home owner who wants a copy. That's very easy from a technical standpoint.

JohnC46 posted:

Shelia

Much of this conversation concerned two who were recording their BOD Meetings then slicing and dicing but claiming they were being objective, which I questioned.

John you are NOT questioning anything. You are assuming that the "two" are slicing and dicing and not being objective. The "two" have already presented reasons for trying to find the best vehicle of getting information about HOA business to the owners--the goal of the OP. One of the "two" is a responsible community editor and administrator of a community website for 5 years and has a steadfast committment to maintaining an objective website where owners can get accurate facts, free access 24/7 to meeting summaries and recordings and have confidence that editorials are supported by objective data.

There is no reason, except for dogged bias and perhaps paranoia, to posit that the "two" are spinning the news or "slicing and dicing" i.e. cutting recorded material to achieve out of context "gotchas" and/or inserting clips of material to create a false picture (a highly technical and difficult to achieve undertaking). Your assumption that is the what the "two" are doing is distasteful, misleading and not supported by any facts.

Slicing and dicing of video is not that hard to do. Sure, it's probably beyond the ability of 99% of the average homeowner, but it's not hard at all and there are many tools and utilities that will allow you to do it. Some of the best ones are even free. Time consuming, yes. Hard to do? Not at all.

I sympathize with those who want to record their meetings. I think quite often things are said that never make it into the minutes and when things get contentious having a record of that could be invaluable.

JohnC46, I agree. If I was to do it I'd just put the whole thing out there and call attention to the timestamps where the interesting things were said.