Release of Resident Information

No, the MC performed the background check. End of story

It's a state law

Texas Property Code

Sec. 209.00591. BOARD MEMBERSHIP.

(a) Except as provided by this section, a provision in a dedicatory instrument that restricts a property owner's right to run for a position on the board of the property owners' association is void.

(b) If a board is presented with written, documented evidence from a database or other record maintained by a governmental law enforcement authority that a board member has been convicted of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude, the board member is immediately ineligible to serve on the board of the property owners' association, automatically considered removed from the board, and prohibited from future service on the board.

(c) The declaration may provide for a period of declarant control of the association during which a declarant, or persons designated by the declarant, may appoint and remove board members and the officers of the association, other than board members or officers elected by members of the property owners' association. Regardless of the period of declarant control provided by the declaration, on or before the 120th day after the date 75 percent of the lots that may be created and made subject to the declaration are conveyed to owners other than a declarant, at least one-third of the board members must be elected by owners other than the declarant. If the declaration does not include the number of lots that may be created and made subject to the declaration, at least one-third of the board members must be elected by owners other than the declarant not later than the 10th anniversary of the date the declaration was recorded.

Good digging : The Texas HOA law -as opposed to condo - does show a disqualification triggered by receipt of a governmental data base entry establishing moral turpitude conviction. ( Is that what was informed )

Given that such is likeliest within the public domain, any claim by the unseated to learn the identity of the data informer, could not be justified as a right to know who is accusing.

The accuser is not the public data discoverer.

Larry makes sense and I don't think we need to "know" the law to figure out that it's a very bad idea to give the person's name to the convicted felon. that he's even asking for the "informant's" name is suspect and creeps me out.

The right of an accuser to know one's (criminal) offence-accuser is a powerful civil liberties safeguard anywhere.

But this ain't the situation at all. Nor is it a (pre-conviction) matter of sorting out subjective contradictions between mere allegations & denials.

All an "identity" disclosure can do here - IF - IF a "moral turpitude" conviction is in the public record - is to discourage future alerts & endanger this alerter.

JeffJ7 Tx:

Making a mistake could destroy someone's reputation despite later attempts to correct. Please make absolutely sure there was a conviction and such was for "moral turpitude", which your organization's lawyer may clarify under Texas law.

Not a Directoral unseating but an absolutely outrageous error misidentifying a resident as a sex-ofender :

Jan 13 2014 “Accuracy Essential – Caution Advisable – for Condominium Boards Delivering Sexual Predator Warnings” by David Uitti & Dean T. Lennon –Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks PC Braintree Maryland

http://www.meeb.com/accuracy-essential-caution-advisable-for-condominium-boards-delivering-sexual-predator-warnings/