Quote:
Posted By KerryL1 on 12/24/2015 12:56 PM
So, Richard, please review CA Civ. Code 4910 (b) (1) & (2). Please start a new thread with your analysis as this has nothing to do with FL.
Kerry
You need to do some research on SB563. It's sole purpose was to eliminate "Actions without a Meeting, which are in almost every Bylaws within the United States. Even the heading, Board Action Outside of Meeting Prohibited should be quite clear to anyone. I would hope by now, and as a Board member, you know the difference between action and discussion.
What was "Action without a Meeting? It was Board meetings on specific, sometimes multiple topics, held by email, that ACTIONS were taken. The protocol was to include, by resolution, what actions were taken, in the very next minutes of the next meeting of the Board.
If you think you can't have a fair discussion on a topic between meetings and then bring a summary to the community before a vote, maybe you shouldn't be a Board member.
Let me give everyone an example. In 2011, I did quite of bit of research on smart irrigation controllers for our common area landscape. Our annual expense for water was $293K. If installed, over the years, would save the association tens of thousands of dollars. I fought like hell to get approved. I emailed the entire Board over 200 pages of documentation and analysis. Because I wanted this approved, I made sure that I had a positive consensus prior to putting to a vote. The email discussion went on for about month while their questions were being research. Once I did have an affirmative consensus, the whole community was informed about the program and the date for the discussion and possible approval.
The controllers were approved and the net savings to the association over the past 4 years has been $300K.
You can't continue to recite as gospel opinions from one law firm. You need to look at the opinion and see if it really matches with the intent of the legislators. I find much on davis-stirling.com useful. But in researching the opinions, I have come to find them way off base.
As much as some of the things I have said may have been wrong, so are those of an attorney. You don't need to have a law degree to interpret legislation, just common sense and a sense of history.