Cops called on board member for Recording HOA board for safety concerns

Yes.

First, hire your own attorney and file for an injunction against those board members causing you this grief. There is no legal basis that I know of for having the police remove an elected board member from a board meeting nor for prohibiting an elected board member from attending future meetings. This is not only an insult to you but also to all who voted for you as they have been effectively silenced. Your attorney may be able to advise you on this, but you may have a civil rights complaint against the police officer who removed you from the meeting.

Next, buy a .44 Magnum and shoot that attorney. Feel free to keep shooting until you are out of ammunition. He seems to be running the show and there is no legal basis for that to happen. From what I understood, he is not even the association's attorney - he works for the management company. He has no business attending your board meetings. He has no business advising your board. He has no business advising the cops. And his advice is crap. He does not deserve to live.

Finally, let everyone in your association know what happened. Mail out an informational letter to every member. If it is in the mail the board cannot interfere with its delivery.

Good luck. You are dealing with the board from Hell.

Why was the attorney there?
Who is the attorney billing for his time?
Why is the attorney going into separate discussions with 4 board members and leaving out 2 board members who weren't involved in the conflict?
There's more to this story.

Larry, thanks for your advice. I am going to check with an attorney on the matter. I'll pass on the shoot out but can appreciate your reaction to the abuse of legal advice designed to suit the president who more power than any one of us even though we are all equal members. I will also get the letter out there if my attorney advises that's a good move. You are very correct. This is the board from Hell. I called to get a copy of the incident report from the city police and one officer told me they are often called to HOA board meetings! Who knew! He said it was due to the "HOA nazis" running the show. Thanks again. I will let you know what happens after the weekend and meet with an attorney. Thanks!

Great questions. I numbered them above to respond a little more clearly. Sorry if its a bit overly detailed but it might help to understand some motivations of the players in this mess.

1. Q. "Why the MC's attorney is there at all?"
A. At our first official board meeting the president told us the MC's attorney will be present at every meeting u workshop. We were not given a choice about it nor was it put to a vote. No one wanted to take issue right off the bat and presumed it was to make sure we were acting in compliance with bylaws. Our 7 members and our MC rep are all brand new. No institutional knowledge available to us so it seemed like a good idea at the time. BTW, not that it matters but full disclosure, the new MC rep is a man. The pres and the lawyer are women. Board is 5 women, 2 men. First time we've had a female president in 20 years.

2. Q. "Who is the attorney billing for his time?"
A. Our HOA. None of us know how much she bills us per hour and how much its cost us to date. The pres keeps that info to herself.

3. Q. "Why is the attorney going into separate discussions with 4 board members and leaving out 2 board members who weren't involved in the conflict?"
A. The attorney only addressed the president and ignored the rest of us.

4. Q. "There's more to this story."
A. If there is, I'd love to know it. Our president is a Senior project manager and treats this volunteer board as if we answer to her instead of working together collaboratively. Most of us are long time residents except Menace Boy who lives in an adjoining subdivision with homes nearly 3x the cost of ours, a fact he brought up a few times. No kidding. Back then, we ran together with a joint mission to overturn the current board driving an expensive project to build a clubhouse which would require demolishing all 4 amenities in a 20+ year old community. (Whaaa?) Their plan omitted how this $2 million project would be paid for: by retroactively raising dues for every one of the 19 of 20 years when it wasn't raised, aggregate those raises into a one time lump sum and present it as a "dues increase" of $4,500 per home in order to avoid calling it an "assessment." According to the same PIA lawyer, our bylaws have a loophole that makes this possible. This was what got the 7 of us to work together and take back the HOA board. I organized the coup, the strategy, worked hard as hell, personally collected 158 proxies alone. MB brought in 150 and the president a whopping total of nine proxies. 3 others brought in 49. Looking back now, I realize Menace Boy , who was annoyed at being asked to be treasurer instead of president (he's a CFO) decided it would be harder to lead from behind if I was president. I wasn't worried since our board was unified in our mission to achieve long-overdue improvements. Since then he's divided the board against the mission by doing a full 180 himself. He often steps on his own tongue by trying to run the meetings and calling for a vote when that's president's role.

5. Q. "If the lawyer says the board has the right to prohibit videoing taping on what legal basis other than your opinion do you refuse to accept this?"
A. Well first off, the attorney is supposed to work for our entire board, not just the president so it was a bit of slap in the face to have her actively intervene and escalate the rift. Rather than let us work this out ourselves and resolve it civilly. I didn't even have a chance to ask if we could at least establish a policy for civil conduct that would reign in Menace Boy. Instead the attorney leaped into the fray and exacerbated the discussion. The attorney basically threw fuel on the fire and that told every other board member they were on their own, too. The attorney supports the president. I'm still reeling from that.

6. Q. "And just which is? You know because you start out claiming videotaping was to protect you from this menacing board member and then later you claim this is about the board being open and transparent to the 700+ owners 699 of which didn't bother to attend this meeting. Is it one or the other? "...
A. I was videotaping to prevent being abused by this menacing control freak with obvious issues. There was zero discussion on passing the motion to set a policy against recording meetings. I asked "what's wrong with taping the meeting? What are you afraid of?" I was not answered. Our secretary (the one who was yelled at too) argued she was recording the meeting on her iphone for the first time because she wanted to participate more in the meeting but hadn't been able to while trying to capture all minute notes by hand. She was immediately told NO. Turn off the iphone! Our secretary was very unhappy. At a normal board meeting under Roberts Rules of Order (required by NC HOA laws), there is at least a discussion before calling a vote. This was bulldozed over. I would have raised the issue of transparency and open communication had we had the chance to discuss the motion. This was a central concern for our coup because the previous board were secretive and hostile to responding to homeowners asking for information. Proof of this is the success of our coup.

7. Q. ".. And I would guess your relationship with the board President might suffer regardless of the fact she is going through a divorce and that stress. Rather now having to deal with a board member who has an agenda that 4 board member seem to disagree with."
A. That's the mystery to me. I have not had an issue with her and we actually were quite friendly until right after we won. Then out of the blue she's no longer friendly and is suddenly tight with Menace Boy. She actually tells me in a nasty tone she doesn't trust me because I'm "a very clever girl." Crazy! She benefited from my supposed cleverness, now she views it as liability to her.

8. Q. "By all means find a lawyer. Sue the cop. .."
A. Yes to the lawyer. I'd never sue the cop. He was just doing his job and was put into a stupid situation.

Looking back on it all now, the president's adversarial attitude comes from Menace Boy trying to control what the board does. We have 5 subdivisions but for the first time ever, 6 of the 7 board members are from the same subdivision which provided nearly 70% of the election votes. Menace Boy is from a different subdivision and plans to run for president next year. However, if the 6 of us make good on our mission to refresh all the amenities, it will bring down the reserves and prevent the clubhouse crowd from returning to their plan which relied on having a large reserve they can point to to hide the retroactive dues plan. The reserves are large but no where near the size needed to afford the clubhouse. In Menace Boy's mind, he wins election next year if he can prevent the 6 of us from accomplishing the original mission. No competition and he couldn't care less about improving the pool and playground (2 of the 4 amenities) located in the neighborhood we 6 live in.

I've been clear from the get-go I am only serving this one year. Not seeking re-election no matter what. My husband served on the board for 8 years, 3 as president until 2013. Our 6 ran to protect our property values and resale. It's a hell of a weird situation. The president could be drowning in a lake and I could be in a boat offering her a hand to save her and she'd rather drown.

It's more than a head scratcher.

Please look at item #21 from the attached link.

http://communityassociations.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/CCAL-Project-NC-revised.pdf

I still think there's a back story that isn't on the table yet.

I was thinking more along the lines of the coup that succeeded but then collapsed and the egos bruised in the process.

That is why I load .38+P Hollow Point in my Ruger S/S 357 mag.

(aka police special)

CE(N Carolina): I forgot to add, maybe you should check your specific Board governance by-laws for a so-called ethics bylaw or something directly addressing coercion etc.

I initially disagreed when courts here upheld a condo Board's self-unseating of an ELECTED Director for what was some undisclosed alleged violation of an "ethics" by-law.

The Board had immediately addressed whatever the alleged misconduct with 'kangaroo court justice', expelling the violator and appointing another to the Board. Amidst litigation the Board was next ordered to review its own decision, not surprisingly reaching the same decision to unseat the appellant expelled ex-Director. The appeal courts later upheld the unseating for the unspecified alleged behaviour.

Then almost a year later an article by a leading condo lawyer casually reported that a self-unseating had been supported on appeal where the misbehaviour was actually an assault against the President. (The lawyer's remark did not identify the highprofile legal dispute.)

If HOA is being billed, HOA is the client. Attorney can have both MC and HOA as clients. Wouldn't suggest it because there would be a conflict of interest if the HOA and the MC got into a dispute.

Good point, NpS and perhaps all the better reason why the HOA attorney should attend instead of the MC's attorney.

BobD4,

THANK YOU for your wonderful points and advice!

You nailed it the matter perfectly, BobD4: "If what you say is true, lawful governance looks fundamentally impaired by the President & majority's seeming refusal to prioritize Director safety"..."Even if you were not physically battered, any such targetting looms large over normal free exchange of opinion at Board meetings."

I have no reason to lie about the facts while seeking advice from strangers on this forum. The video, the iphone recording, past emails -- these all corroborate the facts. My POV on personality considerations are all I have to offer so please work with what is being said. I don't need to misrepresent facts to anyone on this. What I DO need is feedback based on the facts I've shared.

I'm an imperfect person who's trying to do right by 700+ residents and while I do have my faults (I'm from the most northern state in the country where being direct is not considered rude), none of those faults justifies anyone mistreating or abusing me simply for having an occasionally differing point of view. We're grown-ass adults here and we should all behave that way. I can either shut up or speak up as an elected board member. The president choses to view my mere breathing as antagonistic. I am that Pain-In-the-Ass board member who does her due diligence before speaking and nothing seems to irritate Menace Boy and the president more than when I argue the facts. But I digress....

There's no denying that calling the police was a draconian move -- rather stupid and petty in the moment -- by the president. It's obvious from feedback here that I need to see a lawyer about how to proceed from here. Requesting a board policy on civil conduct is not too much to ask given one board member has gone berzerk twice and on two separate board members during meetings. Despite the need for it, the president's resistance to that request speaks VOLUMES about being spiteful at this point.

Sadly our bylaws are deficient in outlining ethical requirements but there is mention of conducting board business in "good faith." It's also pretty damn difficult to remove a board member so that works in my favor as well as the president's and Menace Boy's own tenure.

No way will I resign. I've dealt with bigger bullies in the past. I just want to do my job without having to fight to do.

Let me clarify the attorney's role. She works for a law firm. Our management company hires the attorney and would appear to pass through the attorney's fees to our HOA when she provides us with legal counsel. What gets murky here is if she is also the MC's attorney. No way to know that at this moment. What I do know is we are being billed by the MC for the attorney to attend our meetings of the board (workshops, board meetings etc) at the president's decision...we board members had no say on that expense.

It appears the attorney should not be acting as a parliamentarian to the president since she clearly allowed the president to bobble proper procedures. It would seem the attorney should only advise the board if it is doing some improperly according to the law, not speaking up to aid the president in going after a fellow board member.

Here in the Land of Lincoln, the law expressly permits recording of condo association meetings but not meetings of non-condo HOAs. I believe this is merely because the law dealing with non-condo HOAs is newer and less complete in many ways, and expect that sooner or later our elected representatives will alter the HOA law to permit recording there, too. It seems to me this should be the norm, given that HOAs are quasi-governmental bodies (levy taxes in the form of assessments, deliver services, adopt rules of conduct and impose penalties for violations).

" I calmly refused to and explained my safety concerns over past incidents and that I believed (turns out incorrectly) I was permitted to record the meeting under the open-meetings act governing public meetings. Our management company's attorney said that law didn't apply as we were a private non-profit. Our board meetings are not open to the general public, just our 700+ homeowners. Confusing. Under this situation there is obviously no "expectation of privacy" since its a public meeting of a private group. NC is also a one-party consent state where conversations can be legally recorded as long as one person involved in that conversation consents to the recording. In this case, that would be me."

Sorry you have difficulty hearing opinions other than your own. Your search for "legitimate legal and intelligent feedback " seems to be a step in the right direction as it would appear your current source of legal knowledge is seriously flawed. As demonstrated by your insisting the open meeting act provided you the right to record. When you claim "rights" under the law best to have a minimal understanding as to whether they apply or not. If not you might end up looking foolish AND lose any future credibility. This combined with your claim as a " one party consent state" you can record whomever because YOU say so. My guess so more flawed legal logic.

What bothers me most is that the nonsense you bring to the board prevents normal operation and management. And in the end any legitimate concerns you and others might have will be sufficated due to your mishandling and bumbling attempts to bring about change.

So in the end you are ding a disservice to your community, your board and even to yourself. But I am sure not of that is a concern as evidenced by your willingness to high jack the board meeting for your own purposes. How's that working for you?????

Sad when board members allow personality conflicts to come with a price paid for by the whole community. In this case YOU are at least part of that problem not the innocent, do no wrong shrinking violet you represent yourself to be....

Good luck to your property......

Demonstrate that you can achieve something that benefits your HOA membership. Take the lead. Get it done.

Q: Will most of your membership care about videotaping?
A: Doubt it.

Q: Will most of your members believe Prez when she says that you are obstructing?
A: Sure.

Q: Should you choose videotaping to demonstrate what you can achieve?
A: No. Cards are stacked against you and no one cares.

Pick something else. Find something that isn't so contentious. Show that you're a good leader. You'll become the majority soon enough if all you say is true.

CE(N.Carolina)

If - very respectfully - you don't mind my saying, you will have a challenge if you insist on staying on the Board for balance of year or whatever.

Do you have at stake 'enough horse in the race' to justify a year more of it if you correctly believe that another Director may melt down & physically assault you or others ? The votes show that there isn't enough support YET to back you on this big issue as far as the deterrent effect you wanted.

If the Board wants to move past this, that race will have to be regularly & temporarily halted by Pres or majority to de-personalize at least the Big Issue. Maybe you can lead by pretending you are Gandhi, but good idea to do your research beforehand & thoroughly about issues.

If you risk continuing, maybe you yourself can unobtrusively record by call-deactivated cellphone or get a concealed camera.

CE(NCarolina)has valid concerns that should not be taken lightly.

Would Menace Boy kick Gandhi’s butt right out of the little napkin he wore in public ?

Can a meeting or deliberation get out of hand ? What long term repercussions could there possibly be ? On the floor of the U.S.Senate in 1856, Republican Charles Sumner was caned by South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks. Mr Brooks would tell the House that he "meant no disrespect to the Senate of the United States" nor to the House by his attack on Sumner.

P.S. If the cops are dragging their feet, pay the $100 bucks or so to apply for what is called a 'civil restraining order' or similar in North Carolina. When you file it, temporarily the menacing board member should go into a data system whereby, if he threatens you, with a phone call the cops are on the scene to address the issue. Soon thereafter there should be a hearing where you apply for a full-blown restraining order. If you win the full-blown restraining order, and the menacing board member keeps at it, then the cops can arrest him for criminal violation of the terms of the restraining order.

Your board/association really should pay for this, but they're not so sharp, so it will cost you.

As there has been no filing of criminal charges, no arrest, and no trial it would clearly be premature to then determine a criminal act has taken place.
But why let that stop you. When you have a point to prove.

So we have now gone from menacing to the notion posed by Augustin that "criminal assault" and "criminal harassment" charges are in play.
To call that a stretch would be kind. But by all means feel free to escalate the events when it might suit your needs.

Interesting how when the police were called when the OP refused to cease recording she made no mention of this criminal behavior nor has filed a report to this day. And if she did nothing was done except her being asked to leave.

Guess the real agenda now is out she wishes to use this as a means to have the board member removed. And while at it the board President should also be forced to resign. And then she can be free to impose her agenda in good faith.

My suggestion the OP research the concept of good faith. It in fact has nothing to do in the context she is attempting to apply it. Just like her one person consent and open meeting rights she used that proved to be fantasy.

And just how does the community benefit from this behavior? My guess the OP is incapable of considering that.

Look forward to hearing how criminal boy CB responds to this.
Attempting to use the legal system by trumping up claims and charges is frowned upon by most courts. And could end up with the OP having egg on her face. Time will tell.

When you demand others act in good faith you should first make sure you are doing the same.

Bob to follow up on your remarks about abuse of process. Perhaps it might be helpful to explain the related areas of the law where plaintiffs are found to be using the legal system for an improper purpose.

Essential Elements of Abuse of Process

As already mentioned, a plaintiff can sue for abuse of process when a defendant starts a legal process with the intention to obtain results for which the process was not designed.

A “legal process” can be any part of a lawsuit, not simply the entire lawsuit. For example, a defendant’s original lawsuit might have been legitimate, but the use of a particular deposition or other smaller, discrete aspect of the lawsuit may not have been. Even though the defendant’s lawsuit was legitimate, the plaintiff can still sue for abuse of process because of the illegitimate deposition.

The best way to think of the “improper purpose” requirement in an abuse of process claim is that, although the defendant had a technical right to use the legal process, he or she did so to extort something else from the plaintiff. For example, trying to tie up property in a divorce proceeding in order to get the other spouse to agree to different child visitation rights. It is worth noting that abuse of process claims are difficult to prove and are typically unsuccessful.

Essential Elements of Malicious Prosecution

A successful malicious prosecution claim requires all of the following:

beginning or continuing a criminal or civil legal proceeding
without reasonable grounds to believe the allegations of the proceeding
with a purpose other than simply getting a judgment in the proceeding, and that
the proceeding has terminated in the favor of the person being prosecuted or sued (i.e. the future plaintiff in the malicious prosecution suit must first win the suit against him or her).

How sad that, when you have a report that by all appearances constitutes an assault (threatening, menacing behavior putting one in fear for one's physical safety) and (depending on the state) a pattern of harassment rising to a criminal violation, among other possible charges, you would suggest it is wrong to report the conduct to the police and that one could be sued for abuse of process or, per JonD1's ridiculous claim, malicious prosecution.

People will get angry when they are reported for xyz, and one has to anticipate that they will attempt to take actions in kind as revenge. But this is better than having an enormous male physically hovering over and screaming at you and stopping you from your legal rights to participate.

I think CE is getting sound legal advice from the police and an attorney at this point. I think those of you telling her not to use this legal advice are out of line.

Were you in the room? Then your description of what took place is meaningless.

And now you have determined the man was ENORMOUS. Or was that for dramatic affect.

The police have done nothing. And the lawyer has suggested nothing. She is considering her options.
And you see that as supporting her????

One CAN be sued for abuse of process. Whether you understand so or not.