Signed Contracts

I've always been under the impression that a contract under negotiation is not made available to the membership, but after it is signed it is.

We have a situation in our HOA where our president is acknowledging a contract to perform work in our common area has been signed by him outside of an open meeting, all of the board members have not seen it, and he is refusing a request from a homeowner to see the contract.

In Virginia we have a statute that requires requests for records to be made available for inspection with in 5 days of the request. http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/55-510/

In your view, is the president of our association violating state law by not making the contract available for inspection in the 5 day time frame outlined in state code?

Personally, I believe it is ridiculous that he does this before showing it to the entire board for review and approval anyway. But much of what we do in our association makes very little sense, at least to me.

I have another question about board recordings I'll pose in a different thread, but thank you for your responses.

They are typically made to the Board or, if applicable, the MC/PM.

However, an individual could also make the request through the registered agent.

I'm with you, Tim, but we know CfD isn't on the Board and doesn't seem to have much influence with it. I suppose that the board gave the prez authority to "finish" negotiating contracts, but that's a very bad policy.

If Cf emailed it to board and Prez emailed a response, then that ought to be sufficient proof of notice.

Cf,

You don't need to contact the Registered agent, who is likely an attorney and any contact will incur expenses for the Association.

Instead, give the President a second chance citing the statute.

If they still refuse, make a complaint to the Ombudsman.
Yes, you won't get the record quickly, but it appears to be clear cut and the ombudsman will let the Association know this.

Whether the association's agent is an attorney is not the OP's problem. If he is an attorney, it is up to him to decide whether to charge for his services. If the board is not satisfied with that arrangement then it is up to them to change it.

In the meantime the OP must make a proper demand on the association to see the records. Certified mail to the registered agent will never be challenged for sufficiency of notice.

The statute, § 55-510, requires that the notice be "written." The requesting party must also specify what he wants to examine and why.

If I were an attorney defending the board I would attack the sufficiency of an email to the president and raise the question as to whether an electronic communication allegedly sent to an officer complies with the requirement for a written notice to the association. What proof is there that the email was sent? What proof is there that the email address it was sent to is that of the president? What proof is there that the president actually received the email? What proof is there that he actually read the email? What proof is there that the response was written and sent by the president and not his 10-year-old kid?

Yes, it is a lousy defense but when that is all you have you run with it. Wear the plaintiff down so he gives up or delay until the statute of limitations runs out. Complying with the letter of the law avoids this whole line of defense.

True.

However, lets be honest. CF will be making waves. The waves are being made because the Board isn't complying with the statutes, but that isn't the point. Expecting, like our attorney when it happened, their attorney charges for 15 min of their time to read the request and forward it to the Board, I can see their Board attempting to assess Cf for that bill (as a charge related to providing the copies).

Why instigate another issue when it can be avoided?

Cf,

The purpose of a certified letter is to provide proof of delivery.
The President responded. That proves delivery.

Still not concerned. There are ways that people can be added to an existing lawsuit.

But Larry,

More than 98% of all lawsuits never get to trial. And in this situation, a lawsuit hasn't even been filed yet.

There's such a low chance of this ever going to trial that it doesn't make any sense to focus on such remote possibilities. It's a distraction.

Now it time for trying to reach out and talk things out.

So.... CfD, did it really include changes that the prez made without board approval? Care to share just what those changes are?

Cf,

It's always a shame when any Board doesn't want to comply with statutes.

Fortunately, you were able to get them.

Based on other recent threads started by you, I believe that your Board is simply unaware of the statutes and giving knee jerk reactions to requests.
Use this as a teachable moment for them.