Board meetings

The property manager passed out materials to board members at a time and place most board members were present. If the subject of the materials was not discussed at the meeting I agree with your president.

CfD, I'm curious to know why you didn't simply cut & paste, 55.510, the relevant statute, which states:

"Unless otherwise exempt as relating to an executive session...at least one copy of all agenda packets and materials furnished to members of an association's board of directors...for a meeting shall be made available for inspection by the membership of the association at the same time such documents are furnished to the members of the board of directors ..."

There seems to be no doubt that in VA, the membership is permitted to review materials that directors have at meetings. Doesn't matter if the news is "late-breaking." So, it's obvious that your PM should have placed a copy where they usually are placed at your open meetings. And it's obvious that your prez should have permitted you to review a copy.

As is often the case in your HOA, CFD the Board or the president or landscape committees appear to be wrong or dishonest or sneaky, etc. You've been given advice before on this forum about how to change all of this.

But it's now clear to me, you just want to complain to us. That will do nothing to improve your HOA....

The PM declared he bumped into the HOA's attorney. The PM declared the HOA attorney will give the board free advice about something. CfD claims this is NOT his topic.

CfD is asking about the "papers" the PM gave directors at the meeting & if members can review them. I honestly don't know why CfD tossed all the superfluous stuff in about the PM, the attorney & the meeting video recording "debacle."

Btw, our PM often phones our attorney (such calls are included in our annual retainer).

Was just asking a question Kerry, not complaining. Interpret as you please though, I could care less.

President and PM are aware of the statute. They simply ignore it and do what they want. I agree it seems clear material should be made available to the membership at the time it is presented to the board for consideration.

Interesting how some on this board do not agree though.

Pertaining to our PM contacting the attorney, no way I think they should ever be permitted to do that unless "the board" authorizes it, not just the president. Our PM is claiming he "bumped into" our registered agent, but didn't say when or where. I personally believe our attorney was contacted by our President without the board's knowledge (again, a bad practice as far as I'm concerned) and this PM story is just a cover up. We have some other charges we are expecting from our attorney later this year and I believe our PM will simply roll any potential costs incurred by this contact with the attorney into that fee and cover this up nicely.

Cf,

You know the answer to your question. Yes, you have a right to see (not have a copy) of the board package at board meetings unless it was in executive session.

You may need to make a formal request for that info and use it as a teaching moment about the statute.

Again, depending what the Board decides, you can make a complaint to the Ombudsman office.

Tim

Well, I was finally sent those documents through email that I requested during the meeting last week, and they are pretty amazing to me. But I'll defer to the experience on this board for insight.

The document is a series of resolutions the board intends to pass apparently at its next meeting. The date at the top of the resolutions is April 2016, but the board did not want to make a decision on it because it was so "late breaking".

For review, here is what statute 55-510.1 says pertaining to recording, and the board's authority to make rules pertaining to this again:

"Any member may record any portion of a meeting required to be open. The board of directors or subcommittee or other committee thereof conducting the meeting may adopt rules (i) governing the placement and use of equipment necessary for recording a meeting to prevent interference with the proceedings and (ii) requiring the member recording the meeting to provide notice that the meeting is being recorded."

There are 10 resolutions. Some are reasonable, but some reach far beyond what I personally believe this statute permits. Here are some of them that I think reach too far:

The integrity of all recordings must be maintained; no editing, inserts or explanations may be made to the original recording and the maker of the recording shall be held solely responsible for ensuring the integrity of said recording is maintained in the manner prescribed herein.

Any audio/video equipment shall be self-powered; no extension cord or electrical cords will be permitted.

Failure to comply with any of these provisions may result in the member being required to remove all audio/video equipment from the meeting site and/or suspension of the right to record until such violations have been corrected.

In the discretion of the officer serving as chairperson of the meeting, in the event that a recording of a meeting is published beyond the membership of the Association with the knowledge of the maker of the recording, such maker shall be subject to being enjoined by a court of competent jurisdiction from further distribution and such maker shall be in violation of a rule or regulation and thereby subject to payment of charges for such violation after a due process hearing is conducted.

Prior to the commencement of any meeting, any member who wishes to record a meeting will be required to sign a statement in the form attached agreeing to abide by the rules governing recording of meetings.

I don't believe our association has the authority to suspend or take a right to record a meeting away from a member. It is granted by the state of Virginia. I also don't believe they have the right to dictate what I can do with what is essentially my property. Of course, if I misuse my property in a manner that defames, slanders, etc. any board member there are already laws that permit a victim recourse in the courts, regardless of any rule the association makes. It also seems very far reaching to expect any member to sign any resolution the board makes or it will somehow take your right to record away. Finally, one resolution attempts to grant power to a single individual to pass judgment on a member.

In your view, do these resolutions go beyond what the statute obviously intends?

I have zero problem with this.
Having edited video and audio tape, I know I can make you look pretty silly and have others think of you in a different light then what actually occurred.

For an example, see: NBC Apologizes For Editing George Zimmerman's 911 Call on Today Show


I have zero issues with this as well.

You want to record why should I allow potential trip hazards or pay for the electrical use of your equipment. Use a battery. You don't have a battery that lasts that long, buy one or buy one and swap out. This is what the television networks do all the time.


Sounds fair. They aren't stopping you from recording. They are simply requiring that you comply with a few rules and once complied with, you may continue recording.


Keep in mind that you are not recording a public meeting. You are recording a meeting of a private company. I would refer you to Virginia taping laws.

When recordings are discussed on this site, many urge the individual not to post the recordings on social media. If you want to share them, email them or host a private site that you give access to.

Besides, if you read the passage, all it says is that the Board will seek an injunction to stop you from further distribution. They would have first prove (and it basically says this) that you were the one who released the tape to the media. However, they hold you harmless and (from my interpretation) will not seek action against anyone else who releases the tape to the media without your knowledge.

Basically, it's a scare tactic. That's all.

The worst think it does is allow one individual (the chairperson) to enter into legal action on behalf of the Association without a board vote. You may want to point that one single action out and suggest that any legal action taken be approved by the Board. The other problem is it's suggestive (at the discretion) vs. absolute. This opens the door to selective enforcement. Then suggest that they reword that section to read:

Recordings of meetings are only to be shared with members. In the event that a recording of a meeting is published beyond the membership of the Association with the knowledge of the maker of the recording, such maker shall be subject to being enjoined by a court of competent jurisdiction from further distribution. Additionally, if proven that the maker of the recording released a copy to a non-member, such maker shall be in violation of a rule or regulation and subject to monetary penalties as outlined within Virginia Statute, Title 55, Chapter 26.

Making such a suggestion may actually win some of the Board members to your side as you are not objecting to the rule, you are simply specifying that entering into legal action should only be done by the Board and not any single individual. Not that you expect anyone on this Board to go rouge (so to speak) but what of future boards?

Note: this chapter specifies a penalty shall not exceed $50 for a single offense and the Association may only collect legal fees if they win in court. So, as long as you don't release to non-members and include with every copy of the video a request that the individual does not release the tape to non-members, you should be good.


All they are doing is covering their ass from the defense, "I didn't know"


The Statute also grants that the Association may make reasonable rules.
The rules cited (with a little tweaking) seem reasonable to me.

They are not stopping you from recording, they are insisting that if you want to record you comply with the reasonable rules that were adopted. The choice is yours.

Which rule specifically do you find offensive and why?


I expect that you are referring to the recording itself.
Keep in mind that requiring no editing and no publishing to non-members can protect the Association.

See:

Videotaping community association meetings-where do the owners' rights start and the directors' rights end?

Social Networking Can Improve Communications But Watch out for the Liability Risks

SHOUTING FIRE IN A CROWDED CHAT ROOM: HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS AND CENSORSHIP

Keep in mind, enforcing such a rule may or may not be difficult.

Question: Are you planning to post these things on social media?
If you are, Why?

If you are not, then why get worked up about it?


You didn't provide the form.
Therefore, we don't know what the form says.

You may want to suggest that the Board changes the form to a simple acknowledgement of the policy resolution. However, I don't think your Board will do that for you (just being honest).

If I was on your Board, I would want some sort of acknowledgement signed for recording. This does a few things:

1) Informs the Board you tend to record (as the Board may require per statute, VA § 55-510.1)
2) Informs you that there are rules you need to comply with.
3) As pointed out earlier, protects the Association from the "Nobody told me that" defense.


Yep, as I pointed out (and suggested a potential change in the wording), that section needs tweaked.


Without reading the whole policy and only having the citations you provided, I do not think that they go beyond what the statute intended.

In my opinion, the statute allows you to make a recording of any meeting for your personal use (not to publish or give to others). However, since the statute fails to address what you may do with the recording, the fact that it's a private meeting (not open to general public) and that there are some legitimate security and personal privacy concerns (see links to the articles I posted earlier), an Association would be prudent in adopting similar rules as you posted here.

It would be better if the Statute said what could be done with the recording, but then you have an argument of freedom of speech (which doesn't occur when the Association imposes such rules).

Bottom line, until a case is tested within the courts, the area will remain grey and each Association will have to make their own decisions on the issue.

Hope this helps,

Tim

Sorry Tim, but we disagree on a few things. No big deal.

Not sure what your reference to Virginia's taping laws is pertaining to. Homeowners are already legally permitted to tape meetings required to be open. Also, they are legally permitted to tape "any portion" of those meetings. While you and I may agree that recordings should not be edited to make anyone look silly or bad, our board believes they should not be edited to play only a portion of the meeting. Our board has openly stated they believe all shared meeting recordings should only be allowed from the beginning of the meeting until the end. This simply does not comply with what statute 55-510.1 permits.

Boards make resolutions all the time. No one has to sign anything to agree to abide by them, and in this particular case pertaining to recording of board meetings, no homeowner in an HOA is required to sign anything to retain their right to record. It is granted by the state of Virginia, period.
Statute 55-510.1 is very clear as to what rules boards can make regarding recording. If the board wishes to CYA as you say, all they have to do is post recording guidelines / resolutions in the meeting somewhere a homeowner can see them. Posting them on the association web site is also a good idea.

I've read the CICA Ombudsman's determination, and believe I may have referenced it in an earlier post. If you read the determination, I think she points out that HOA boards cannot make policy that conflict with the recording / open meeting statute.

I don't know any other way to put it. I don't believe a board can legally suspend or prohibit a member's right to record for any reason other than if they are trying to secretly record, or if they fail to comply with rules pertaining to where the board dictates equipment will be and how the equipment "in the meeting" will be used.

If recordings are then misused by the producer of the recording, there are legal actions board members can take with no resolutions required.

Looks like we agree about the board vs a single individual taking the association into legal action.

Cf,

I expected we would disagree.
You asked for opinions, which I provided.

My opinions are from having worked in the media and going on ENG (electronic news gathering) shoots to serving on the Board and the need to protect the Association.

I haven't had the experience you have had in dealing with your board. I haven't had the fight you had to record meetings (as I simply attended them and reported the outcome in my newsletter without the belief that I needed an alibi recording to prove what was or wasn't said). Therefore, we have two slightly different perspectives on the issue.

I wish you luck and remind you to choose your battles wisely.
Expending all your energy on one battle may allow another issue to go uncontested.