Naming names in HOA meetings?

From time to time we must discuss matters that have to do specifically with our members in HOA board meetings. Such matters may include, violations, fines, unpaid invoices and other issues.

It is my judgement not to use members’ names, but rather use lot numbers if we must reference an open issue with a household. Most members are not at the meetings and I really don’t think naming names in minutes will serve any purpose, but at the same time we must address issues as a board.

How do you guys handle this?

As Melissa does, we also utilize Lot numbers.

The discussion may include names (if we don't know the number of the lot right then) but the minutes only reference lot numbers.
Ideally, the agenda identifies the lot number as well (so we can refer to that in the meeting).

I will add one comment to what Kerry said in regards to CA. It is a statue that Lot or APN's are used when placing a lien or foreclosing on a property. CA statue requires that if a lien or a property is to be foreclosed upon, it MUST be voted on recorded in Open Session and the Lot # or APN must be identified.

Richard is right about liens, which I didn't think was the topic.

In CA, we also can hear Owners with disciplinary issues in open session, but none have requested this in 15 year here. If they do, th Board can turn them down.

Please cite your AZ statutes Larry, that seems to say that Owners must be cited for an violation, etc. in an open mtg.

Hello RS8, I think Robert's Rules offers some good guidance:

1.
"Rule 43. Decorum in Debate. In debate a member must confine himself to the question before the assembly, and avoid personalities. He cannot reflect upon any act of the assembly, unless he intends to conclude his remarks with a motion to rescind such action, or else while debating such a motion. In referring to another member, he should, as much as possible, avoid using his name, rather referring to him as "the member who spoke last," or in some other way describing him. The officers of the assembly should always be referred to by their official titles. It is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member, but the nature or consequences of a measure may be condemned in strong terms. It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate."
http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-07.htm

2.
"Rule 72. The Right of a Deliberative Assembly to Punish its Members. A deliberative assembly has the inherent right to make and enforce its own laws and punish an offender, the extreme penalty, however, being expulsion from its own body. When expelled, if the assembly is a permanent society, it has the right, for its own protection, to give public notice that the person has ceased to be a member of that society.

But it has no right to go beyond what is necessary for self-protection and publish the charges against the member. In a case where a member of a society was expelled, and an officer of the society published, by its order, a statement of the grave charges upon which he had been found guilty, the expelled member recovered damages from the officer in a suit for libel, the court holding that the truth of the charges did not affect the case."
http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-13.htm

3.
More than one HOA attorney I've come across has spoken of how some kind of reasonable due process is something courts want to see with HOA actions. In my experience, a violation by Member Jones or Member Doe, who has been sent a notice, is only an "alleged violation" until a certain time period passes or appeal has occurred. If the alleged violation comes up for "debate" (discussion) as to, say, the next action and when said action is due; any mitigating circumstances; and so on, then I think the due process rights of the accused ought to be respected. This includes not revealing his or her name to the members at large, lest you put the person, who has not yet completed his or her appeal, in a false light or invade his or her privacy and so on.

Interestingly, my current HOA's Bylaws require that all proceedings of the HOA be governed by Robert's Rules. I think this is an advantage. We members and the directors are not too nitpicky here about following the Rules, but when someone goes into, say, a personal attack, others might wield Robert's Rules via the governing documents to put a stop to it.

My City Council has also formally adopted Robert's Rules for its meetings. One of the City Councillors is the designated "parliamentarian" (the go-to guy/gal for questions when a Rule is thought to have been violated, along with the City Attorney).

Not to subtract from the many complicated infrastructure and planning issues a board must address. But hopefully a Board's conducting itself with civility and per the governing documents, and so most likely in conformance with Robert's Rules, becomes second nature.

My understanding is that when an attorney is paid by one party but asked to "rule" on a matter involving a party with adverse interests to the first party, a conflict of interests, and more legal problems, arises. I believe the way to go is to provide for the option of mediation/arbitration in the HOA's governing documents, with a statement that the mediator/arbitrator's fees up front will be split by the two parties, and then the losing party has to reimburse the winning party for the fees.

I also disagree that only a member of the bar can make a determination of a person's "legal rights." This may be so in some settings, but in universities and some non-profit corporations, hearings are held and typically, attorneys are not required to be involved. They're even discouraged. Why? The courts actually prefer that organizations try to settle things within first. Hence the effort by universities and HOAs to have some kind of reasonable due process in place, and not necessarily involving any attorneys in the hearing itself.

At my former HOA, the board held a hearing for a HOA officer, to remove him. The Board did consult the HOA attorney. The HOA attorney said he could be present but there was no need for him, and he was at the other end of the phone instantly if we had any questions. Proper notice was given of this special meeting. The accused HOA officer was told he could bring his attorney, if he wished. He did not. One director presented his side. The HOA officer presented his. The rest of the Board voted to remove him. It stuck, without further challenge.

The saga of two HOA members warring over the noise of basketball bouncing was posted here not long ago. Both HOA members were attorneys. As I recall, the court tore both attorneys new anuses for not finding a way to settle this without bothering the courts.

We reference lot numbers as well during our meetings & in our minutes, not the name of the member.