Board Member discussing Member's letter from retained attorney and NOT the Board

Actually it's not out of line. The membership has a right to know this information. Believe it or not, if you are a shareholder in a corporation they must reveal such information if they are involved in a lawsuit or have losses. A HOA being incorporated means members can have the right to view records including if they are being part of a lawsuit.

Now if the HOA hires a lawyer, then I would want it to be kept confidential of what the HOA talks to that lawyer about. That does fall under some lawyer/client privilege to a point. That point being the conversation between the HOA rep to talk to the HOA lawyer but not the action/result. The owners should know how much money is being spent.

Haley, please write your question again--maybe give "names" to the players--it's too hard to keep track--at least for me. Is the Homeowner & attorney threatening to sue your board or HOA? Or ARE they suing?

Agree ... It appears one BOD member is trying to run the show on this issue (simply because he is an attorney). It is supposed to be MAJORITY vote and if two other Board Members disagree they need to take the bull by the horns.

Thanks All - it is confusing, the only correction is that the Board member who is sharing the member issues is doing so with two other homeowners; one happens to be the prior president and one other neighbor who is an attorney. I figured he is acting outside the bounds of HOA Board rules. We are moving forward with a Board meeting and will give notice to our members; but discuss the legal retention each by the two parties in a closed session.
Does an executive session require a shorter notice period to the members? This Board member insists we need 15 days notice (that is the notice period we give for annual member meetings or special member meetings.) We do not have a notice Board meeting time in our rules and regs/ decs, bylaws, etc.

My questions reveal how green I am in this position.

My understanding is that this non-compliant (on this issue) board member is violating legal privacy rules and also rules of "due process." The courts have said even HOAs have an obligation to try to give "due process" when it comes to disputes with members. As a favorite HOA attorney of mine put it in an interview, 'Bottom line: Boards need to try to be fair and reasonable.' To me this often boils down to common sense-based respect for strangers.

Check your Bylaws for the rules of notice on board meetings. These rules of notice pertain to all board meetings both open and executive session. It sounds like this minority board member is going to be a stickler for announcing even exec sessions to members. Of course, this is even though members may not attend. I suppose the point of informing members of a meeting they cannot attend is to let them know the board is meeting behind closed doors.

If digesting the Bylaws on this point is too difficult, pass the question onto the HOA's attorney. Then ask the attorney to set a time to explain what the rules for exec sessions are. Preferably the HOA attorney will do this via a conference call, or possibly a short email, with the entire board present.

Hang in there. Slowly how to interpret the governing documents and integarate their meaning with precedent set by the courts and state statutes will become easier. Thank you for serving, and don't ever hesitate to say "Enough. I want my life back."

If this is a Special Meeting called, then notice is needed.

If this is going to be a regular board meeting and the board goes into Closed Session to discuss legal matters, that needs to be on the agenda.

Usually board meetings are held regularly, so notice is given at the beginning of the year ie. First Thursday of the month - and that is notice enough to the members.

Why don't you just give the owner the decs and bylaws that were requested? Why do you need to have a board meeting for this?

Good question. We await an answer.

My a error above.

A notice must be posted 96 hours in advance of special or regular board meetings in CA.

The OP wrote that the member's attorney requested copies of the governing documents and also stated his client's stance. On what topic this 'stance' is is not clear. It sounds like the 'stance' may have been significant enough that the board members are wondering where this is going. At least one board member wanted an opinion from an attorney. I do not think it's fair to conclude that this is only about a member wanting a copy of the governing documents.

We had/have an issue where legal action was threatened along with a demand for specific documents. Some of the requested documents were beyond the scope authorized by Statute. One Board member, who was an attorney, said that to maintain the legal rights of the Association (if the legal threat actually became a legal action) we should only release those documents required by Statute.

That is what we did.