Conference call tool suggestions

I'd like to hear replies to this too. We've been using a cell phone's cong. call feature, which is very unsatisfactory even tho' we only need this maybe once year.

We in CA have the same statute as FL. Owners need to be able to hear the remote director.

That's limited to 25 "callers" though, no?

As Geno said.

The use of skype is for the board member who can not physically attend.
Members who desire to attend the open meeting may still do so, but need to show up in person.

I actually attended a meeting once via skype. It worked, but the dining room table didn't make for a great conference call.

This one works with a iPhone, since many meeting places don't have access to a land line.

https://www.amazon.com/Jabra-Wireless-Bluetooth-Softphone-Packaging/dp/B00AQUO5RI/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1507751096&sr=8-3&keywords=jabra+speak+510

Art, you'd have to ask an attorney for real legal advice, but I think such a "fully virtualized" board meeting might not be allowed in Florida. There's nothing in FS 720, FS 718 or FS 617 that specifically discuss the isssue of , "What happens if ALL meeting attendees are remote participants?"

I disagree



I've been told this part of the statute is why a quorum of the board (2 people, on a 3 person board) can't even discuss HOA business on a phone call. If two of us on a phone call "is a board meeting", then I don't see why a meeting can't be done via conference bridge or similar VOIP tech where everyone in attendance is just on the bridge.

If there's a credible legal opinion that "gathers" means in-person or that narrowly defines "conduct association business" that would allow two of three board members to talk via phone about HOA business outside of a board meeting, I'd love to see it. Really.

A quick search turns up only THIS 2009 ADVISORY OPINION from the Florida Attorney General, Bill McCollum. It's lengthy and is concerned with a municipal retirement board, not a condo or homeowners association. It also involves Florida's Sunshine Law which also does not apply to condos and HOAs, but the legislature seems to have used aspects of the Sunshine Law as a foundation for its HOA and condo statutes which require that board meetings and discussions be open to the members/owners.

The narrow question asked in that opinion has to do with whether or not the municipal board can meet with remote participants counting toward a quorum. By all means read the whole thing for context, but here are some brief excerpts from the text:

"This office has concluded that, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, the requisite number of members must be physically present at a meeting in order to constitute a quorum."

"... any advisory body is required to have a quorum in order to conduct official business, it appears that the members of these bodies must, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, be physically present in order to constitute a quorum."

"While I acknowledge that the City of Coral Gables ordinances creating the retirement board and empowering it do not contain language referring to the physical presence of a quorum of the members for the transaction of board business, I believe that the legislative requirement of a quorum and the designation of the number required to constitute a quorum argues for the physical presence of that number of board members at a meeting."

"However, those opinions specifically recognize that where a quorum is necessary for action to be taken, physical presence of the members making up the quorum is required in the absence of a statute providing otherwise."

Which way would a judge rule on the same question in a condo setting? Your guess is as good as mine unless there's some case history or prior rulings to draw upon for guidance.

OK, that would apply given that FS 718 doesn't explicitly address the situation, but how about this one?

FS 718.112(2)(b)5

"A board or committee member’s participation in a meeting via telephone, real-time videoconferencing, or similar real-time electronic or video communication counts toward a quorum, and such member may vote as if physically present. A speaker must be used so that the conversation of such members may be heard by the board or committee members attending in person as well as by any unit owners present at a meeting."

So, taken together, FS 617 and FS 718 seem to say all directors may participate remotely, but FS 718 also says the audio from remote participants must be amplified through a speaker(phone) so that the conversation may be heard by unit owners "present at a meeting". This implies that the meeting place need not have any directors physically present at all. But it still needs to be held at a location where unit owners can observe the procedings.

I still think it will take some legal authority (attorney, judge, DBPR, attorney general) to read all the applicable statutes together in order to decide the question. FS 617 and FS 718 don't exactly dovetail in every respect.

Something I wonder about is that in FL (and CA), Owners present at open meetings must be allowed to ask questions, make remarks, etc. If they only can hear the remote directors, how, technically, can they verbally contribute? I'm assuming this issue is why that--in CA-- at least one director must be physically present.

I wouldn't count on that. There are a number of DBPR arbitration decisions where condo aspects of both the statutes and the Florida Administrative Code have been held to be applicable. If DBPR says condo election rules are reasonable in an HOA setting (HOA statute says virtually nothing about HOA election procedures), which are procedural in nature, then I think there's a good chance that the DBPR would also find that condo board meeting rules are applicable to HOAs. I can't think of anything more "procedural" in nature than the way board meetings are held.

There is precedent that where special software or network connections are required to participate in a meeting, the association must provide any owner who wishes to attend with access to such a setup.

FS 720 also says owners have the right to record all board meetings. Any meeting setup that precludes that from happening is probably illegal.

And the OP is not from Florida, so this is all probably irrelevant.