Steering committees

The BOD verbally chartered an IT Web committee. They have presented the BOD with a written charter to approve. But are proposing to change themselves to a steering committee with broader scope. While I understand the Board can limit that scope, is there any thing I need to know about a steering committee vs a standing Committee. I have read the definition of such and it sounds like a Board with in a Board. It appears it is an additional layer of oversight and management, very inefficient for a small community. Any thoughts, experiences.

The committee wants to manage our web page, all association records, our one laptop computer, interface with our committees on Web postings. They want sole communication with webmaster.I'm primarily concerned about the structure of the committee than the scope of duties. Steering committees can operate differently than standing committees. I'm interested in how this affects the Board. Liability, insurance coverage. Some of the proposed scope sounds like taking over some of the officer duties. I realize the Board doesn't have to approve this, but if it is, is there a difference in a standing Committee vs a steering committee. We are a 19 resident community. This just seems over kill.

There is not a management company. Self managed. Small community, single community ranch homes. 200 ranches with 19 homes built.

Just spotted this. Are you still under developer control? (I'm confused...)

We are not under developer control.,

Thank you. I'll certainly check Az Corp laws.
Yes they seem to want all records, we know that will not happen or be approved. I'm just focused on the definition of steering vs standing, the acceptance of such.

Hmmm ... another good topic!

My sense is that the technology of websites/internet has posed both opportunities and risks - and the topic requires some new alignments to historic functions.

I'll try my two situations as examples:

Rental neighborhood (I'm Secretary for the Board, and the website administrator) - this appears to be a good alignment as much of what goes on our website (both the public and the private components) is the historic realm of the secretary. We don't allow dues payment through the website, so all that is required is initial loading of historical documents (some public and but most private), and maintenance functions like loading all new documents (minutes, financials, meeting notices, agendas, etc). Treasurer keeps their financial records, and provides statements that are posted online in the private area.

My neighborhood (I'm on the Board)- we have a management company that maintains our part of their website. The website is far more capable, and includes ways to note covenant violations, pay dues, submit architectural requests, etc.

Your stated areas of interest:
- manage our web page (seems reasonable, and shouldn't be a big issue)
- all association records (this is the job of the secretary?) (NOTE - some records should NOT be online, at all - Secretary and President should work this out - See Cathy's input, below)
- our one laptop computer (this is an anachronism in some HOA constructs, in others a distraction - many folks believe this is where records should be stored - probably not as effective as a good secretary maintaining them in paper, with electronic copies on the protected side of the website)
- interface with our committees on website postings (I think committees should be free to provide announcements to the site administrator without other involvement - KISS principle- assuming there aren't weird things being posted - and, then it becomes a board issue to remove/replace bad actors)
- sole communication with webmaster (nah - sounds like a power play - it isn't the UN, it's just an HOA)

I would call it whatever the Bylaws says - or, whatever it is usually called in Arizona. Don't let this basic administrative concept distract everyone - name it something simple that will be reasonable for years to come.