NicoleS10 (California)
Posts: 42
Posts: 42
Posted:
I am expecting this to get an adverse reaction when I bring this to my board.
On researching the details of an Ethics Pledge, I came across info about Executive Session, and what it may contain as far as authorized topics.
I have to say that I have, along with many others, violated this code many times, unknowing.
Our president has been in place for over a decade, and management company personnelfor most of a 17 year stretch.
It greatly troubles me that either they do not know about these restrictions, or know and do not care, or know and
did not want to give up using Executive Session to do things they should not, but that they have lead many trusting and
well-meaning individuals into breaking state law, by acting as if this is the norm for meetings.
It is the president's job to know our governing documents inside and out, and yet she relies muchly on our hired manager for that.
Our hired manager has also been either ignorant or negligent in bringing this to the fore, so that Board Members will not be breaking the law.
I am disappointed in both people, epecially considering some of the (unauthorized) topics that have been discussed in Executive.
Especially considering a distraught board member recently was told it was their "only option" to air herissues with someone they
felt was bullying them and abusing power. She was given no notice of a topic on the agenda being about her, and was yelled at
by the manager to "spit it out" when she told the board that she was not given proper notice, and was not prepared (she had notes, evidence, a chronological log of issues).
One thing seems to be true: the list of topics an HOA Board can go into is indeed a "hard limit" sort of list, meaning there is no flexibility or "wiggle room"
to do "other stuff" the board just wants to keep behind closed doors... like discussing abuses of power, and bullying by the president, for example.
If Board Member Jessie starts telling a personal story about their lives in Executive Session,
and pershaps mentiones a health issue they feel is relevant to their service, it seems ludicrous to imagine a board
telling Jessie that now that subject is a secret that should not be shared with others.
It seems if Jessie wanted the Board to know something, he could perhaps write a letter, and not have it be a topic anywhere in the meeting,
but instead to provide it as "informational", and not actually broach it as a topic at all, in Open or Executive.
Regarding the above though... abuses of power for example...
If there is not path or procedure for resolving conflict, does a Board default to
Robert's Rules says on matters of discipline, if that is their officially adopted set of Parliamentary Rules?
if yes, this brings me to my next question...
Robert's says a Trial, if one is needed, must take place in executive session... but for a board who's state limits topics, how can this lawful?
Would a board have to form a committee that was less than a quorum of the board, to hear the grivance, see the evidence and determine the outcome?
and also, would that committee hold this in Open Sesssion, or do committee meetings have different rules?
If this is the route, should that committee be not including the accused, or the accuser?
(I have not fully familiarized myself with the RR Trial process, so if I need to be more aware in order
to ask "the right questions" please say so, and I will re-submit as a new question after some reading)
On researching the details of an Ethics Pledge, I came across info about Executive Session, and what it may contain as far as authorized topics.
I have to say that I have, along with many others, violated this code many times, unknowing.
Our president has been in place for over a decade, and management company personnelfor most of a 17 year stretch.
It greatly troubles me that either they do not know about these restrictions, or know and do not care, or know and
did not want to give up using Executive Session to do things they should not, but that they have lead many trusting and
well-meaning individuals into breaking state law, by acting as if this is the norm for meetings.
It is the president's job to know our governing documents inside and out, and yet she relies muchly on our hired manager for that.
Our hired manager has also been either ignorant or negligent in bringing this to the fore, so that Board Members will not be breaking the law.
I am disappointed in both people, epecially considering some of the (unauthorized) topics that have been discussed in Executive.
Especially considering a distraught board member recently was told it was their "only option" to air herissues with someone they
felt was bullying them and abusing power. She was given no notice of a topic on the agenda being about her, and was yelled at
by the manager to "spit it out" when she told the board that she was not given proper notice, and was not prepared (she had notes, evidence, a chronological log of issues).
One thing seems to be true: the list of topics an HOA Board can go into is indeed a "hard limit" sort of list, meaning there is no flexibility or "wiggle room"
to do "other stuff" the board just wants to keep behind closed doors... like discussing abuses of power, and bullying by the president, for example.
If Board Member Jessie starts telling a personal story about their lives in Executive Session,
and pershaps mentiones a health issue they feel is relevant to their service, it seems ludicrous to imagine a board
telling Jessie that now that subject is a secret that should not be shared with others.
It seems if Jessie wanted the Board to know something, he could perhaps write a letter, and not have it be a topic anywhere in the meeting,
but instead to provide it as "informational", and not actually broach it as a topic at all, in Open or Executive.
Regarding the above though... abuses of power for example...
If there is not path or procedure for resolving conflict, does a Board default to
Robert's Rules says on matters of discipline, if that is their officially adopted set of Parliamentary Rules?
if yes, this brings me to my next question...
Robert's says a Trial, if one is needed, must take place in executive session... but for a board who's state limits topics, how can this lawful?
Would a board have to form a committee that was less than a quorum of the board, to hear the grivance, see the evidence and determine the outcome?
and also, would that committee hold this in Open Sesssion, or do committee meetings have different rules?
If this is the route, should that committee be not including the accused, or the accuser?
(I have not fully familiarized myself with the RR Trial process, so if I need to be more aware in order
to ask "the right questions" please say so, and I will re-submit as a new question after some reading)
