Conflict between Board Members

I don't think you understand the term "due process". Due process is what you're afforded the chance to defend yourself at a proceding where you're otherwise subject to some penalty. This occurs in instances where you're accused of doing something wrong.

Your brief description sounds like a personal problem. If so you're just going to have to deal with it. Why on earth do you need a resolution process for a simple dispute between equals on a board of directors? There's no one coming to rescue you. It's up to you to work it out.

Ok... so no due process, and it's a personal problem... got it.
So... I guess I should have been told that by someone on my side, because what I was told when I asked for help, was that meeting in Executive session was my only option,
and once there, I was badgered by the Association lawyer, the manager, the person I had the conflict wit,h and was cross-examined as if I was at some kind of bogus trial... and I was the one who had the complaints.

I at one point, apologized for crying in a previous meeting (it was in frustration, due to the person's ongoing abusive behavior) and because I have ptsd I can be emotionally sensitive under high stress), and then the entire board,
the association lawyer, and the manager proceeded to talk openly about my mental health, and whether or not I could get thrown off the board for having a symptom of occasional extra emotional sensitivity.

Does this change anything?

oops... sorry, quoted the wrong reply

May not like what have to say. It's not personal or to hurt your feelings. Sometimes a 3rd eye is needed to get you out of the forest.

It sounds like your coming off as an "emotional sucker". A person who uses their emotions to suck out attention of others or to get what they want. You may not know your doing it. I am just saying what these people are treating or viewing you as. At some point people put their foot down and simply say "no more".

I see it all the time with some people. Call it "I got a bone in my leg" syndrome. Everyone has issues but how you deal with them is the difference. I find people who are "emotional" drainers are usually giving up some kind of medical reason for their behavior. Oh I am taking medication that causes me to be emotional... etc...

People are going to tell you "Suck it up buttercup". It's at this point you need to look at yourself and ask "Am I playing victim or being victim?". What do you want it to be?

The reality is that this is a personality conflict. It gets resolved like any other one does. You accepting your role in the conflict and then looking for a way to work that out. It may mean playing less on the emotional and sticking to the facts.

The thing is, I am not overly emotional in meetings... I became emotional when a job I was doing for several years was eliminated.
This action was initiated by the person I have the conflict with after, I held him to the same standards as the person before him, who had tried
to overstep his power in relation to the job I was doing. HE told me not to tolerate it from that person, then he took over that person's job and then tried to
do the same thing, and I held him to the same standard he told me to apply to the situation... and in doing so, I pissed him off.

The very next thing he did, at the very next meeting, without it being on the agenda to even talk about, was come up with a reason to eliminate a job I had
dedicated myself to, spent two years educating myself for, and was good at. At subsequent meetings afterwards, he proceeded to tell me how I was doing the
job the wrong way the whole time anyway, even though no one had ever had any complaints.

No one ever goes against the things he brings to the table, and he knew no one would in this case either.
Things have been bad ever since.

The question I want to see this forum answer is whether California Civil Codes Sections 5910 and 5915 apply when there is a dispute between a director in the minority and a board majority. Links to the two statutes appear at the end.

Conflicts can arise between board directors about whether the board is complying with the governing documents and state law. E.g. suppose, in an extreme instance, a board majority votes to deny all members all records. California statute at Civil Code 5915 and 5910 appears to require that any HOA "party" who has a dispute must follow certain steps ("internal dispute resolution" or "IDR") to attempt to resolve the dispute within the HOA. Does this include disputes between directors?

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Civil-Code-5915#axzz2CgHrcBrn

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Civil-Code-5910#axzz2CgHrcBrn

Never mind, I just wrote nonsense. :-) I'll be quiet while others answer Augustin's question which is an interesting one.

This is my position as well. If a board majority is violating the law, then the minority directors are still members. As members the minority directors may seek IDR. For example, the directors in the minority may submit a formal complaint to the HOA, pursuant to Civil Code . For the example I gave, "the HOA" here will be the board majority. The use of IDR will require due process for all parties.

I thought I saw some case law not long ago, where the HOA said one of the directors did not have standing to sue to enforce the covenants. The court said, 'Wrong. The director in question is also a member. Just because the member happens to win a seat on the board, he does not give up his member rights.'

If I were in the OP's shoes, and if I had all the money in the world, I would seriously consider hiring an attorney to write a single letter to the HOA. It would briefly question the board, manager and HOA attorney about how this 'discussion' gave every appearance of indicating the HOA's hostility to the OP on the basis of disability. Just to help keep it from every happening again.

I think anyone engaging in HOA issues is stuck with having a thick skin or suffering mightily. But when a group at one's place of residence indicates its hostility to having someone with possibly a bona fide disability on the board, then this may be a Fair Housing Act problem. Suppose the OP had a speech impediment and struggled to speak clearly. Suppose the Board then discussed her fitness for serving on the board, and the directors asked whether the OP could be thrown off the board for this disability. Pfft.

I am not sure where to draw the lines here between rude behavior; possibly unlawful behavior; and the inevitable reality that conflict is the norm at many HOAs. For now, 'just sayin': I am with others in objecting to this fifth grade like behavior. The instant someone speculated aloud about whether a board member could get thrown off for having PTSD, the HOA attorney should have shut down the discussion.

It was not employee/employer. It was an appointed position.

I can't really elaborate on it more, however, without writing a book.

Things were fine for several years before I angered this person and became their target.

Plus... what you're saying? Sounds a bit discriminatory. Almost everyone on this planet has "emotional issues".

Who should be the judge of such things?

Hi Nicole

I don't want to read facts into your situation that aren't there. Yet the information you provided leaves me wondering about a number of things In my limited experience, lawyers are rarely present at Board meetings. I'd like to understand that a bit better.

Was it unusual for the lawyer to be at the meeting? Who brought the lawyer in? For what objective? What was the lawyer's role supposed to be at the meeting?

While the process that occurred was obviously distressing for you, I'm trying to understand something different. What was the Board attempting to accomplish by having the lawyer present? They might have failed in that objective, but there must have been a specific purpose unless having a lawyer present is common practice in your association..

Sorry, I forgot to include this quote... do you have a private email I can speak to you at?

Ok, but here's the thing...

Let's say me and another board member have an interpersonal conflict.
Let's say I request IDR.
When the Association Attorney shows up to IDR, who is he representing, exactly?
If no Assocation rule is associated with the situation, then that seems to change the
whole idea of Due Process.

In the case where a CC&R rule is broken, and if I as a homeowner was notified of this (and given 10 days to fix it)
and then somehow it was more complicated, and if I requested IDR, the attorney, if they showed up
would be on the side of the Assocation, but this is not that.

This has already happened twice, where there was supposed to be a "conflict resolution"
topic to address an interpersonal issue I had with another board member, and even though
it was not a board issue, and attorney acted as if he was defending the Assocation President,
who is just another board member, but who I believe abuses their power.

This month again, I see this same topic on the agenda, not put there by me, and I asked what it is about, and I am being
stonewalled.
I wrote that I will not be put in a situation resembling the ones before, and have gotten no
response. It has ruined my entire weekend, I've gotten almost no sleep in over three days over this.

Does someone who is accused of something not have the right to know what they are accused of?
Our parliamentary rules have the outline for a Trial, and how to go about it, but they are not
interested in the process, even though our PR (Robert's Rules) are formally adopted.

I do not feel safe going to such a meeting, and I am finding it hard to trust any of the people who I
am supposed to be able to trust as a board member. I think they want to get me there so they can
put me on the spot with no preparation (again) to embarass, humiliate, and intimidate me, so that I will quit.
I think the Manager, the President, and perhaps one other person who is very loyal to the president
is trying to do all they can to squeeze me out, plain and simple.

Yes but the board member in question has the assistance of the manager and the HOA attorney seemingly at their disposal.

Emotional hostage? If that is anyone, it is me, but maybe if you explain, what you mean will be clearer.