owner's husband is upset because he can't view security camera footage.

As you are not a Board member, you have no relationship to any of this. You are simply a property owner.

Stay out of it.

You say your not on the board. However, it appears you may be (at least) active with the board.

As others have said, stay out of it.
Defer to board members.
If need be, defer to Association attorney.

In CA statues there's quite a list of Association records that owners may review. And another of records they may not review. Video recordings aren't on either list, which makes me wonder if they are, in fact "other records" as defined in NE's Condo Act.

Whether or not this man may review the tapes, Bonnie, you really should have referred him to the Board for a decision. He can write to them requesting access.

Augustin,

I understand the language of the Nebraska statute.

Regardless, if I were the board President, I would push to ensure no one views surveillance footage except law enforcement - and, if law enforcement asks for assistance in identification of people or things, from members.

If pushed into a lawsuit circumstance, I would attempt to sidestep the issue entirely.

My contention, unless shown specifically otherwise, is that security surveillance material is not a record available to the community for examination.

Let us know what happens, please!

George, for the interested reader (done with reading the phone book for the day), Nebraska had a 2018 appeals court decision that said "other records" means "other records" without limitation. A Nebraska condo board passed a resolution restricting a member's right to view records. The member took the condo to court and won this issue on appeal. See https://law.justia.com/cases/nebraska/court-of-appeals/2018/a-17-682.html . Of course, like you posted, this will have little-to-no-bearing on how boards actually conduct themselves. It's a legitimate strategy for a board to just refuse to comport with the law on records until someone drags the HOA to court.

How do I know it is legitimate? Because when the HOA loses in court on a records request, the courts do not make HOAs pay the opposition's attorney's fees.

More importantly at this point, the OP appears to want suggestions on how to get along with neighbors.

This, in and of itself, is a problem. Makes no difference if you are on the BOD or not.

Your house is not an HOA office. You don't keep business hours. It's your home. If you need a policy, it's the one that says your home is your own private sanctuary. No one should come knocking at your door, especially when they may be angry at something going on in the community. If it's an emergency, they should call 911. Otherwise leave you alone.

On the issue of "other business records," I think of it this way - If I had paper documents, and those documents included private information about one person, I would only share the portion that actually is business information and I would redact the personal information. Redaction is common when it comes to business records for valid reasons. Just because the medium is different (video vs paper) does not mean that privacy issues should be treated differently.

Sharing with police when there's a potential criminal act makes sense. Policy statement to community makes sense. Sharing information for non-HOA business reasons makes no sense.

The cameras are not easily accessible for the property owner to view his own property. Also we are an apartment style condominium with a shared garage on the first fl. He is renting a space from and unit owner who does not have a vehicle so the place from where the tires were stolen was not his property. Also garage spaces are listed as limited common areas.

The archival review he is requesting does mean a large time investments to convert files for thumb drive use, etc. He is not requesting this because of another theft. He just wants to see when the person who stole his tires was in the building before and did she steal anything prior to stealing his tires. To my knowledge the only theft that has been reported (I still attend as many Board meetings as I can attend as an interested owner) is the theft of his tires.

I am thinking that the Board should suggest that he get the video of the theft of his tires from the police.

It is also my opinion that the underlying reason this man's request for such time consuming activity is that the Board rejected his bid for camera equipment.

I think he should have listened to his wife (I think they were here tires) and stayed out of it. When I told him he should have listened to his wife, his response was basically she is not doing what I want to do.

But not everyone is a fiduciary. Fiduciaries have an obligation to put the interests of the community above their own. I doubt that the person who wanted to see the video was interested in anything more than his own interests. Non-fiduciaries should not have open access IMO.

Thanks, as always, Augustin.

First question is easy - I think you intended it to be.

Second question sort of twists the point to generalize all information as "records." I think everyone understands records - as it relates to HOAs, but even here there are some areas where there are differences, eg, bids and some business content and some legal records. My contention on this - and, it is just a contention, unless it goes to court - is that surveillance footage in an HOA/COA is not a "record" in the historic intent. It is there to specifically, and usually forensically, assist law enforcement. I contend :-) the information obtain is not a record in this classic sense.

Continuing - if I were the president of this Board, I would attempt to immediately work with the Board to develop a process - and vote on this process at the next Board meeting - to show a specific flow of the process whereby law enforcement, at their request, reviews the surveillance records, probably with the assistance of those that are responsible for the cameras and storage (this COULD be a Board member, or a member of the security staff, etc). If law enforcement needs more assistance from members of the community, they can, by their normal process of investigation, interview those individuals and use the surveillance material per their normal process.

Bonnie may just be a nice person. In my neighborhood - I would welcome an owner asking me a question in person. I would not welcome them if they did this repetitively as an ankle biter/pest, nor would I welcome it if they were aggressive in any way. There are two things at work: 1. being neighborly, and 2. being approachable as a member of the Board.

Recreating on the Xmas holiday --

George, I agree with your examples of HOA records that are not open to members in any state. The laws on certain types of "privileged" communications, like attorney-client privilege or proprietary privilege, appear to frequently trump the statutes on HOA record inspection by members. Also an individual's right to privacy often trumps the HOA record inspection statutes.

Let's suppose the film footage of at least the time-of-theft was retained on a memory stick or computer. I too wondered whether the film footage may not be a "record of the association" as the phrase is used in the Nebraska condo statute. Perhaps, as I think you may be saying, it may be reasonable to focus on the modifier "of the association." A 'record // of // the association' is a record that represents board or association action in some way, such as financials, receipts for services ordered, minutes of non-executive session meetings and the like.

For the sake of argument, suppose this gentleman is a member of the HOA. He files suit, demanding (1) the footage at the time of the theft and/or a copy of what the police were given on a thumb drive; (2) the prior weeks' footage, without specifying exact days; and (3) his attorney's fees. Suppose the HOA's attorney argued what George argued (film footage of a parking garage is not a record intended by the Nebraska Condo Act). The HOA's attorney also argues that there are privacy concerns (as others here at hoatalk mentioned). The member's attorney rebuts that there are no privacy concerns for the time-of-theft footage in particular. The member's attorney says that there are other HOA records that a member should be able to see that do not reflect acts of the Board or HOA, such as the member list or architectural plans submitted by members for approval. (Kerry pointed out that the California HOA statute delineates records that may be inspected. The California statute's list includes architectural plans submitted by members for approval and member lists.)

Suppose I am the trial judge. I am one of those judges who hates how backed up my court is with bullsh-t. Still I do not like my decisions being overturned. I want to be seen as fair by as many people as possible. Else justice in this country is dead. (I have watched a few judges in the last ten years. In civil court, I think they are pretty serious about trying to get things as right as possible.) First, I am not going to make a sweeping ruling that tries to address future disputes over records. I think as a judge I would be concerned that this gentleman had his snow tires stolen on condo property. I think it is not just a police matter. The HOA member might want to keep this from happening again and thinks the footage may reveal things he can do to stop it in the future. (The member's attorney has made these arguments.) The HOA member has partly paid for the film footage. Given how sweeping the Nebraska condo statute is on records, and given that a serious crime has been perpetrated, I think I'd rule that the HOA must turn over a copy of the thumb drive to the member. If it is not hard to get a copy of the time-of-theft footage, to me this seems completely fair, reasonable and consistent with the statute.

Second, regarding the member's request for--WTH does he want? (The judge thinks to herself in private.) Weeks and weeks of footage? The member's attorney contends that the member wants to check for other crimes. The HOA's attorney has rebutted that the court should not endorse vigilante action. This HOA member merely wants to be Charles Bronson in "Death Wish," the well-paid HOA attorney roars. The HOA says it either does not have this old footage anyway, or it would be very expensive to retrieve this. It would be very expensive to save every moment of 24/7 footage. Lastly, the court is not supposed to rule before a dispute has even arisen, and there is not really a dispute over the several weeks of footage preceding the theft. Ruling for the member on (2) appears to place a huge burden on the HOA. Ruling on (2) is for the HOA. The judge also cautions the member about making requests for footage in the future that unfairly burden the HOA.

Then the two sides' attorneys take everyone out for an expensive lunch.

Once the police got involved and this became a police investigation, the HOA should stay out of it and defer all questions to the investigating officer.

This man has repeatedly complained to me about the cameras. Before his tires were stolen he would tell me "It is ashamed the Board did not go with digital meaning his cameras. We were usually in the laundry room when he told me this.

We have a zigsaw puzzle on the third floor next to his unit that some of our residents work on. I get my exercise using nordic poles to walk to the puzzle sit down a while and work on the puzzle. He has told me as I was working on the puzzle that it is ashamed the Board didn't go with digital.

He placed a note in every residents box complaining about not being able to see footage for weeks prior to his tires being stolen. And wanted people to call the Board member who reviews the footage to insist that she take her time to review weeks of footage.

He was coming home one day while I was at the puzzle and told me that he knew I did now agree with what he did. I told him at that time that I did not even want to talk to him about it.

In my opinion this man is making a pest of himself. I would have no problem with him seeing the footage of the theft but as some have stated here, he should get that from the police.

This man has man a pest of himself on other issues. I just won't go into all the ways this man has man a pest of himself. His wife is working and he has not worked for some time although he is not 65 yet.

I agree with you to a certain extent. I just found out that the springs have been broken on our West garage door and someone put a not saying the door was out of order call door company Thursday and 321. I don't know if 321 is a unit number or not if it is no one who lives in this unit is on the Board and should have contacted a Board member. The camera footage will at least let us know what happened and who put the note on the door.

Also a while back my sister was missing a package and a Board member reviewed the footage to see if it had been stolen.

Believe me no one on the Board has the time to just sit and review footage just for the fun of reviewing the footage.

I did tell our President about our broken garage door. As I was talking to her I suggested that the pest of a man get in touch with the police to review the footage of when his tires were stolen. She told me she thought that he had already been able to review the footage.

The President just told me a short time ago that she thinks this man has already seen the footage of when his tires were stolen.

Why would it not be? Serious question, not trying to start an argument.

I can understand that it may not be one of those records that must be given to owners if they ask for it. But if the HOA pays for the equipment and it was put up for a specific reason (increased safety, etc.), I don't understand why any footage would not belong to the HOA.

Makes sense, and I agree with your last paragraph. I thought about classifying the footage as a confidential record, but I'm even concerned about board members viewing it - too many board members are uninformed or irresponsible, and the potential for misuse is high.

Sorry - should be “auto election,” not “auto elevation.”