Official or Unofficial - that is the question

When I was on the board, the need for a social media policy was discussed and dismissed. The Board agreed it was a good idea to have a policy, but the majority said it would delay any social media plans to write one. The board did agree that there should be no official social media site.

Shortly after that, the President of the Board opened a private face book page for community residents. Since I left the board, official emails and communications from the Association has advertised the site as an "unofficial page".

Official or Unofficial - that is the question?

Technically, I'd say unofficial, but the President's conduct is EXTREMELY tacky. He or she knew what was discussed, but is now taking advantage of "no official policy" to set up a social media site to discuss who knows what. If he/she felt a social media site was needed, he/she should have made a stronger argument or perhaps drafted a policy the rest could have discussed, tweak as needed and then accept.

How did the rest of the board react to this? To me, a strong censure is appropriate via an executive meeting - better yet, select another president.

If others can post "unofficial information, then it is "unofficial".

I agree with BenA2's points, with one caveat:The HOA is giving the President free advertising for his personal web site. This is an abuse of HOA funds. I would hope the board would put a stop to any mention, in HOA publications, whatsoever of any private web site.

The courts have said HOAs are quasi-governmental. Directors have constituents. I think they should be able to communicate freely with constituents (privileged subjects excluded). Directors also have a fiduciary duty to the corporation. I see no violation of fiduciary duty in the publication of a web site properly and prominently marked as not representing the HOA's viewpoint but instead, the viewpoint of one person.

Please google for this information.In his first post.

What? a private Facebook page is a website? FYI, the site Tim is referencing is for the Association with 4 of the 5 admins being Board members.

4 of the 5 Board members are administrators of the page. Doesn't sound like she went behind everyone's back and is the only person responsible for content.Sound to me, based on the page, the Board is operating an unofficial, private Facebook page.

The association is a corporation, just like CNN. Is everyone on the CNN posting official or unofficial information? I would see a problem is the president started a page and didn't allow other board members to be admins.

I think it would be necessarily unofficial. Anecdotally, I don't use Facebook. I do not have and never had an account there, real or fake. I've never logged on to FB from any of my computers, laptops or smartphones/tablets. I've never logged on to FB from any other computer, laptop, or smartphone either. I reject the notion that I must go to an advertising-driven site which exists primarily for the purpose of selling advertising, in order to access material, documents, forms, notices, reports, etc. which I should be able to see by virtue of being a member of the HOA.

I wouldn't mind if the association established a website (not affiliated with FB), provided a secure password-protected logon procedure, and put whatever material they wanted the homeowners to access on it. No problem at all as long as the site content was completely owned by the HOA with all rights reserved. None of this "You retain ownership of anything you post on FB, but FB retains a non-exclusive right to use the material you post for any purpose it deems necessary, and that includes making it available to our business partners".

Not just "no", but "hell no".