Power of attorney during open forum discussion

Hi,

Before HOA meeting we ask members to share Sign Up sheet for members who like to talk during open forum discussion(Florida)

One of the residents (Who is not an owner on the deed) got a power of attorney from her father (the owner) to represent him at all the meetings.
The member asked to put both her name and her fathers on the sign up sheet so they have more time to talk during the open forum.

Is it allowed ?

I don't see a problem with the woman representing her father. My guess is that in most states you would have no choice but to allow it.

I don't understand how anyone would think she could get more time by writing two names. She either represents him or he represents himself. Either way, it counts as one person.

Hi,
I have replied to the member using the POA that she cannot have both talking as per forums suggestions, The member reply was:

"Please send me legal documentation supporting your “claim” that I am not allowed speak at the HOA meeting if my Father also has some questions and/or wants to speak.

Where are these resolutions you passed regarding member discussions during HOA meetings? Where is this document? This is my formal request for the resolution book and required filings for them"

How will you suggest to reply - She is causing a lot of headache to the board ??

As FYI The board secretary included in the board minutes the resolution which was passed which is the following:

1. A Signup sheet will be published with the meeting agenda, members will include any topic they would like to discuss and the parcel representative.

2. Each Unit/parcel will have 3 minutes to talk about the topics they signed for .

3. Open forum will be conducted at the start of the meeting only, this to allow any member , who sign up the sheet, to speak for any topic that he signed for.

Thanks in Advance.
Asaf

This was my original reply to her signup sheet , that was the reply on top of it.

"Thank you for sending the sign up sheet.

Per FS720

RIGHT TO SPEAK.—Members and parcel owners have the right to attend all membership meetings and to speak at any meeting with reference to all items opened for discussion or included on the agenda. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the governing documents or any rules adopted by the board or by the membership, a member and a parcel owner have the right to speak for at least 3 minutes on any item. The association may adopt written reasonable rules governing the frequency, duration, and other manner of member and parcel owner statements, which rules must be consistent with this subsection

Per FS 720 the board has adopted in the last Board meeting a policy around the open forum discussions.

1. A Signup sheet will be published with the meeting agenda, members will include any topic they would like to discuss and the parcel representative.

2. Each Unit/parcel will have 3 minutes to talk about the topics they signed for .

3. Open forum will be conducted at the start of the meeting only, this to allow any member , who sign up the sheet, to speak for any topic that he signed for.

We need to remember this is a business meeting where the board discuss association business, The board will not be able to do it effectively if homeowners or board members drone on and on with running out of time to address all the agenda items.
After the open forum ends, all members are welcome to stay for the business portion and listen, no comments or questions will be allowed so the board can address all meeting items.

Regarding the sign up sheet, either you or Mr Ladish will be able to represent parcel 603 due to the fact you are using a power of attorney.

You cannot have power of attorney active and not active at the same time, meaning if your father will be able to join the meeting you will not be able to address the board. Pls let us know who will be the Parcel representative so we can update the signup sheet.

If you have any question/suggestion regarding any agenda item, feel free to approach the board email and we will do our best to respond prior or during meeting, this way 3 minutes or so can be enough to clarify any point.
"

Thanks !
on top of this answer she replied the following :

"Please send me legal documentation supporting your “claim” that I am not allowed speak at the HOA meeting if my Father also has some questions and/or wants to speak.

Where are these resolutions you passed regarding member discussions during HOA meetings? Where is this document? This is my formal request for the resolution book and required filings for them"

What else is she looking for ?

If the member was actually helping we would not mind at all, but they use the time to criticize the board which ends up wasting every one time!

Our concern is if you allow one then other member will get the excuse to do so and the open forum will be extended to over 30 minutes

It’s their three minutes on anything on the agenda.

If they want to criticize the board on that item on the agenda, great - time them all.

If they don’t stay on topic, cut them off, and move to the next person wishing to speak.

The power of attorney is akin to a proxy.
A proxy holder has the right to act in place of the member, which includes speaking.

That said - I think it would depend on how much time you have at the meeting for open discussion.
If it's not a lot, or there are a lot who wish to speak, I would only let one of them speak.
If you have the time and there aren't that many who wish to speak, I don't see the harm.
Is this the battle you want to fight with these people?

Ditto, with the caveat that I do not see any attorney being willing to squander her or his reputation with a judge on this issue. I think these two (clowns) would have to take this to court pro se.

Asaf,

I reread your last post a couple of times - I want to reiterate my last point.

One or the other of the folks could speak to any topic on the agenda - for three minutes if you chose to limit them. As long as they are complaining about the board related to the topic on the agenda, it is fine - regardless what they say about the board (within reason). You are not required to allow both to speak on a single topic - it is up to you.

Do not fall into the trap of trying to limit them because you don't like what they have to say - as long as they confine those comments to the topic.

Thanks so much guys for the support, Every meeting is a disaster due to these members!

That member requested they both talk about all the topics on the agenda.
We have 4 items on the agenda. if we play nice a you suggest George only both of them can take 24 minutes of the boards time. if we dont restrict them.

Also same member asked for the the following
"Where are these resolutions you passed regarding member discussions during HOA meetings? Where is this document? This is my formal request for the resolution book and required filings for them."

The previous HOA never had a resolution book, and in our CC&Rs it mentioned that we MAY have one.
From another post I understood our minutes are enough. where is the law around it to proof her we dont need a resolution book?

we like to be correct on it from the start , as she will probably to create AMOK around this new order on Tuesday.

What about this comment?
"Where are these resolutions you passed regarding member discussions during HOA meetings? Where is this document? This is my formal request for the resolution book and required filings for them."

At our CC&Rs it mentioned the HOA MAY have a book of resolution.

That's interesting. I've often wondered what's the difference between a Motion-Seconded-Vote decision and an "official" resolution. No one in my HOA has ever had an answer to that, and I've asked several dozen people about it over the last 5 years. After 30 years and counting my HOA's Board has never considered a "Resolution" on anything.

Your minutes back the limitation. Rules and Regulations are not like Covenants and ByLaws.

How about just send in Federal agents. That should shut them up!

Thanks so much for the research, our lawyer mentioned that 718 Condo statute does not apply to us only 720. so we should be ok unless she comes us with a different quote from FS.

I know this is painful, but I would urge the Board to follow every rule - the quote below from FS720 ... you said four items on the agenda. One or the other gets to speak (one piece of property) for three minutes on each item. This is 4 x 3 minutes = 12 minutes, right?

They could alternate - right? One speaks on two items and one speaks on the other two. This is still 12 minutes, right?

"(6) RIGHT TO SPEAK.—Members and parcel owners have the right to attend all membership meetings and to speak at any meeting with reference to all items opened for discussion or included on the agenda. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the governing documents or any rules adopted by the board or by the membership, a member and a parcel owner have the right to speak for at least 3 minutes on any item. The association may adopt written reasonable rules governing the frequency, duration, and other manner of member and parcel owner statements, which rules must be consistent with this subsection."

So, think about if co-owners.

Only one can talk for three minutes, but they could alternate.

I don’t think POA or proxy works to allow someone other than the owner to be elected to the board - unless your docs allow non property owners to be elected to the board, then either or both could be elected.

I agree with Geno and Augustin and Sheila. Geno says it well.

In Florida that's not permitted in a Condo association. In an HOA, though, it's a different story. We've got a husband/wife team on our 4-member board now since January of last year. Before that, there was a different husband/wife team on the board for a year in 2018. Some people here don't like it, including myself, but it's not illegal in an HOA. We could amend our documents, as many other FL HOAs have done, but that would be *gasp* work.

If an overwhelming number of homeowners don't care, it's pointless to try and fix.

I think, MarkW, that one of the pair is not an owner, please reread the OP.