Should the Board discuss homeowner issues at public meetings?

Chris:

Your question leaves an open ending, should the board discuss issues with whom? Amongst the board? Yes, the board discusses issues like that. In an open forum? No, the board should not name names and discuss personal issues in an open forum.

I was put in a situation at an HOA meeting where the board president announced that any mail from me has been returned to me unopened and that I need to send things to the management company and not him. It was a put down.

The same board did not protect myself and husband from a settlement agreement they had with a neighbor. We were left out of the loop and are now being affected by their agreement.

The board also sent a letter to us that was copied to a neighbor. Isn't this supposed to be kept personal?

What happened to equitable CCR rights? I want to and need to know.

Suzy S

So the discussions regarding problems with homeowners can be addressed in open meetings as long as there is no identifying information given:
broken gate, noisy pets, weeds, decorations not taken down at lot 456, is okay, but not, Mr. Claus' house on 456 Christmas Lane has too many noisy pets, broken gate, etc is NOT?

Issues you referenced are not individual homeowner only issues, these types of issues affect the whole association. Where else could productive discussion be held that would involve a fair number of the members of the association? Generic discussion of the infractions should be held at a public meeting, taking great pains to avoid finger pointing at any specific homeowner. Other than the safety issue(burned house)which there is a higher power, city or county, with the ultimate responsibility for correction, it is the responsibility of the board to address these situations as per your CCR's. May I assume that your "public meeting" is a legitimately convened open board meeting?

For the sake of argument,if we assume the proper procedures have been followed by your board, and the problems still exist, is next the level to instigate a legal proceeding against the offending homeowner? This should be the last resort! Peer pressure is a much nicer and effective way to promote compliance to the CCR's. Nothing, in my experience with the HOA I belong to, gets the word, whether good or bad, right or wrong, around quicker than the backyard conversation that begins "Did you hear what the Board did last night...." and when the majority of the members of the HOA who comply with the CCR'S, even if they don't agree with some of the "rules",is aware other members aren't compliant, eyes are opened all through the neighborhood. The non compliant homeowners are quickly recognized. Will this correct the existing non-compliance issues, maybe maybe not, but the probability of the issues continuing or multiplying will be greatly reduced. All with out a shot fired.....but it has to begin with constructive discussion by those entrusted with the governance of your association.

Positive open communication is the corner stone of any association.

ChirsB4 - Your subject line leads me to believe you are asking should the Board discuss issues dealing with individual homeowner's at public meetings. I believe that it is good governance if the names of owners are kept out of the discussion if there are owners (other than the ones talked about) that are present. In other words you can speak in generalities and make no bones about doing so for privacy sake of the individual owners involved.

I think that actions which lead to escalation of enforcement are "personal" and should not be named (you can however, refer to lot number - I know, I know, anyone can find out that information, etc, or if you are using an MC and they have internal "account" numbers - accounting system identifiers); as an HOA President I would NEVER advocate using any owner's personal information in a public meeting. Remember if the escalation has reached a stage in "the game," where we are talking about adverse actions, executive session is a proper and useful tool.

In RobertR1's example the "issue" listed was parking space, treasurer error, etc - are those situations which the "occupants" of the issue are part of the process before it reached the HOA board. Issues between neighbors of property ownership are civil matters which escalated to the board. Some of the other issues, such as noise complaints, etc that were part of the follow-on posts, ARE community issues, which the board SHOULD address in a proper fashion (open meeting). However using an owners name, or similar ID is not proper.

This post is going to "parallel" that of whether or not past dues/assessments should be made public and if an owner's name should be used. Some feel that it is the community's "right" to know this information; others may feel that it would be violation of Fair Credit reporting requirements to make such a disclosure public.

Allow me to play devil's advocate and simpify things... if the "issue" at hand requires use of HOA funds, then we the board has fiduciary duty to perform with "notice" to the community. Letter goes out to owner about multiple pets, noise, flowers, or whatever... The board is tracking the When fines are to be issued because of non-compliance, there is another letter used, and the escalation starts there; aligned a track with the escalation of the board's actions - so too is the escalation requirement/responsibility to the community (votes in open meetings, whether a committee, or full board meeting, etc). If it reachs "nuke" levels (as in my usual grenade versus nuke analogy..) then the owner has been provide a reasonable "notice" and personal information has been discretly been engaged - but because of the esscalation component the actions of the HOA also must escalate - so that those actions are above reproach (legally and ethically).

Last thing... while an HOA is "community" organization, it is also a BUSINESS, and as such should follow (and in most cases required to follow) appropriate business etiquette. There are "requirements" for when a creditor can post up in the local paper the debt, foreclosure, repo, etc - which are not "immediate" as most HOA meetings are (monthly, annually, etc). An HOA board is also YOUR NEIGHBORS, and while you do have a fiduciary responsibility, you also should balance that (logically) with what and how you would want to be treated in such a situation.

Jadedone,
Excellent presentation of a difficult problem. I mostly agree with all you say and wish that all Board were quided by the same logic. But, as you know, it turns out Board members have all the flaws we all do and tend to wiggle around and around to endorse their personal considerations. I think board members are entitled to a little wiggle room, if for no other reason than the job is so taxing, or will be if done right. I hope you would agree that rules don't aways command the attention they deserve and folks make mistakes and say things, etc, etc. The Board should be given every consideration by the membership and the board in turn should give every consideration to the membership.. From that it is just a matter of degrees and who crosses the line first.

Hi Robert,
You stated that the member sued the Association and the members, which would give the members the right to be informed as to what was your position as members was. Some information between Attorney and Board is privledged and cannot be shared. But as long as you, the association members are paying for legal service, you are entitled to be made aware of the proceedings. But I am not an attorney and they may feel differntly.

We recently came thru a lawsuit against some truck owners and we had the attorney representing the association address the membership, explaining the whys and whats of the lawsuit.

I forgot to mention homeowners who wish to speak on their behalf about issues the Board has with them. My best solution to that is to give the homeowner the choice of a public or private meeting.

ChrisB,
Well considered reply and you have a nice way of getting your point across.
But, and you knew this would be the next word.
*******************************************

I think my recommendation will be to talk about the issue in a general sense in public and avoid using any identifiers if at all possible. That way the Board would be expected to discuss the issue in public, but limit identification of individual homeowners to other homeowners. This would have the added benefit of keeping those that attend the meeting from any bias as, in a perfect world, they wouldn't know who the issue is about should they decide to make a comment.

**********************************************
I am being hyper critical but since I have spent so much time off the board, I will give you my reaction to the above and really don't offer any solution to what I reacted to.

You go along with a nice tone and reasonable evaluation and it comes across smooth. Then this paragraph. "This would have the added benefit of keeping those that attend the meeting from any bias as, in a perfect world, they wouldn't know who the issue is about should they decide to make a comment." To me, this stopped me dead and I know you don't mean this and as I said I am being real critical. But you seem to be insinuating the members can't handle a little bias, but the Board has privy to this aand therefore are capable of acting without bias. I realize someonee has to act and it should be the Board, but the Board are members also.

This is just me, so it amounts to no condeemnation of you in any way.

Robert,

As is the case with message boards, often it's hard to get a point across due to much of what we need to communicate being stripped away (of course I'm talking about body language and tone). In the case of your reply I like you am a bit confused by your reply, but like you will try not to assume that the comment was a negative one.

Having said that I will follow up with this statement I hope will clarify my position.

I volunteered to help in my community on our Board of directors. I did so because we have had so much conflict in the recent past. The problem as I see it is there is little in the way of policy, and I thought I could bring some ideas to help build some structure to a Board that has operated with little in the way of consistent policy and procedure. Board members here have often made decisions based on their personal goals giving little thought to the precidents they set. I practice what I preach, but I'm fighting an uphill battle and are constantly accused of being a "nit-picker".
Our President consistently breaks the rules justifying his actions hiding behind words like "community" and "I'm doing it for the kids" and "at least I'm getting something accomplished", while ignoring words like "business", "accountability", "responsibility" "process" and "proceedure". Those in the community at large who hear what he is doing, but are not involved take what he says at face value not understanding the larger problems that he is creating (his wife prints a highly bias newsletter that promotes their agenda, again hiding behind the words I outlined already).
He has hand picked the Board (after the previous Board quit and left him alone) with the members that sit here now. I was one of those, though I made it very clear my position and even told him I did not agree with the way he was doing things. He picked me anyway. He has 2 of the other 4 members agreeing with him pretty much constanly. They give little thought to policy and make this purely personal. I would have left a long time ago, but 60 or so members have all but begged me to stay in my position.

As I am not a professional HOA member or PM I am open to the fact that our community members may, at a pubic meetings, make a suggestion or comment that may change my opinion on the issues we face and I welcome those that do. I was merely suggesting that if the community was faced with an issue, but didn't know who the issue was about, that they might respond with less bias, but I admit that that is a secondary consideration.

Sorry for building a clock to tell you the time.

Thanks,

Chris