Improper Board Meeting

We try to follow Robert's Rules of Order as best we can.....Is it proper to call a Special Meeting to discuss a Co-owner complaint? I think it is not. We have a Complaint Procedure that the Board should have been followed but didn't. Instead they first called a Special meeting called (somewhat properly with 3 days notification etc.) but the meeting was to address a complaint against a co-owner. We have a formal Board Complaint Procedure which was ignored. The procedure (which, as I said was ignored) included first obtaining from the accuser a written, properly signed complaint sent to our Management to determine if the Board could even address it or not. Then if determined the Board could address it, it would follow a procedure that included confidentiality and an option for the accused to have an executive session where he and the accuser would be present, no homeowners. As I said, this was all ignored and a meeting was held (changed from the Special Meeting called to an Executive Meeting in the first draft, it was corrected, and the second draft was switched back to a Special Meeting. I think the whole thing should be discarded and the accused should be apologized to for such nonsense. Other homeowners were present, when, according to the procedure, it should have been held in executive session for privacy matters and wasn't. A huge mess and no one would listen to me......so, I am saying these so called written meeting minutes are not legal and should be thrown out and cannot be a added to or approved and included with our other legal meeting documents. Am I accurate in this opinion? Thanks!

I agree with Bill that your writing is very hard to follow, Lou. Dud the board vote to make any kind of decision?

You've repeatedly posted about withers meeting minutes are accurate. but this time, since you're a board member, the more serious matter is that a matter that should have been in executive session was held as "a special meeting."

the isn't a Robert's Rules topic! It's about your Bylaws. what do they say about topics for "special meeting of the Board?

The facts:

-- From an earlier thread, this is a condominium subject to the Mi Condo Act.

-- The COA tries to follow Robert's Rules.

-- Robert's Rules does have provisions for hearings, but I think one has to read them with an eye to the purpose of COA/HOA hearings. Most importantly, Robert's Rules speaks of the importance of confidentiality and the risk of libel claims if confidentiality is not observed. See for example: http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-13.htm

-- The COA has a 'Board Complaint Procedure.'

-- The Board Complaint Procedure provides for confidentiality and also offers the accused owner the option to have an Executive Session with the Board and the accuser. Other owners are not allowed.

-- Owner X accused Owner Y of ____.

-- Instead of holding a confidential, Executive Session, the COA called a Special Meeting of the owners to discuss Owner X's complaint against Owner Y.

Aug's analysis:
First, Robert's Rules indicate confidentiality is important. Second, the COA's very own complaint procedure requires confidentiality. Third, the COA's procedure likely is a contractual term, enforceable by the courts. (This also has a lot to do with the "due process" expectations of the courts nationwide when it comes to supporting HOA/COA hearing outcomes.) Fourth, the COA failed to maintain and support confidentiality. Fifth, the COA did not follow its own due process procedures. All this holds the COA out to liability for, say, breach of contract, defamation, invasion of privacy, and so on.

Aug's conclusion:
For the above reasons I agree the Minutes from this Special Meeting of the Owners should not be approved. Nor should these Minutes be distributed to the owners. The Minutes should not even be typed up, AFAIC.

Their are two tupes of special meetings, of the owners and of the board. It was not stated which type it was, I'm assuming it was a special meeting of the board, in which case, how the agenda is prepared is different across different states.

1--Using a set of parliamentary procedures is required for member meetings, not board meetings unless so specified in the Bylaws. So the mention of Robert's Rule of Order here is immaterial.

2--I see no mention of state law that says the topic discussed must be held in confidence or executive session. A California attorney suggests dues should be held in executive, but doesn't say it must.

Granted, I would not hold this type of meeting in front of other members, but whatever floats your boat.

While Augie reads case law, I spent two hours last night watching YouTube videos of "HOA's Gone Beserk".

Lou, your HOA has nothing on the others, not even close.

Augustin D, I think someone went awry when I tried to send my first response to you. I will try again. Thanks so much, I am always thrilled to receive you reply, so when I entered my problem I was happy to see you were "on" and had replied to a couple of other problems.

You always hit the nail on the head and provide facts to support. Again my sincere thanks. Until next time. Take care.

LouH1, you are welcome.

I see now it was a Special Meeting of the Board that owners were allowed to attend. As long as the owners were allowed to attend, of course I feel this meeting remains a mistake for the reasons I gave earlier.

I appreciate your urging your Board to do the right thing. I know it's hard to be a minority asking that the proper, lawful, contractually-based procedures are followed.

Peace to you and yours.

If I were on your board, the only way I would vote to approve minutes for a board meeting is if the Minutes actually reflect what transpired and there were no other legal risks. Examples of legal risks which would result in my not voting to approve Minutes: When a secretary records a slander of a person in the Minutes or possibly some director stupidly makes a sexist, racist, anti-Christian or anti-Semitic et cetera remark.

This meeting was held with owners present, so it was not an executive meeting (which I equate to an executive session, with no owners present). If it weren't for the hearing that occurred (in violation of the Complaint Procedure), what happened could be a Special Meeting of the Board. But since what transpired was some flavor of unlawful hearing, I would not call it a meeting or hearing. If the other directors insist on Minutes, call it a Special Meeting of the Board.

By the way, I am with you about apologizing. Studies show apologies result in less chances of litigation. But I might not hold my breath waiting for your Board to agree to apologize.

I say owner complaints should not be made public. They should be treated as confidential. Also any letters of violation, fines, etc. should be confidential.

We had one owner complain about another neighbor's car parking. A member of the BOD verified it and we had the MC send a warning letter. The complainer demanded to know what we were we doing. We replied we are working on it and what/where we are is confidential between the BOD and the violator. She insisted wanting to know. We politely told her it is none of your business what we are doing.

Can someone other than Lou tell me or us what violation occured. What was stated was a co-owner complaint, which could be "I don't think the pool should close at 6:00 PM".

Where is the violation? Maybe the person parks in front of their neighbors house.

Sorry, Kerry L, shouldn't have included you, as you indicated it was mentioned in my OP. Thank you. If it was something superfluous, I would not be asking for feedback.

Thank you Ben, but I disagree. I understand our documents (Surprise!), the accused is allowed to ask for an executive session to take place and if he/she does that, the accuser can choose to attend the session if he/she so chooses.There is nothing in our documents that allow the accused or the accuser to choose to have this meeting in an open forum. Because of the confidentiality/privacy issue, both expressed in RRO, but also in our governing documents, the accused here, I think, has been disallowed his/her right to confidentially/privacy and the meeting was not, in my estimation a formal meeting that should be included with other formally approved meetings. Why would we even consider approving it?

I also disagree with your rationale that even though "everything" was done wrong in whatever type of meeting was held, that the minutes should be completed anyway. How can not approving this meeting"make it worse?" Please explain. The whole things was wrong and should never have occurred in the first place. Spending time correcting wrong minutes for a meeting that should not have occurred seems ludicrous to me.

There! You have hit on another problem, no covenant violation.....it SHOULD have been treated as a neighbor to neighbor dispute and an effort should have been made to encourage this behavior. EXACTLY!! Just how many ways can this have been handled inappropriately? fAR TOO MANY! That is why I am wanting the whole thing ignored and written off. It ended undecided and did not blow up into a huge issue for which I am thankful. This "meeting" should never have occurred as AgustinD stated for so many reasons. Why any of you think that there should be FORMAL minuteS of this completely invalid meeting eludes me. But thanks to all.

-- If the accuser did not complain of a violation of either the covenants or rules and regulations, then this dispute is not something in which the COA or Board should involve itself. The COA should explain this to the accuser. Who might very well then read the covenants and rules and regs and then claim the accused did violate a covenant or rule.

-- But if the accuser is claiming a flavor of either nuisance or harassment, and either your covenants or rules and regs prohibit nuisances or harassment, then the COA and Board should follow its Board Complaint Procedure (which means any meeting that happens will not be open to all owners).