Videoing board meetings

JoeD14 (Washington)
Posts: 14

Posted:

How do you feel about someone doing a video call during the board meetings?
We have a few open lawsuits. Most likely the person who filed the lawsuits. Has appointed one of his followers to
either make a recording of all meetings, or do a video call. At the last meeting this guy stood at the back of the room. He taped his phone to the handle of a canoe paddle . He stood there nervously rocking from one foot to the other during the the whole meeting. Big smile on his face the whole time. I do feel sorry for the person on the other side. I'm sure they became sea sick watching the video. Normally he just does an audio recording, but I think this is just a way to intimidate the board. Members of the community have grown tired of the weekly emails full of half truths and misguiding information.

Should we have a vote to ban videos?

Joe Dickinson

AugustinD
Posts: 3,698

Posted:

From an earlier thread, I think this is a HOA (that is, not a condo).

Quote:

Posted By JoeD14 on 04/25/2022 3:13 PM
How do you feel about someone doing a video call during the board meetings? We have a few open lawsuits. Most likely the person who filed the lawsuits. Has appointed one of his followers to either make a recording of all meetings, or do a video call. Should we have a vote to ban videos?

-- Washington statutes appear to be silent on whether recording and live video of board meetings is allowable.

-- Bylaws often state that the Board gets to set reasonable rules for meetings. Do yours? If so, I say the board can ban the recording.

-- I note that this has come up a lot here. Some state have statutes that actually require HOA boards to allow recordings.

JohnT38 (South Carolina)
Posts: 1,631

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JoeD14 on 04/25/2022 3:13 PM
How do you feel about someone doing a video call during the board meetings?
We have a few open lawsuits. Most likely the person who filed the lawsuits. Has appointed one of his followers to
either make a recording of all meetings, or do a video call. At the last meeting this guy stood at the back of the room. He taped his phone to the handle of a canoe paddle . He stood there nervously rocking from one foot to the other during the the whole meeting. Big smile on his face the whole time. I do feel sorry for the person on the other side. I'm sure they became sea sick watching the video. Normally he just does an audio recording, but I think this is just a way to intimidate the board. Members of the community have grown tired of the weekly emails full of half truths and misguiding information.

Should we have a vote to ban videos?

Joe Dickinson

Suppose you can ban videos. The odds are good this goof ball will continue to record the meeting. What will you do if this happens? What I'm saying is don't ban videos unless you have a plan in place to stop him. Otherwise, the entire Board will look like fools.

ThadC2 (Florida)
Posts: 820

Posted:

no ones gonna watch it anways. we post video meetings online and they get zero views. lol.

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

Washington appears to be a two-party consent state:
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

Quote:

".. it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:...
(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation...."

So no.

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CathyA3 on 04/26/2022 5:27 AM
Washington appears to be a two-party consent state:
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

Quote:

".. it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:...
(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation...."

So no.

To clarify: if any one individual at the meeting objects to being recorded, then it can't be done legally. So in practice the meeting can't be recorded.

It would be reasonable for the board to cite the law at the beginning of the meeting and state that the association intends to comply with the law.

Brings up an interesting question, though: how far does the association have to go to protect itself from allowing meetings to be recorded by any attendee? I expect any cell phone nowadays can record. Do you treat everybody like middle-schoolers and confiscate phones at the beginning of the meeting? I wouldn't want to fight that battle.

ThadC2 (Florida)
Posts: 820

Posted:

no ones gonna watch it anways. we post video meetings online and they get zero views. lol.

MaxB4
Posts: 3,513

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CathyA3 on 04/26/2022 5:27 AM
Washington appears to be a two-party consent state:
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

Quote:

".. it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:...
(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation...."

So no.

When did an open board meeting or annual meeting become a "private conversion"?

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

As a BOD Member I have nothing to hide so feel free to video and/or audio record me at a BOD and/or a Member Meeting.

AdamL1 (UnitedStates)
Posts: 559

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MaxB4 on 04/26/2022 10:47 AM

When did an open board meeting or annual meeting become a "private conversion"?

It's private in the sense that it is not public. It's a 'private' meeting of the body of membership. Assuming normal rules of conduct, they can decide and remove participants.

Given that, I would be much more suspicious about why any board member would not want to be recorded. What are they saying that warrants secrecy? Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

AugustinD
Posts: 3,698

Posted:

I happen to think a board meeting is a private conversation and that CathyA3 nailed it, statute-wise.

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

My biggest issue with recording is that technology has progressed to the point where it is possible to create totally fabricated recordings that are indistinguishable from the real thing. It scares me silly. So it's an open question whether recordings let the sun shine in or create a veil of disinformation.

I also question whether recording will promote transparency or will discourage frank discussion. Probably both depending on the participants. And you have to assume that anything that's recorded can wind up on the internet. Yes, HOA stuff doesn't involve state secrets. But it's also nobody's business unless they're members, and there's nothing to be gained by blabbing your business to all and sundry.

AugustinD
Posts: 3,698

Posted:

I have wondered if the United States Supreme Court is on solid ground when it refuses to allow cameras and filming. From https://www.rcfp.org/journals/news-media-and-law-spring-2014/holding-out-against-cameras/:

Over the years, justices have given many reasons for banning cameras. Among them: the Court needs to preserve its tradition; people will not understand the function of oral arguments; the media will use embarrassing sound bites; and cameras will encourage showboating.

One can hear the audio recordings of SCOTUS's oral arguments, at least. They're posted at the SCOTUS web site.

If these arguments are good enough for SCOTUS, I say they're good enough for any board to use to ban videotaping (assuming statutes and governing documents do not say otherwise).

MaxB4
Posts: 3,513

Posted:

We all got to see the OJ Simpson circus, why shouldn't a HOA circus be any different?

I miss these types of meetings...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8yrKA-7mBI

BillD16 (Texas)
Posts: 971

Posted:

There’s also this:

https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/washington/washington-recording-law

IMHO, Washington State legislation on this topic is outstandingly poor.

I’m not convinced that a Board meeting - esp one open to residents / homeowners - is a “private conversation”.

There’s also this: “(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.“ So if the guy with the phone starts recording and announces to the room “I’m recording!”- I think he’s covered. I’m not seeing anything that covers “what if someone objects?”

I believe that historically a lot of this legislation in the USA had a focus on recordings being used as evidence in a criminal prosecution, ie, video of a mobster bribing a politician. In recent years, with the advent of ubiquitous cellphone video and audio recording, some of these laws haven’t aged well. I am not a lawyer, etc.

Last: oftimes it’s perfectly fine to make a recording - what you *do* with that recording is where a person has to be careful, lest they be sued for libel or defamation.

BillD

HOA Board ex-President
Austin, Texas USA

“You can’t put too much water in a nuclear reactor”

LetA (Nevada)
Posts: 2,679

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CathyA3 on 04/26/2022 2:05 PM
My biggest issue with recording is that technology has progressed to the point where it is possible to create totally fabricated recordings that are indistinguishable from the real thing. It scares me silly. So it's an open question whether recordings let the sun shine in or create a veil of disinformation.

I also question whether recording will promote transparency or will discourage frank discussion. Probably both depending on the participants. And you have to assume that anything that's recorded can wind up on the internet. Yes, HOA stuff doesn't involve state secrets. But it's also nobody's business unless they're members, and there's nothing to be gained by blabbing your business to all and sundry.

I will freely admit that I would not be comfortable with a 3rd party recording HOA sessions, I always have that what's their angle, what are they trying to pull alarms going off inside.
And that is why the Secretary makes an audio recording of each meeting, that is the official record. Let someone try to present a recording of a meeting that is not the official record. No court in the USA
would entertain the notion for a second. The first thing any halfway decent investigator will do is subpoena the minutes from the Secretary.

BenA2 (Texas)
Posts: 1,273

Posted:

My opinion is that you should never be afraid of audio or video recordings. The first question that comes to mind is, "what do you have to hide?" If you are doing the right thing, recordings will help you, not hurt you.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with setting reasonable rules. I'm not sure how you would word it but banning cameras attached to canoe paddles hanging over the audience seems reasonable. Maybe you could require that the device be held by or attached to the operator.

BenA2 (Texas)
Posts: 1,273

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CathyA3 on 04/26/2022 10:40 AM

Posted By CathyA3 on 04/26/2022 5:27 AM
Washington appears to be a two-party consent state:
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

Quote:

".. it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:...
(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation...."

So no.

To clarify: if any one individual at the meeting objects to being recorded, then it can't be done legally. So in practice the meeting can't be recorded.

It would be reasonable for the board to cite the law at the beginning of the meeting and state that the association intends to comply with the law.

Brings up an interesting question, though: how far does the association have to go to protect itself from allowing meetings to be recorded by any attendee? I expect any cell phone nowadays can record. Do you treat everybody like middle-schoolers and confiscate phones at the beginning of the meeting? I wouldn't want to fight that battle.

From the same law:
"(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded."

Remaining at the meeting after being notified of the recording constitutes consent. This is the rule in most states and why it is legal to record meetings with out obtaining consent from each person present.

BenA2 (Texas)
Posts: 1,273

Posted:

Actually, I misspoke when I said that is the law in most states. In most states anyone present during a conversation can record it without the consent of others. It is called one party consent. In other states, all parties have to consent.

AugustinD
Posts: 3,698

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By BillD16 on 04/26/2022 3:21 PM
I’m not convinced that a Board meeting - esp one open to residents / homeowners - is a “private conversation”.

I am reversing my position. Washington case law says the courts determine what a "private conversation" is, based in part on court precedent. Here's the blurb that finally nailed it for me:

Location of Conversation and Presence or Potential Presence of a Third Party. A person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation that takes place at a meeting where one who attended could reveal what transpired to others. State v. Slemmer, 48 Wn.App. 48, 53, 738 P.2d 281 (1987).

See

https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2007/62438-1-0.html
and then
https://casetext.com/case/state-v-slemmer-5

MaxB4
Posts: 3,513

Posted:

And I didn't even have to read a line of case law.

MaxB4
Posts: 3,513

Posted:

And I didn't even have to read a line of case law.

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By BenA2 on 04/26/2022 5:18 PM
My opinion is that you should never be afraid of audio or video recordings. The first question that comes to mind is, "what do you have to hide?" If you are doing the right thing, recordings will help you, not hurt you.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with setting reasonable rules. I'm not sure how you would word it but banning cameras attached to canoe paddles hanging over the audience seems reasonable. Maybe you could require that the device be held by or attached to the operator.

Having spent most of my career in IT, some of it dealing with security and keeping the bad guys out, I strongly, emphatically disagree with the part in bold. There are many privacy advocates and citizens with nothing to hide who object to the level of surveillance in modern society. The insinuation that they do have something to hide is simplistic and offensive. The fact is that technology now provides the means to fabricate "something to hide" that is indistinguishable from reality. That's a big reason why so many are bothered by this.

(FWIW, I also assume that all of us have less-then-charming moments that we would not want preserved for posterity.)

But off the soapbox. I'll note the tie-in to the current thread regarding in-person meetings. Another advantage of online meetings is that they can create a recording of the meeting that can be made available to homeowners upon request, thus eliminating the need for personal recordings. It also provides an official, undoctored record, in case altered videos pop up somewhere.

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

My kingdom for an edit button...

BenA2 (Texas)
Posts: 1,273

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CathyA3 on 04/27/2022 4:59 AM
Posted By BenA2 on 04/26/2022 5:18 PM
My opinion is that you should never be afraid of audio or video recordings. The first question that comes to mind is, "what do you have to hide?" If you are doing the right thing, recordings will help you, not hurt you.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with setting reasonable rules. I'm not sure how you would word it but banning cameras attached to canoe paddles hanging over the audience seems reasonable. Maybe you could require that the device be held by or attached to the operator.

Having spent most of my career in IT, some of it dealing with security and keeping the bad guys out, I strongly, emphatically disagree with the part in bold. There are many privacy advocates and citizens with nothing to hide who object to the level of surveillance in modern society. The insinuation that they do have something to hide is simplistic and offensive. The fact is that technology now provides the means to fabricate "something to hide" that is indistinguishable from reality. That's a big reason why so many are bothered by this.

(FWIW, I also assume that all of us have less-then-charming moments that we would not want preserved for posterity.)

But off the soapbox. I'll note the tie-in to the current thread regarding in-person meetings. Another advantage of online meetings is that they can create a recording of the meeting that can be made available to homeowners upon request, thus eliminating the need for personal recordings. It also provides an official, undoctored record, in case altered videos pop up somewhere.

I didn't mean to imply that everyone who is against recordings actually has something to hide but I do believe that many people have that perception. I think you have the best answer, the board should record the meetings and eliminate the concerns.

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

You are assigning why this person is recording. Does not mean it is the reason. Plus when you sue your HOA your suing yourself and your neighbors. There is usually not an open conversation about lawsuit details in a meeting. Even if it was discussed it not like an episode of Perry Mason. The video may or may not be admissable in court. It will depend on the laws of your state.

So let them record if allowed. It is annoying but not illegal. Just be professional in what you all do. Boring meetings are seldom watched.

Former HOA President

AdamL1 (UnitedStates)
Posts: 559

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CathyA3 on 04/27/2022 4:59 AM
Posted By BenA2 on 04/26/2022 5:18 PM
My opinion is that you should never be afraid of audio or video recordings. The first question that comes to mind is, "what do you have to hide?" If you are doing the right thing, recordings will help you, not hurt you.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with setting reasonable rules. I'm not sure how you would word it but banning cameras attached to canoe paddles hanging over the audience seems reasonable. Maybe you could require that the device be held by or attached to the operator.

Having spent most of my career in IT, some of it dealing with security and keeping the bad guys out, I strongly, emphatically disagree with the part in bold. There are many privacy advocates and citizens with nothing to hide who object to the level of surveillance in modern society. The insinuation that they do have something to hide is simplistic and offensive. The fact is that technology now provides the means to fabricate "something to hide" that is indistinguishable from reality. That's a big reason why so many are bothered by this.

(FWIW, I also assume that all of us have less-then-charming moments that we would not want preserved for posterity.)

But off the soapbox. I'll note the tie-in to the current thread regarding in-person meetings. Another advantage of online meetings is that they can create a recording of the meeting that can be made available to homeowners upon request, thus eliminating the need for personal recordings. It also provides an official, undoctored record, in case altered videos pop up somewhere.

you're conflating private regular activity of citizens in their daily lifes to the 'public' discussion of an organization's meeting. Very different concepts. As a private citizen, I don't want to be records, but as a member of a corporation, everything should be recorded and distributed to the membership.

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AdamL1 on 04/27/2022 7:24 AM
... snip ...

you're conflating private regular activity of citizens in their daily lifes to the 'public' discussion of an organization's meeting. Very different concepts. As a private citizen, I don't want to be records, but as a member of a corporation, everything should be recorded and distributed to the membership.

I'm not disagreeing about association records.

However, the original question arose because a homeowner was visibly (and smugly) videoing the meeting. That's a private recording that does not form part of the HOA's official records.

Some states allow homeowners to make such recordings for their private use. Others don't. It is what it is. My point is that there is a downside to allowing this, and I don't believe that lawmakers have entirely thought through the implications of their decisions. Shocking, I know...

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CathyA3 on 04/27/2022 7:37 AM
Posted By AdamL1 on 04/27/2022 7:24 AM
... snip ...

you're conflating private regular activity of citizens in their daily lifes to the 'public' discussion of an organization's meeting. Very different concepts. As a private citizen, I don't want to be records, but as a member of a corporation, everything should be recorded and distributed to the membership.

I'm not disagreeing about association records.

However, the original question arose because a homeowner was visibly (and smugly) videoing the meeting. That's a private recording that does not form part of the HOA's official records.

Some states allow homeowners to make such recordings for their private use. Others don't. It is what it is. My point is that there is a downside to allowing this, and I don't believe that lawmakers have entirely thought through the implications of their decisions. Shocking, I know...

Forgot this part:

Private or public, personal or HOA, the technology is the same and the negative consequences are the same. The HOA can't declare itself immune from these consequences once a recording has been made by anyone just because they have a good reason for it.

It's unfortunately common that whenever people enact rules or laws or whatever, they look only at the good that's supposed to result. Almost never do they think about the possible negative or unintended consequences. And they're always surprised and wrong-footed when those consequences arrive.