President, of POA, sent out an email related to a Membership vote - would this be considered trying to influence a vote

Our POA membership will be voting on approving or denying a variance. The President just sent the following email to Membership and additional people. Is this appropriate and if it were deemed to be an attempt at influencing a membership election by a board would anything be illegal about it in Texas:

Well neighbors, we did it! We made it 90 days without much drama, no hair-pulling or annoying contentiousness... until now. You still have a Board that's working great together and still in possession of a strong commitment to the letter and spirit of the law, transparency, ethics, peace and harmony supporting the welfare of the community. Nothing's changed there.

When property owners declare they want to invest in the construction of a brand-new beautiful home that will be all stucco, I say "great!" We already have a dozen or more homes that are all stucco that've been built in Rolling Oaks over the years. But, tomorrow night we'll host a Variance vote about stucco. Now who would've thought there was anything provocative about stucco that a rule against it would've been slipped into that last set of CCRs. And even worse, when removal was promised by a previous Board member if we'd just go ahead and vote, well, that promise must've been overlooked. So, here we are stuck with a rule that says no all-stucco houses and that's where the wisdom of state legislators comes in, the variance. The variance lets the homeowners choose to allow it.

So tomorrow's vote is only one thing, will you allow our new neighbors to build the home that they wish or will you reject their request. Pretty simple: approve or deny. We won't tell you what's right for your vote. That's your business and we regard your vote as a special protected thing. And this vote is only about stucco.

Where this gets a little tricky is that one of our property owners appears to be highly stucco-adverse. Why it's an issue, I couldn't tell you but, there it is. It's a big enough issue that that person contacted a number of neighbors and worried them that a guard shack was going to be built. Not true, however one elderly lady neighbor was so alarmed that there was going to be a guard shack with bullets flying, close to tears called a Board member. Now if you didn't get one of those strange emails, forgive this email. If you did get one....please know the guard shack is not going to happen. So keep your variance vote focused on the matter at hand. Vote to approve or reject it, but don't vote one way or another just because someone is spreading misinformation.

Why is the entire membership voting on an architectural variance?

Per CCRs, Membership approves/denies variances.

I think the main point of this letter is in the last paragraph. Apparently there's a rumor floating around saying a guard shack would be built, one owner was concerned and notified a board member, possibly the president, hence the email. Not sure what this lady was told to make her think a guard shack equals bullets, but....

If that's why the president sent the letter, it would have been easier to say something like:

"there are rumors floating around a guard shack being built and for some reason it appears to be tied to the upcoming vote on allowing new houses to be built out of stucco. This is to advise everyone this isn't true. However you feel about stucco, we urge you to vote in the upcoming election.

Here's what you'll be voting on - there are no related issues that were aware of and if any come up after homeowners have their say on this issue, it will be dealt with at that time. Until then, we urge you to vote your conscience and thank you for your participation and for helping make this community a great place to live, etc., So on, so forth. "

Next, it isn't clear if the president sent this on his/her own or is implying the entire board is in agreement. That should have been stated at the start, as in "I'm speaking as a fellow homeowner/neighbor, not as a board member or officer.". After that, people should do what grown people should do - consider the pros and cons, make up their own minds and vote how they believe.

it's ok to call out the president in not being entirely clear on whether he sent this as a concerned neighbor or with the board's approval, but he also said people can and should vote how they feel. Board members are still homeowners, after all, and as long as they make it clear they're not speaking on the board's behalf and don't use association resources to send the letter, they can urge neighbors to vote for or against whatever. you disagree with the stance, send out your own letter and talk to your neighbors encouraging them to vote this down. Calling this influence peddling is over the top.

In Ca, even if the prez advocated a point of view, which she did AND used HOA resources, any owners would have the same right to those resources.

Question is: what about Texas POAs?

Signed it "President "

Exclusive email list. It is a Board email list that, besides maybe one or two members, the Membership does not have. The email was BCC to recipients, except it did list other board members' addresses.

As I understand it, under Texas Property Code, the actions are seen as an action by the board not only the board member that did the action, and all board members are legally responsible for actions of a board member that is deemed an official action, unless they send the rest of the board a letter of decent on the action. I know someone who has experience on boards of publicly traded companies, who will not be on the board of his POA for that reason alone.

Ok, so the next question is did she tell the board what she wanted to do? Did she run this letter last them? Did any of them say "you can say whatever you want as a homeowner, but take "president" from the signature because some people may think this is coming from the board "?

You don't know? By now everyone's received this so why not go to another board member of two and ask THEM? Even better - why not talk the president yourself and express your concerns?

For all you know, the rest of the board is already discussing this with the president and some sort of official response is on the way. You reinvest when you received this is when the election is, so why not slow your roll a bit and see what transpires. I don't know what side you're on as far as the stucco is concerned, but whether the results are what you or not, it's still worth bringing this up in a board neeting. Decide what you'll do and then do it.

An anecdote:

A few years ago we attempted to amend our rental restriction. The amendment was supported by a majority of owners, but not a super-majority - so it failed.

I have often regretted not publicly supporting/campaigning for this amendment. I mean, the board introduced it - obviously we support it, right? And I was concerned about appearing to influence the vote.

But here's the thing. Most homeowners don't see beyond their own personal concerns. I, on the other hand, was very aware of what happens if there are more than a few investors in a community. I had read some of the horror stories about investors snapping up distressed properties and de-converting condo associations when they owned enough units to control the property. This was a big issue during The Great Recession, and it's happening again. Owner-occupants do have a vested interest in keeping the number of rental units low, and this goes beyond the obvious issues of properties not being maintained, bad tenants breaking the rules, and the like.

In other words, I think I had an obligation to help people see beyond their own concerns.

So, if we had to do this again, I would be out there campaigning. Heck yeah, I'm trying to influence the vote! I want people to vote fully informed, and that will affect the outcome.

Being a Member of the BOD does not limit ones ability to express an opinion on issues. One does have to be careful to let it be known it is a personal opinion and not the opinion of the BOD.

I think this is true in many states (email addresses being unavailable).

However, there is always doing things the hard way: paper flyers snail-mailed to residences, for example (there may be issues with delivering them by hand if you're in condos since the exterior is common elements).

Or just talking to people, which may not be practical in larger communities.

Or start a website and get the word out. There are companies who provide free web hosting for simple websites, and that may be the fastest, easiest, and cheapest way.

This is just politics, and those currently in power always have an advantage over others - which means the others have to work harder and be more creative. As long as laws or governing documents aren't being violated, I'm not too outraged about this.

Added note, that law specifically states is purpose is for others to be able to contact members about their votes.

Law quoted below. While I know this Association is a non-profit, 501(c)(4) to be specific, I just checked and per the State Comptroller office, all HOAs in Texas must be some form of non-profit. Since we now have a management company, I suspect the management company prepared the list or it would be negligent since it would be required for all its POA/HOA clients.

Law - whole chapter:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/BO/htm/BO.22.htm

Relevant code:

Sec. 22.158. PREPARATION AND INSPECTION OF LIST OF VOTING MEMBERS. (a) After setting a record date for the notice of a meeting, a corporation shall prepare an alphabetical list of the names of all its voting members. The list must identify:

(1) the members who are entitled to notice and the members who are not entitled to notice of the meeting;

(2) the address of each voting member; and

(3) the number of votes each voting member is entitled to cast at the meeting.

(b) Not later than the second business day after the date notice is given of a meeting for which a list was prepared in accordance with Subsection (a), and continuing through the meeting, the list of voting members must be available at the corporation's principal office or at a reasonable place in the municipality in which the meeting will be held, as identified in the notice of the meeting, for inspection by members entitled to vote at the meeting for the purpose of communication with other members concerning the meeting.

(c) A voting member or voting member's agent or attorney is entitled on written demand to inspect and, at the member's expense and subject to Section 22.351, copy the list at a reasonable time during the period the list is available for inspection.

(d) The corporation shall make the list of voting members available at the meeting. A voting member or voting member's agent or attorney is entitled to inspect the list at any time during the meeting or an adjournment of the meeting.

Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 182, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.

I said that I wasn't too upset about not having email addresses as long as it isn't required by the state or governing docs.

However, even if email addresses *were* available in my state, I still wouldn't go that route:

* Emails from some random address can end up spam folders or get deleted unread. (This won't happen if homeowners are used to getting email from the association's email address, but it could happen if the board member uses a personal email address. So email may not provide the advantage that people think it does.)

* People get way too much email already and can be aggressive about deleting stuff.

* Snail mail *does* get delivered, and websites are always available.

* Well-designed flyers or websites are more likely to be read.

So I'm more interested in how effective a communication method is and less in how much work is required. If I wanted to communicate with my neighbors about some hot-button issue, I'd go the website route (with maybe a teaser flyer directing people to the website).

Whether or not a member has access to email addresses, what does that have to do with the topic????

Those who read the OP's sentences are able to see that he & other non-directors have no access to Owners email addresses. The board prez & other directors or officers do. Roger cannot send emails to owners with his point of view as he'd be able to do in CA & perhaps in other states.

I'm not going to look for th epost, but I think Roger said the meeting has, by now, been held. I think I recall in the paid, that Roger doesn't tell us j how things turn out. Will you this time, Roger?