Can members record open HOA/POA meetings in Texas

Texas a one party consent recording state:

There was a brouhaha over a member recording a POA Board open meeting last week. The President told the member that she needed everyone's consent to record, reply "no I do not, Texas is a one part consent state" it went back and forth and then dropped and the member continued recording.

Texas is a one party consent state, as are most states (CA, FL, IL PA are the four one party, and there might be one or two others.) With California by far leading most HOA news, an default for my HAO related internet searches, you will find many sites stating a member cannot without consent because it is referring to California. I suspect this is the basis for the Board president's stance but she would have to explain that. Here is a listing of the federal law and a summary of all fifty states: https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf

Searching in the Texas Property Code, I find no carve-out for regular open Board meetings; it is silent to regular meetings. I assume that silence would mean the overall Texas law, the one party consent law, prevails for regular open meetings. For ACC or violating hearings, the Texas Property Code explicitly gives the owner the right to record. I assume those are considered private meetings, where the right to privacy is expected, therefore legislators, with allow owners to record being their intent, had to explicitly give the owners that right in those meetings but do so would be redudant in opening meetings.

Without the opposite, prohibition from doing so in the public open portion of meetings, I assume the one party consent prevails and the recording member was correct. Others agree? Can anyone cite any code denying that right in the open meeting portion?

Google is your friend - if you don't want to spend the money to ask a private attorney, you could go to the state statutes and do your own research.

This is what I found for your state - https://recordinglaw.com/united-states-recording-laws/one-party-consent-states/texas-recording-laws/ It may be the key here is whether one can expect a reasonable amount of privacy at a HOA meeting. The meeting is open, but that only applies to the members of the Association, not everyone who wanders by and walks in to see what people are asking about. Considering everyone has a cell phone or tablet and audio/video recordings have a way of winding up on Instagram or someplace else, the law continues to evolve on this matter.

As a practical matter, I would want to know what the homeowner intends to do with said recording. It may be one thing if the person is the secretary and making the recording to keep track of what's going on because it can get confusing when everyone's talking at once and you're trying to hear who made the motion or what the motion was. Someone else may have a not so nice agenda and may slice and dice the recording and then put it up on the web to to embarrass the person or people talking. If the person says he/she wants to keep track of what happened, what's wrong with taking notes? And what do you do if the people sitting behind you don't want to be recorded either - are you going to ask everyone to raise their hands to indicate they're ok with the recording? Will they be entitled to get a copy of said recording after the meeting?

You can see how loopy this can get, so your board should get an opinion from the association attorney. Which I suspect they did after this meeting, so stay tuned.

See: Reporter’s Recording Guide

Texas law is different for meetings. It's all about whether there's an expectation of privacy when the communications happen. Unlike meetings at Starbucks between two people or open session city council meetings, where for both the public is present, board meeting attendance is probably limited to members only. It's probably fair to say there is an expectation of privacy and that the board gets to set fair rules for the meeting. 'No recording allowed' is fair from the standpoint of not wanting to chill people from participating.

I am battling quoting. SheliaH said much the same as me. The HOA oughta have concern about being liable for defamation because a member or the board spoke a lie about another and the board permitted recording and the recording got put on youtube.

Roger

What is the purpose of recording the meeting?

As a management company we do and retain the recording until the minutes are circulated for review and changes, once approved the recording is erased. It is only a tool to ensure accuracy, not to carry out an agenda.

We keep the recording available. There is no set time, but we never really thought about that.

We have never had questions we couldn't answer but we do some light editing if needed. It rarely is. We permit anonymity because some residents are uncomfortable asking questions, but the board always knows who submitted the question since it has to be done from an email we know. People can also ask questions directly on the call.

Recording public parts no problem. Sharing it with the public not so much...

I was not recording, so I do not know the answer, but I assume for reference for what occurred in the meeting - no direct reason other than same reason a college student would record a lecture.

The current Board is not forthcoming with reports, and that member is actively involved, so I assume those are the reasons.

So, Roger, you're saying that based on gossip what really happened at th meeting is not recorded in the minutes accurately. So you're saying the accuracy issue is about a motion and board decisions that is written down falsely???

If approval of minutes is not on the a agenda, there would be nothing in th minutes about them. Assume that Owners can quest minutes of open board meetings in. writing and the Assn has a certain amount of time to deliver them. That should get the Board's attention to approve them and make them available.

Board meetings and college classes are nothing alike. No one needs to learn Board decisions--which are all that matter--- to learn materials, pass a test and a course.

Minutes are not a summary of discussions. About the only things that need be in the Minutes are Motions Made and the result of the Motion.

I think it would be an excellent way to stir the pot and get their attention.

Good point. On the other side:

* The HOA is responsible for the information that's put out there, and they have no control over what happens with a personal recording. (That sucker is totally ending up on Facebook at some point.)

* Recordings of any sort can be manipulated. Tools exist that can pretty much allow you to concoct evidence of whatever you want. If the HOA is going to allow homeowners to record, they have to do so themselves as well in order to have evidence of what actually happened.

* There are people who try to keep their images off the internet, and for very valid reasons such as getting away from a stalker. Recording by *anybody* would keep them out of a meeting that they're legally entitled to attend. (FWIW, stalkers aren't that uncommon. And we have a resident in my community who I suspect is in witness protection, judging from behavior and things the person has said. There is a lot more of that stuff going on than most people suspect.)

So the bottom line is that recording a meeting can have a chilling effect on meeting participation and discussions, even if the people involved have nothing to hide. Frankly, not everyone I come across is entitled to the same level of candor, and I think the internet has distorted people's ideas of what's appropriate. We're a litigious society, and anybody who thinks they can't get themselves into trouble over something they said that was taken out of context is naive IMHO. I'd actually be giving some side eye to any board member who isn't aware of such issues.

Nothing to hide. They are just not official notes or records of the HOA. A recording isn't official HOA record. Plus in some states it may never hold up in court due to parties may have to agree to be recorded prior. Otherwise it won't hold much water other than the court of your peers than a court of law.

Sheila brings up one of the challenges of getting boards to behave, and that's convincing enough people that there is a problem. Homeowner apathy is a well-documented phenomenon. And once you've convinced them, you then have to find enough people willing to actually serve on the board themselves, and this is often where the wheels come off the remove-and-replace effort. You can't force volunteers to do a better job because they can simply walk away from it, and then what do you propose to do if nobody else is willing to step up? An association without board members can't conduct business.

I think a lot of people are willing to go along with things that aren't wonderful because acknowledging the issues will mean that they personally may have to do some of the heavy lifting, and they weren't signing up for an unpaid side hustle when they bought their homes. Not saying that anyone in this thread is doing that, just that it does happen.

State statute trumps by-laws and the state law requires that meeting minutes be kept and available to be "inspected and copied" by owners.

Not sure how Bylaws came into this, but approving the minutes within xx days, or giving owners access to (clearly marked ) draft minutes can be a board policy, imo.

In Ca, statutes requires draft minutes to be ready for Owners review 30 days after the meeting.)

Proper minutes are the best record and the only official record and are all the "transparency" needed to know what transpired at a meeting of the members or of the Board.

In what sense, Wendy, would a recording of an annual meeting provide somehow better or enhanced transparency than the minutes? Remember that the only things that matter are motions, votes & decisions. None of the blah, blah, yak, yak of deliberations & debate matters. Since they are minutes of a members meeting, they must be approved by members and members can correct or amend them if inaccurate.

I would want a video of annual member meetings for several reasons. First, so that I can create accurate minutes of my own based on a review of the meeting so that I am quite accurate. The only way that recording would ever see the light of public day would be if the Board minutes contradicted with the minutes I wrote and others remember as happening.

Second, a video documents behavior whereas minutes do not. At our last annual member meeting this past November, it got quite contentious with the board president being one of the primary persons engaged in the contentiousness. As the board president and thus the chair of the annual meeting, he had a duty to be impartial and to be the conversational gatekeeper making sure everyone had an opportunity to speak according to Robert's Rules of Order. Nope, didn't happen. He clearly had a position on the "shed plan" I've mentioned in previous threads and he was not tolerating any negative questions or comments from owners who were just then finding out about these sheds. He eventually silenced the most vocal owner by threatening him with forced removal of a storage box he's had in his parking space for years. It was completely unprofessional, it was bullying and it had the effect of shutting down all further discussion. The message was clear - "I want these sheds. Question me or oppose me and you will become a target of my verbal wrath." No meeting minutes are going to capture that verbal exchange.

My target audience are the owners, not a court of law. I believe board members choose to be viewed as if they were already criminals when they engage in secretive meetings, defy state regulatory requirements, take actions that exceed their authority under CC&R and the law, expose the association to liability risk, refuse to release HOA documents for inspection and copying, engage in self-serving, and others. Board members' actions have consequences. Don't want to be viewed with suspicion? Be transparent. Follow the law.

Ah, you want the abusive behavior of the president captured. Can't those who attend the meeting speak to that, say at a campaign event or in campaign materials? Does abiding by Robert's rules matter if they're not required except at annual meetings?? And if they are required, what would you do next?

I can agree your board sound ghastly. But the only way to improve things is to get new members elected to the Board. That takes the hard work of unification and joint effort by a group of owners.

The number of motions & votes at an annual meeting simply should not be that hard to capture in your own written notes Ask a neighbor to confirm the motion, votes & decisions. It is you owners who approve these minutes NOT the Board, so make corrections when it's time to approve them.

Max

Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Association are normally approved by the members of the Association in Texas. Some associations may have different procedures but I have never seen an alternative process in writing.

Similarly, minutes of meetings of the Board are approved by the Board in Texas.

Grow up, you bring California in ALL the time.

People often confuse two simple words, rights and ability. If the meeting is recorded by the board, there is no reason to record it, besides, only the recording by the board is the "official" record.
Aside from each states wiretapping laws, you also tap dance close to conducting illegal surveillance without a proper license, i.e. private investigators license etc. Add to that what is done with
the unofficial recordings. If you post the content online, you can face a civil lawsuit because you lack a release from all the parties in the recording like news agencies attain before they publish and
or broadcast the content.

Just request a copy of the official minutes and the recording.

Here is a link to an article that addresses the pros and cons of allowing members to record board meetings:

https://www.cedarmanagementgroup.com/recording-hoa-board-meetings/

Right off the bat, the article points out that this is not a First Amendment issue. Quote:

Homeowners who want to record board meetings will also cite the First Amendment, which protects one’s right to record audio and video. However, this only applies to public settings.  Since HOAs are private organizations, the board has the authority to prohibit the recording of meetings.

The main advantage cited by the article is that recordings promote transparency. I don't think that's accurate. A recording isn't the same as actually being there - it's one person's view of the meeting, so the recording won't totally recreate what happened. In an open meeting state, being present at the meeting is preferable. In states that don't require open meetings, a recording could be valuable - but homeowners won't be there, so it's a moot point. So it's more accurate to say that allowing homeowners to record meetings promotes the *appearance* of transparency. Is that worthwhile? Maybe. It's a little cynical, but sometimes cynicism is warranted.

The disadvantages cited by the article are things I'd mentioned upthread: a lack of openness during discussions, a possible breach of confidential information, and increased conflicts with homeowners. For the last item, the article mentions that the fact that recordings can be manipulated, which makes them a tool in the hands of the troublemakers. But I think the first item is the most important: recording will alter the content of the meeting and possibly even the decisions that are made. The board may even lose qualified directors because they fear retaliation for something they said (especially since a recording will allow their words to be taken out of context). Communities that have trouble filling board positions probably shouldn't do things that result in losing the ones they have.

For me, the bottom line is that allowing homeowners to record board meetings provides the appearance of transparency at the expense of true transparency. In open meeting states, the recording isn't necessary and may/will be misleading. In other states, it's a moot point. If boards in the open meeting states want to allow these recordings, they should record the meeting themselves. They can make these recordings available to any homeowner who wants to watch, and the official recording will provide evidence of what actually happened when a disgruntled homeowner tries to make trouble.