email meetings (California)

I *think* our HOA board and Property Management Company are using emails to make board decisions in between meetings.

From what I understand,

4910. Board Action Outside of Meeting Prohibited
(a) The board shall not take action on any item of business outside of a board meeting.
(2) Electronic transmissions may be used as a method of conducting an emergency board meeting if all directors, individually or collectively, consent in writing to that action, and if the written consent or consents are filed with the minutes of the board meeting

So the situation is this. In between our bi-monthly board meeting, I as a homeowner, submitted a written request for a repair to the PMC (Property Management Company) I felt the damage was a result of the HOA's negligence. (water damage).

About a week later, I receive an email from the PMC: "I have received a unanimous vote from the board that they have denied your repair" (there are 5 active members on our board)

The next regular board meeting wasn't scheduled for another 3 weeks. Normally in California, board members are not allowed to conduct a board meeting by email unless it is an 'emergency'. I hardly think this repair qualified as an emergency, but even if they did call an emergency meeting, I am under the impression that they would have had to announce they had an emergency meeting at the next board meeting along with a statement that they declined the repair? I have checked all the minutes before and after, and nothing about this 'unanimous vote' shows up anywhere.

Actually, I think it is the PMC and the Board President just blowing me off, but I need to ask the PMC how they were able to take this vote on the repairs in between board meetings.

Thoughts, am I on the right track here?

Unfortunately, people misunderstand the Open Meeting Act that came out in 2012. I worked on a CAI Legislative Action Committee back in 2011 and have spoken directly with the legislator who wrote the law.

The law states that discussions and actions have to be at the same time and place. Email is not. So people think anytime something is discussed board member has to be a noticed meeting, NO. What has to be in a meeting is any action or decision made by a board.

Could a meeting about a repair as an emergency be done up to another person's interpretation? Must the decision from the Action Without be Disclosed at the next open meeting, absolutely! That is why the rules were changed in 2011. I have always been a firm believer in transparency and following the law. I have legal opinions from respected HOA attorneys upholding my beliefs. So, I believe ANY action, aside from legal, MUST be done in a properly noticed Open Meeting.

Water damage to one's unit is a tricky situation and would be covered by the association's CCRs. Most CCRs are going to say that the HOA is responsible for the repair but not the damage. I fight this every time it rains. Let's say it was leaking from a shared roof. The HOA fixes the roof at a cost of $15,000. They should be doing a special assessment every time this happens as the HOA is all the owners and all have a responsibility to cover its expenses.

I should have proofread that better. Here is what I meant to say:

Detached, single family residence. HOA sprinklers were shooting water on our wooden fence, which caused it to rot out.

In my opinion, it was definitely not an emergency but then again, even if they did call it an 'emergency meeting' it looks like all (5) of the directors would have had to file a 'written consent' to the meeting and these 'consents' would have to be kept with the minutes of the meeting. Lastly, that emergency meeting should have been disclosed at the next open session meeting.

Just trying to get my ducks in a row before I start making waves. This board and the PMC are doing a number of things that at this point appear to be not in compliance with the Davis-Stirling act

Thanks for your replies

That is exactly what I did. The fence is in area that is partly hidden by some trees and landscaping on my side so it wasn't readily visible to us. (HOA property on the other side of the fence) When I discovered the damage, I took some photo's, emailed them to the PMC - the only sprinklers in the area are HOA sprinklers, and I asked for repairs - they denied my request

Thanks for clarifying the situation. You are exactly right. This was not an emergency so the Board was required to discuss and decide on your request at a board meeting and its decision duly noted in the meeting minutes. If this is an example of a lot of rogue behavior by your PM & your Board, what waves do you have in mind making? How will you go about it?

About the fence: Is it common area as defined in your documents? Or is it your own for which you're responsible? Put another way who is obligated to repair and replace the fence?

That's wasted water. In California, I'd say that's an emergency. As for your being reimbursed for the damage, I think there's a strong argument that you should have been vigilant and noted the mis-direction or failure of the sprinkler systems (leak?) before damage occurred. If you think this is stingy, I hear you, and I also welcome you to the world of HOAs. Their boards battle to make sure assessment dollars are properly spent and to try to minimize assessment increases. It's an incredibly demanding job, and these volunteer directors are paid not one cent to do it. Suggestions: You must not assume that HOAs and their boards are like the typical for-profit corporation. A for-profit corporation can afford to be generous, for the sake of good customer relations and greater sales in the longer run. Not so for a nonprofit like a HOA.

Let this go. If you cannot, consider running for the board. You might learn very quickly that the time and effort directors donate is a heckuva deal for you as an owner.

ElleN & JohnT raise good points, NotR, about the fence per se.

The secret board meeting, however, seems inexcusable given CA definitions of an "emergency." And even if so, the Board's failure to document their decision in meeting minutes is inexcusable GIVEN that you say it's an example of other violations of the Davis-Stirling Act.