After the board meeting was over...

Started by LaurieG4 • 6 replies • 265 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

LaurieG4 (California)
Posts: 1

Posted:

So I have a question about our monthly Board Meetings I hope someone can help me with

At the last meeting, they held the executive session first and then they opened the doors and let people in for the regular meeting. The first part of regular meeting starts off with an open forum where members can ask questions or talk about an issue. Someone started to talk about a violation notice they had received and they were told by the HOA President that he would talk with them 'after' the meeting was over. So the meeting proceeds, they move on to the agenda, etc and then announce the meeting is over. Everyone leaves except this one homeowner who was told to wait and the 5 members of the board of directors are still there. From talking with this homeowner a couple of days later, she said that two of the board members were talking to her about her issue and the other 3 were still in the room, milling about but not actively participating in the conversation.

So here is my question - I thought things like this, for the sake of transparency, needed to be discussed in open session? Here in California, what they did 'after' the meeting was over, is that appropriate?

MaxB4
Posts: 3,513

Posted:

First, a violation notice, once a hearing has been set, would be done in executive session, or it could be handled by a couple of directors to try to hear or discuss the violation and they could then discuss and take action as a full board. Again the hearing or due process is handled outside of the open session. In the case you describe, only a violation notice, not a hearing was received.

Let's say the violation notice was to put their trash cans away after pickup and was given a notice with a date for correction. The owner complied and the violation notice is dismissed. A manager or board can handle it on their own. As a manager myself, I'll handle many on my own once the owner has corrected the violation to the satisfaction of the notice. Let's say they needed to paint their fence and they asked the board for paint color and maybe a contractor and only 2 board members joined in to help.

The key, resolve the situation quickly to the satisfaction of all parties.

MarkM19 (Texas)
Posts: 1,459

Posted:

Laurie G.
I agree with Max. When I was on my Ca. board for 8 years, we had many owners who would complain after receiving violation notices for any number of reasons. The notices are usually sent by the PMC and if the owner wanted to appeal this violation or ask for more time to correct and issue, they had to schedule a meeting with the board at the next regular meeting. This would always be done in the Executive session and not in the open meeting. The way we would handle this would be to let the owner make their case for the violation and then the board would discuss after the owner left the room and we would contact them within the next week or two formally to know the status of the violation.

I personally do not think your board did anything wrong here. She did not make an appointment for the meeting, but she did meet with the board or in this case 2 of the members. I am sure that they discussed this with the others and came to a conclusion. The way to correct this would be for the board to state in the minutes the Executive session before the meeting and then note an Executive session after the close of the meeting.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Yes the hearing where the alleged violator gives their side of the situation happens in executive session in CA. She apparently brought her violation letter up at an open meeting, which is strange as her letter said, no doubt, that she would meeting with the Board in executive session. The presider was right to ask to see him after the meeting because her remarks were not appropriate in an open meeting.

That she had a little chat within the prez & another director with the 3 others milling about, who may not even have been paying attention, means nothing imo. The charge(s) against her and the Board's deliberation still will happen in executive session on the date provided in her violation letter.

I always like Mark's comments, but this time he is incorrect. The little chat after the open meeting was not an "executive session," which must be placed on a public notice with an agenda 2 days before it occurs in CA. It was probably a simple clarification of the purpose or procedures of the upcoming hearing.

Btw, in CA alleged violators may ask if their situation can be discussed in an open meeting, but boards may decline. It's not a "transparency" matter, it's a matter of protecting the privacy of Owners who've been accused of violating the covenants or the rules. It is none of the business of other owners. If the board wishes, the disclosure of th executive session could, but is not required to state something like "an owner was fined for their dog's incessant barking."

MaxB4
Posts: 3,513

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By KerryL1 on 01/31/2023 12:15 PM
Yes the hearing where the alleged violator gives their side of the situation happens in executive session in CA. She apparently brought her violation letter up at an open meeting, which is strange as her letter said, no doubt, that she would meeting with the Board in executive session. The presider was right to ask to see him after the meeting because her remarks were not appropriate in an open meeting.

That she had a little chat within the prez & another director with the 3 others milling about, who may not even have been paying attention, means nothing imo. The charge(s) against her and the Board's deliberation still will happen in executive session on the date provided in her violation letter.

I always like Mark's comments, but this time he is incorrect. The little chat after the open meeting was not an "executive session," which must be placed on a public notice with an agenda 2 days before it occurs in CA. It was probably a simple clarification of the purpose or procedures of the upcoming hearing.

Btw, in CA alleged violators may ask if their situation can be discussed in an open meeting, but boards may decline. It's not a "transparency" matter, it's a matter of protecting the privacy of Owners who've been accused of violating the covenants or the rules. It is none of the business of other owners. If the board wishes, the disclosure of th executive session could, but is not required to state something like "an owner was fined for their dog's incessant barking."

Sorry Kerry, you are wrong. I do this do a living and have guidance from a number of attorneys. The owner received a notice of a violation, not a call to hearing for a violation they received. The Board may not have been aware that a violation to an owner was even sent.

This a typical scenario, and this has happened to both my wife and me while were presidents of our board. An owner came up to us and asked what color and where to find it to paint their fence a redwood color, as the MC had gone around issuing notices to owners to get their fences touched up. It was a courtesy warning, not a call to a hearing. A simple conversion solved the situation.

MarkM19 (Texas)
Posts: 1,459

Posted:

Kerry,
I also enjoy your detailed posts. The reason I feel this was appropriate is because many times over the years when our Executive session was scheduled before our regular meeting they would run long. Instead of keeping people out in the cold or being able to see who we are meeting with prior to the general meeting we would close the meeting and agree to continue after the regular meeting adjourns. I always thought this was a legal way to continue the Executive meeting. I have been wrong before.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Good point, Mark. Our Board has needed to do the same now & then. So, we've adjourned the executive session right before the open meeting and in the adjournment, we've added something like "to be reconvened following the open meeting." And the Board does exactly that--reconvenes the earlier Ex. Session & continues with its posted agenda. Nothing new may be added.

I get Max's point too. Perhaps the letter was solely a letter to correct a violation and no call to hearing was involved. Still, the Board does not have to reply to her open forum remarks and the prez acted appropriately. This owner & the prez & another advised her somehow or answered her questions. This, to continue with the OP's concern, is just fine and the Open Meeting Act was in no way violated. A simply convo was a good thing.

We only have a few violations a year--maybe a dozen, and I hafta say that over 15 years, no owners have every brought up the violation courtesy letter or invitation to a hearing at an open meeting's open forum. I imagine if they have questions, they email or visit the onsite PM who sends the letter. Do owners bring these violations letters up routinely at other HOAs' open meetings??

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here