Multi-language community

Question from a potential director candidate: does HOA business (meetings, minutes, records, newsletters, etc.) have to be conducted in English?

75 single family homes in WA. 3 member board of directors, all 1 year terms. Extremely low participation from the community. We have a management company.

I know there are at least 7 languages spoken by more than one family in the neighborhood and there are representatives at the management company that speak at least 3 different languages. What if all three board members prefer speaking a shared language other than English? What if just 2 of the board members (a majority) share the language? Could any or all association business be conducted in that language instead?

Our CC&Rs do not address language. Neither do our bylaws, but they can be changed by a majority vote of the board. As far as I can tell, WA does not have an official language.

I see Washington does not have an official language.

All the signs on the net that I am seeing say that in this situation, no explicit statutory or (obvious) case law requirement (that English be used) exists. Fair Housing law might play a role. Some sites speak of using a translator in cases like this.

I think it is essential that all directors be able to understand each other. I propose that the three directors agree to speak only in a language they all understand (English or whatever language all directors know). If the board cannot agree on this, then in my opinion a translator has to be hired for all board meetings. Otherwise, a third director who does not speak such-and-such non-English language cannot function. He or she is effectively denied serving as a director. Arguably this could violate Fair Housing laws, since the director would be discriminated against on the basis of her/his nationality.

If the selected language is not English, then in my opinion the board should hire a translator (translating to English) for all meetings open to owners. Otherwise I again think Fair Housing law may kick in.

Man oh Man. How far do we go to accommodate a few?

If this did not involve a majority of board directors who apparently prefer to speak in their native language (which is not English), then I would feel differently.

I don’t see why you can’t make ‘proficiency in speaking and writing English’ a director qualification in your election rules.

Does it follow that an association who provides all documents to new members only in English would be discriminating against non-English speaking members?

I agree.

Simple - use many free software programs and translate them into their native language.

Keep in mind, regardless of the language used, reading does not equate to understanding.

The trouble with language translation apps is that they're not 100%.

In addition, legalese is almost a language in its own right. If CC&Rs are contractual terms, then relying on software may not do what you want it to. If you want people to just get the gist of what was written, software may do it. But if you need exact and precise meanings, you'd almost need a multi-lingual lawyer to do the translation - at least until the software improves

Anyway, this is an interesting question. What happens when the board changes composition and the new director only speaks English? If you're in an open meeting state, which takes precedence: directors "preferences" or the needs of the homeowners who may not understand what is being said? What if the homeowners speak the predominant language in the area and the board is conducting business in a different language - is this circumventing the open meeting requirement? I think if a state has an official language, then that's what you go with. But if it doesn't ... ? We'll probably need court cases to sort this out, because "common sense" often doesn't get you where you need to go.

What do you think is --

-- fair and reasonable;

-- ensures that directors can comply with their fiduciary duty;

-- ensures that owners get the directors they chose, pursuant to their lawful rights as members of the HOA, even if the directors do not speak, say, English;

-- ensures that owners attending board meetings can understand the discussion; and

-- ensures no one is unlawfully discriminated against because of national origin

?

The only case law I found so far speaks of the board usually providing translators for two non-english speaking directors. See https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2013/2013-ny-slip-op-52284-u.html

Oh come on. What do the courts do when a defendant or plaintiff does not speak English? How often do we see sign language interpreters for public functions? Is closed captioned translation more or less common?

Providing an interpreter for board meetings is hardly a big deal pitted against owners' absolute right to elect a fellow owner to the board, even if the new director does not speak English. I do not understand why anyone would oppose paying for an interpreter, all things considered.

Regarding TerriS6's comment that she would only vote for someone who spoke the language of the governing docs and I presume a majority of the owners: If two candidates were exactly equal except one spoke English and the other did not, speaking English would be the tiebreaker for me. In other words, I get it. I actually feel pretty strongly about it. On the other hand, I know I am becoming outdated. Because of changing demographics, the trend is against good spoken and written English. I bow to the reports from law firms on the net of some communities where the majority of the board, duly elected by owners speaks say Spanish as a first language and conducts meetings in Spanish, with a translator present IIRC.

Thanks to all for the interesting discussion.

Next: what is a "reasonable" expense incurred in the performance of board duties? Does reasonable refer to reasonably necessary, reasonably priced, or reasonably affordable?

I did a shallow investigation of the cost of consecutive interpretation and I believe it may be prohibitively expensive.

While an individual can hire anyone who generally knows the two languages, if HOA funds were to be used I imagine the standard would need to be higher to ensure that the interpretation is accurate. Professional, certified consecutive interpreters apparently cost about $500/day. Half days may be available--but even at $250/meeting, that's around $3000/year or about 10% of our current annual budget. It seems to me that's a big enough expense to need it's own line on the budget. Can the membership refuse to ratify a budget that includes such an expense?

In my SC HOA our owners do not get to vote on the budget which could contain a dues increase. The do have the right to call a Special Meeting where 51% OF ALL OWNERS could vote to turn the budget down.

I think the Fair Housing Act, HUD and/or the courts have the final say, and this includes running up the legal bills for the HOA until the HOA membership cries "Uncle."

Hypothetical:
Suppose the OP's Board majority speaks Spanish and refuses to reimburse the third director (who speaks English) for interpreter* expenses incurred by the third director during her board service. The Board majority considers these expenses not reasonable (too expensive, they say) and tells the third director she has to pay for them herself or find a volunteer. The OP's Board also considers it unreasonable to provide an interpreter at board meetings (in an open meeting state). Fully one-third of the membership are now disenfranchised.

With amateurs running HOAs, HOA-land can be a nightmare.

*"Interpreters" translate spoken language. "Translators" translate written language.

Sample clauses from some bylaws, regarding being reimbursed for expenses:

-- A director may receive reimbursement for necessary expenses actually incurred in connection with the director's duties as are approved by the Owners.

-- a Director may be reimbursed for expenses incurred in performance of such duties as a Director to the extent such expenses are approved by a majority of the other Directors.

-- The Officers and Directors shall serve without compensation. The foregoing shall not be construed to prohibit the Board from authorizing reimbursement of Officers and Directors for expenses reasonably incurred in the performance of their duties.

As of this writing I admit I feel these provisions are not unto themselves violations of the Fair Housing Act. Nor are they violations when used to deny a director having an interpreter at the HOA's expense. This is because the governing documents are disclosed to owners before they buy into a HOA. Owners know that if they want to serve on the board and do not speak the language of the majority of the directors, they might have to pay for their own interpreter.

Nor at this writing do I think HUD would require a HOA to provide an interpreter for directors who do not speak the same language as the majority. The courts might take the same position: The bylaws say what they say. Get on the board speaking a different language than the majority at your own risk.

So am I reasoning at this point.

I do think HUD and the courts are more likely to require the HOA to pay for an interpreter when an owner is accused of a covenant violation, particularly where the stakes are high. This is because the courts have expressly spoken about HOAs providing a fair amount of due process, again especially when the stakes are high. Such due process would include being able to understand what is happening at a hearing.

I do not see any real life disputes in HOAs on this issue. I imagine much of the time when directors do not all speak the same language, people get a volunteer who speaks both languages to pitch in.

Whatever our backgrounds are, a HOA membership is going to elect whom it wants. I tend to think volunteers will come out of the woodwork when situations like this arise.

All the OP can do is ask to be compensated for the cost of an interpreter. If the board says no, or the owners refuse to ratify a budget (if required by the bylaws or statute) providing for an interpreter, oh well. Find a qualified bi-lingual volunteer.

As for board meetings open to owners and the HOA paying for an interpreter: Again the board/owners are going to do what they want. Owners will have to scramble to find volunteer interpreters. A board denying the presence of an interpreter (not paid for by the HOA) cross Fair Housing law boundaries, IMO.

I do not find it thorny. Undoubtedly this is because of a number of years working with folks whose first language is not English. Was this often frustrating? Yes, way too often for my taste these days. Was the language barrier insurmountable? No way.

1.5 cents

I actually thought that any real "mis-judgments" due to language differences would just be buried among the multitude of other misjudgments.

This forum has members who try to do careful reading and careful interpretations. I doubt many boards do the careful reading and head scratching this forum does. They are volunteers. Mostly when facing difficult problems I suspect boards just assume they are the board; they can do what they want; maybe once in awhile they check with an attorney; but otherwise, they just wing it. Which means the language differences do not have much of an impact, IMO.

The membership will judge each year at election time.

I cannot ethically condemn or discourage people electing those they want, even if the language the candidate speaks is different from the board majority's. I have zero tolerance for a blanket, nationwide requirement that English be spoken at board meetings, unless this is state law. It's unfair.