California email meetings, does bcc make it ok?

SueM12 (California)
Posts: 4

Posted:

I have been on our board before and the topic never came up, but now I am on again another board member says I need to BCC the entire board on all my emails. When I say what I read says that is not ok for discussions and comments back and forth on a topic they tell me I am a bad board member. Does BCC make email meetings ok in California?

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Emails to Whom? Aboard member? An Owner? Your property manager? Emails about what?

What size is your Board? Your HOA?

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Emails to Whom? Aboard member? An Owner? Your property manager? Emails about what?

What size is your Board? Your HOA?

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Emails to Whom? Aboard member? An Owner? Your property manager? Emails about what?

What size is your Board? Your HOA?

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

BCC is generally used for mailings to multiple people when you want to protect the privacy of the recipients. Foe example, if you wanted to do a mass email to the community and your state says that email addresses are not one of the items that must be disclosed to owners, then you'd use BCC.

Or if your community has a single email address that people should use to communicate with the board and/or manager, then if you wanted to forward messages to the individual board members and manager, you should use BCC to avoid inadvertent disclosure in long discussions. This can be important if board members are using their personal email addresses for board business (which is discouraged by our attorney, by the way).

But BCC doesn't get around legal requirements or make something OK if it wouldn't otherwise be OK if you used CC. It simply protects data that should be protected.

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

If it is outside of the meeting it typically isn't to be discussed. BCC is a Blind Copy that isn't necessarily "Cool". It's the opportunity to talk about people or situation behind their back. Plus in many HOA's/states email communication can be subject to providing upon request. Some people don't want they write be subject to other people's eyes or opinion. Especially if taken out of context.

Example: A few years ago the scum ex-President used an email I had written to him privately to show another member. The email was a private correspondence between each other. Plus it was about someone else but I didn't put names in it. After one meeting I noticed an angry neighbor. Turns out that ex-president modified that email to make it look like I had called that person a "B-word". I knew it was yet another "trick" the scum sucker was playing to make me look bad. Had to explain to them that the information they got was modified by said scumbag to make it look like it was them I was talking about. This is the kind of stuff this guy did. He did it to others behind doors.

So it is understandable why they may believe you are the "bad board member" because it's best NOT to drag others into a private conversation that can become public. It should wait till the meetings.

Former HOA President

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By SueM12 on 08/31/2023 10:20 PM
I have been on our board before and the topic never came up, but now I am on again another board member says I need to BCC the entire board on all my emails. When I say what I read says that is not ok for discussions and comments back and forth on a topic they tell me I am a bad board member. Does BCC make email meetings ok in California?

Why cannot whatever you put in your email be delayed for an open meeting (properly noticed, and open to owners)?

The Board (including you) not being aware of this appears to me to be the bigger problem.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

I'm suspecting the same thing that Elle suspects, which is why we need clarification about the nature of the emails.

In CA, the should be no discussion among a quorum of board members about HOA business.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By SueM12 on 08/31/2023 10:20 PM
I have been on our board before and the topic never came up, but now I am on again another board member says I need to BCC the entire board on all my emails. When I say what I read says that is not ok for discussions and comments back and forth on a topic they tell me I am a bad board member. Does BCC make email meetings ok in California?

It is illegal for a board to discuss an item of business by email except for an emergency meeting. Civil Code section 4910(b). The civil penalty for violating the Open Meeting Act is $500. per violation.

SueM12 (California)
Posts: 4

Posted:

These are emails to the property manager, members of a committee, and a vendor who is contracted to work in the building of 75 homeowners.

SueM12 (California)
Posts: 4

Posted:

These are emails to the property manager, members of a committee, and a vendor who is contracted to work in the building of 75 homeowners.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By SueM12 on 09/01/2023 9:41 AM
These are emails to the property manager, members of a committee, and a vendor who is contracted to work in the building of 75 homeowners.

If a quorum of directors is participating in a discussion via email about a subject over which the board has authority, I believe it is not allowed, even if the emails are not sent simultaneously.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By SueM12 on 09/01/2023 9:41 AM
These are emails to the property manager, members of a committee, and a vendor who is contracted to work in the building of 75 homeowners.

And the topics in the emails cannot be postponed for discussion at a duly noticed board meeting because... ?

SueM12, I know it is hard to have to wait to discuss things; take the steps to get xyz on the next board meeting agenda; and so on. This is the (sad) price of HOA living. California law is particularly strict and exacting with regard to transparency by board members.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Agree with Terri. If the director wants emails sent to all directors and discussions occurs ack & forth about board business, it must wait for a board meeting.

But, I'm wondering why you personally are contacting an HOA vendor? Did the Board assign you to work with them? And why are you emailing members of a committee? Are you on the Committee? Or you're Board liaison to it?

SueM12 (California)
Posts: 4

Posted:

I am the board liaison for a committee and we are working with a project manager vendor to prepare a RFP for a major project. Our committee has zoom meetings with this vendor and I also communicate with the vendor between meetings.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

In my experience with a CA Board for 14 years till recently, directors who are liaisons with committee communicate among themselves and committee members. So you seem to be doing what's (maybe?) typical. I assume the committee chair writes a report to the Board and presents it at an open meeting. And soon the Comm. report will include recs for a RFP? The Board will discuss this and vote on it, right?

Has the Board authorized you to have direct contact with the Proj. Mgr.? If so, good! If not, please elaborate.

In CA, I don't see how the Board can insist that you share e-mails among you & the committee members, and between you & the Proj. Mgr., without violating the Open Meeting Act. Has the Board actually motioned at an open meeting that you share all such communication with a quorum of the Board?

JamesB37 (California)
Posts: 351

Posted:

Court ruling affirms HOA board emails don’t violate Open Meeting Act:

https://www.dailynews.com/2023/09/07/hoa-homefront-court-ruling-affirms-hoa-board-emails-dont-violate-open-meeting-act/

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

True, James, so copying all directors now is clearly legal so long as no decisions are made. But that doesn't help Sue with the Board demanding she copy all directors on every thing.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

True, James, so copying all directors now is clearly legal so long as no decisions are made. But that doesn't help Sue with the Board demanding she copy all directors on every thing.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JamesB37 on 09/07/2023 6:05 PM
Court ruling affirms HOA board emails don’t violate Open Meeting Act:

https://www.dailynews.com/2023/09/07/hoa-homefront-court-ruling-affirms-hoa-board-emails-dont-violate-open-meeting-act/

Thank you James. Probably will be overturned, hence the caution.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JamesB37 on 09/07/2023 6:05 PM
Court ruling affirms HOA board emails don’t violate Open Meeting Act:

https://www.dailynews.com/2023/09/07/hoa-homefront-court-ruling-affirms-hoa-board-emails-dont-violate-open-meeting-act/

Thank you for pointing this out, JamesB37. Interesting.

I see the davis-stirling.com has already added a sub-site to reflect this ruling. See https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/E/Email-Meetings

This gives carte blanche to boards to discuss by email, but not vote on, anything. If anyone thinks otherwise, do post.

I think the appeals court's ruling is pretty sad. Granted maybe the language in the statute is _just_ _not_ _good_ _enough_. Now California board meeting agendas can have items like this:

-- Vote on landscaper. [Discussion having occurred already largely by email.]

-- Vote on new rule for clubhouse use. [Discussion having occurred already largely by email.]

The two homeowners have until about Oct 24 to appeal. If I had to bet, and if there is an appeal, I would bet the ruling is upheld.

I see the appeals court reversed the lower court with regard to attorney fees. As of this writing, the two homeowners do not have to pay the HOA's attorney fees. If the insurance company is not paying for the attorney here, then I think this means that the attorney fees are to be divided among the eight (not ten) owners. I bet this HOA is paying through the nose for insurance at this point. Absent an insurer picking up the costs of the attorney, each of the eight owners is on the hook for $50,000+ at this point. Of course this is "California dollars" and so I expect pocket change out there.

The opinion (which includes a very soap opera-ish history) appears here https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9422682/lnsu-1-llc-v-alta-del-mar-coastal-collection-community-assn/. It reads like any long thread here where directors and owners are fighting over elections and gossiping extensively by email.

Observations:

-- This HOA has a mere ten homes.

-- The board consists of five directors. [smirk]

-- The plaintiffs are two LLCs. Each LLC owns one home.

-- Lots of drama at this HOA. This includes an earlier lawsuit c. 2017 disputing an election.

-- The present litigation began in June, 2018.

-- The legal bills for the HOA are north of $409,000 at this time.

-- The ruling has a detailed exploration of the meaning of "congregation," because this is key to determining whether the California HOA Open Meeting statute was violated. No less than three dictionaries are quoted.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Just looked at this case. It is wrong! Civil Code 4910b1 board shall not conduct a meeting by series of emails except emergency meeting.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 09/08/2023 6:58 AM
The opinion (which includes a very soap opera-ish history) appears here https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9422682/lnsu-1-llc-v-alta-del-mar-coastal-collection-community-assn/. It reads like any long thread here where directors and owners are fighting over elections and gossiping extensively by email.

Observations:

-- This HOA has a mere ten homes.

The homes in this HOA were built in 2015. They have "4 to 5 bedrooms and 5 or 6 bathrooms ranging from 4,411 - 6,235 sq. with indoor/outdoor seating areas, breathtaking views, and generous homesites averaging 1/2 acre." See https://www.wanneboreg.com/alta-del-mar-coastal.php. Figure homes there go for $4 million or so, based on the current $726 per square foot in San Diego.

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 09/08/2023 6:58 AM
-- The ruling has a detailed exploration of the meaning of "congregation," because this is key to determining whether the California HOA Open Meeting statute was violated. No less than three dictionaries are quoted.

California's Open Meeting Act for government (not HOAs) uses the word "congregation" too. Hmm. I bet today, legislators are re-thinking the wording.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JamesB37 on 09/07/2023 6:05 PM
Court ruling affirms HOA board emails don’t violate Open Meeting Act:

https://www.dailynews.com/2023/09/07/hoa-homefront-court-ruling-affirms-hoa-board-emails-dont-violate-open-meeting-act/

How about this scenario: 3 directors sit at the chairman's patio table drinking wine. Chairman says, everyone have their email ready? Yes, we do. So they send emails to each other for the formality, then they resume discussing business.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 7:36 AM
Just looked at this case. It is wrong! Civil Code 4910b1 board shall not conduct a meeting by series of emails except emergency meeting.

The court addressed 4910 at length. The bottom line appears to be that email communications among directors do not qualify as a "meeting."

Keyword search https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9422682/lnsu-1-llc-v-alta-del-mar-coastal-collection-community-assn/ for "4910".

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 7:51 AM

Posted By JamesB37 on 09/07/2023 6:05 PM
Court ruling affirms HOA board emails don’t violate Open Meeting Act:

https://www.dailynews.com/2023/09/07/hoa-homefront-court-ruling-affirms-hoa-board-emails-dont-violate-open-meeting-act/

How about this scenario: 3 directors sit at the chairman's patio table drinking wine. Chairman says, everyone have their email ready? Yes, we do. So they send emails to each other for the formality, then they resume discussing business.

Per te court's reasoning, discussing HOA business in-person appears to qualify as a "congregation" of directors, so HOA Open Meeting Act restrictions apply, and such a patio meeting is not allowed without proper notice to owners et cetera.

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

Remember "bcc" means "blind copy". Which men's others not able to see who all is involved in the conversation or decisions. To be "CC" is carbon copy. It includes others to get a copy although not intended audience.

I am not a fan of bcc for a HOA conversation. CC is better. Still not official till meeting time.

Former HOA President

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

This court is wrong. 4090a defines a lawful board meeting. 4910b1 defines an unlawful meeting.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 09/08/2023 7:55 AM

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 7:51 AM

Posted By JamesB37 on 09/07/2023 6:05 PM
Court ruling affirms HOA board emails don’t violate Open Meeting Act:

https://www.dailynews.com/2023/09/07/hoa-homefront-court-ruling-affirms-hoa-board-emails-dont-violate-open-meeting-act/

How about this scenario: 3 directors sit at the chairman's patio table drinking wine. Chairman says, everyone have their email ready? Yes, we do. So they send emails to each other for the formality, then they resume discussing business.

Per te court's reasoning, discussing HOA business in-person appears to qualify as a "congregation" of directors, so HOA Open Meeting Act restrictions apply, and such a patio meeting is not allowed without proper notice to owners et cetera.

Exactly my point, showing the stupidity of the court's decision,

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

And to say just because the OMA doesn't include everything the Brown Act includes makes it invalid is dumb.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

And why didn't they use small claims court for this case?

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 8:11 AM
This court is wrong. 4090a defines a lawful board meeting. 4910b1 defines an unlawful meeting.

Did you read the opinion? On this point, the court relied on the definition of "congregation." What specific part of the court's reasoning do you dispute?

Excerpt:

Appellants rely solely on subdivision (a) of section 4090 for their claim
that the directors’ e-mail exchanges constituted board meetings that violated

23

the OMA. They contend “[t]he usual and ordinary meaning of the phrase
‘congregation, at the same time and place’ encompasses a ‘virtual’ assembly
by means of email,” because, they say, e-mail allows all directors to
communicate with one another simultaneously on items of board business in
the same place, namely, cyberspace. We reject this construction of the
statutory language as inconsistent with its usual and ordinary meaning.

To determine the usual and ordinary meanings of words used in a
statute, courts consider the dictionary definitions of those words. (Wasatch
Property Management v. Degrate (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1111, 1121-1122; Turo
Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 517, 521.) We have consulted
three dictionaries available at the time the Legislature enacted the OMA to
determine the meaning of the phrase “congregation, at the same time and
place.” (§ 4090, subd. (a), as enacted by Stats. 2012, ch. 180, § 2.) Two define
“congregation” as “an assembly of persons : GATHERING.” (Webster’s 3d New
Internat. Dict. (2002), p. 478; Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dict. (11th ed.
2003) p. 262.) An “assembly” is defined as “a company of persons collected
together in one place usu. for some common purpose (as deliberation and
legislation, worship, or entertainment)” (Webster’s, p. 131), and a “gathering”
as “a coming together of people in a group (as for social, religious, or political
purposes)” (id., p. 940). A third dictionary defines “congregation” similarly as
“a gathered or assembled body; assemblage” (Random House Unabridged
Dict. (2d ed. 1987) p. 430), and “assemblage” as “a group of persons . . .
gathered” (id., p. 125). That dictionary defines “place” as “a space, area, or
spot, set apart or used for a particular purpose: a place of worship; a place of
entertainment.” (Id., p. 1478.) The other two define “place” as “a building or
locality used for a special purpose,” and offer as examples “<~ of

24

amusement>,” “<~ of worship>,” “,” and “.”
(Webster’s, p. 1727; Merriam-Webster’s, p. 946.)

From these definitions and examples, we conclude a “board meeting,”
as defined by section 4090, subdivision (a), means a gathering of a quorum of
the directors of a board of a homeowners association at the same time and in
the same physical location for the purpose of transacting any matter of
association business that is within the board’s purview. By using the word
“congregation,” the Legislature intended the directors come together for a
common purpose. By specifying the congregation be “at the same time and
place,” the Legislature intended the directors simultaneously come together
in one location so that they can “hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item of
business that is within the authority of the board.” (Ibid.) Although the
definitions of “congregation” in the dictionaries cited in the preceding
paragraph say nothing explicit about physical location, the examples in those
dictionaries ordinarily involve gatherings of persons in one location for a
particular purpose—for deliberation and legislation (e.g., the U.S. Capitol),
for religious worship (e.g., a church or temple), or for social engagement or
entertainment (e.g., a night club or theater). Every example of a “place” in
those dictionaries is a physical location—a building, a place of worship (e.g., a
church or temple), a place of amusement or entertainment (e.g., a theater or
stadium), a place of education (e.g., an elementary school or college), or a fine
eating place (a café or restaurant). We think it is clear from the words chosen
that in enacting section 4090, subdivision (a) the Legislature had in mind the
traditional board meeting of a homeowners association, i.e., one where the
directors gather in the same room with homeowners to talk about and to act
on matters of association business. Hence, by sending e-mails to one another
through cyberspace, often hours or days apart and from different homes and

25

offices, the Association’s directors did not simultaneously gather in one
location to transact board business, and therefore they did not conduct a
“board meeting” within the meaning of section 4090, subdivision (a).2

In urging us to construe section 4090, subdivision (a) to include e-mail
exchanges among the directors of a board of a homeowners association on
matters of association business, appellants argue that “[l]egally, a ‘oard
[m]eeting’ under [the] OMA is capable of being conducted via electronic
transmissions.” We agree a board meeting conducted by electronic means is
permitted by the OMA, but not by virtue of section 4090, subdivision (a).
Subdivision (b) of section 4090 defines “board meeting” as “[a] teleconference,
where a sufficient number of directors to establish a quorum of the board, in
different locations, are connected by electronic means, through audio or video,
or both.” In this type of meeting, “[p]articipation by directors . . . constitutes
presence at that meeting as long as all directors participating are able to hear
one another, as well as members of the association speaking on matters
before the board.” (Ibid.) The e-mail exchanges at issue in this case do not
qualify as such a board meeting, however, because they did not allow the
participating directors “to hear one another.” (Ibid.) In any event, appellants
have expressly disavowed reliance on section 4090, subdivision (b).

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 8:15 AM
And why didn't they use small claims court for this case?

Perhaps the plaintiffs (the two owners, both LLCs) felt that whatever ruling small claims court issued would just be appealed by the defendants. Whence the appeal is heard de novo in Superior Court. "De novo" means the litigation begins anew, with no reliance on anything the small claims court said.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Problem 1: plaintiff should have used 4910b1 instead of 4090a as a claim.
Problem 2: court said 4910b1 was not a meeting instead of saying it was an unlawful meeting.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 8:14 AM
And to say just because the OMA doesn't include everything the Brown Act includes makes it invalid is dumb.

You would not question a difference between the (government-applicable) Brown Act and the HOA OMA?

I would. What words are used matter. Why? Because words are all we have to keep everyone on the same page.

The Court spoke of the Brown Act only once as follows:

Although the OMA prohibits the board from acting on items of Association business outside a

30

board meeting (§ 4910, subd. (a)), it does not prohibit the board from
discussing the items outside a meeting. Had the Legislature intended to
prohibit such discussions, it knew how to do so. In the Ralph M. Brown Act
(Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.), an open meeting law that governs public
agencies and the provisions of which “parallel” those of the OMA (Damon,
supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 475), the Legislature provided: “A majority of the
members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this
chapter, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through
intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business
that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body” (Gov.
Code, § 54952.2, subd. (b)(1)). Interpreting section 4090, subdivision (a) to
include the e-mail exchanges at issue in this case, as appellants would have
us do, would effectively add to the OMA a similar provision prohibiting
directors from discussing items of association business except at a board
meeting. We refuse to adopt an interpretation of a statute that would require
insertion of language the Legislature knew how to include but did not
include. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1858; Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th
531, 545; Yao v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 327, 332-333.)

In sum, we conclude “board meeting,” as defined by section 4090,
subdivision (a), is an in-person gathering of a quorum of the directors of a
homeowners association at the same time and in the same physical location
for the purpose of talking about and taking action on items of association
business. E-mail exchanges among directors on those items that occur before
a board meeting and in which no action is taken on the items, such as those
at issue in this case, do not constitute board meetings within the meaning of
that provision. The trial court therefore correctly rejected appellants’ claims
that the e-mail exchanges were board meetings that violated the OMA.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 09/08/2023 8:19 AM
Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 8:15 AM
And why didn't they use small claims court for this case?

Perhaps the plaintiffs (the two owners, both LLCs) felt that whatever ruling small claims court issued would just be appealed by the defendants. Whence the appeal is heard de novo in Superior Court. "De novo" means the litigation begins anew, with no reliance on anything the small claims court said.

Yes, but a Plaintiff can have a ruling vacated if he can show an error in law as this case.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 8:21 AM
Problem 1: plaintiff should have used 4910b1 instead of 4090a as a claim.

Plaintiffs did use 4910(b) (1).
Quote:
Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 8:21 AM
Problem 2: court said 4910b1 was not a meeting instead of saying it was an unlawful meeting.
Problem 3: You are not addressing the reasoning of the decision.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 09/08/2023 8:22 AM
Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 8:14 AM
And to say just because the OMA doesn't include everything the Brown Act includes makes it invalid is dumb.

You would not question a difference between the (government-applicable) Brown Act and the HOA OMA?

I would. What words are used matter. Why? Because words are all we have to keep everyone on the same page.

The Court spoke of the Brown Act only once as follows:

Although the OMA prohibits the board from acting on items of Association business outside a

30

board meeting (§ 4910, subd. (a)), it does not prohibit the board from
discussing the items outside a meeting. Had the Legislature intended to
prohibit such discussions, it knew how to do so. In the Ralph M. Brown Act
(Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.), an open meeting law that governs public
agencies and the provisions of which “parallel” those of the OMA (Damon,
supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 475), the Legislature provided: “A majority of the
members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this
chapter, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through
intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business
that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body” (Gov.
Code, § 54952.2, subd. (b)(1)). Interpreting section 4090, subdivision (a) to
include the e-mail exchanges at issue in this case, as appellants would have
us do, would effectively add to the OMA a similar provision prohibiting
directors from discussing items of association business except at a board
meeting. We refuse to adopt an interpretation of a statute that would require
insertion of language the Legislature knew how to include but did not
include. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1858; Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th
531, 545; Yao v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 327, 332-333.)

In sum, we conclude “board meeting,” as defined by section 4090,
subdivision (a), is an in-person gathering of a quorum of the directors of a
homeowners association at the same time and in the same physical location
for the purpose of talking about and taking action on items of association
business. E-mail exchanges among directors on those items that occur before
a board meeting and in which no action is taken on the items, such as those
at issue in this case, do not constitute board meetings within the meaning of
that provision. The trial court therefore correctly rejected appellants’ claims
that the e-mail exchanges were board meetings that violated the OMA.

It DID PROHIBIT such discussions at 4910b1 but the plaintiff used the wrong statute for the claim.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 8:23 AM
Yes, but a Plaintiff [in small claims court, who has lost a HOA case] can have a ruling vacated if he can show an error in law as this case.

When it comes to choosing which court to use for a lawsuit, it's a matter of weighing risks.

Attorneys are not allowed (at least during the in-person part of proceedings) at the small claims level. This is another reason not to use small claims court.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 8:26 AM

It DID PROHIBIT such discussions at 4910b1 but the plaintiff used the wrong statute for the claim.

No, wrong. The court observes that 4910(b)(1) uses the word "meeting." The court then turned to the sections defining "meeting." The court said email communications are not a meeting, due to the meaning of "congregation."

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 8:12 AM
Posted By ElleN on 09/08/2023 7:55 AM

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 7:51 AM

Posted By JamesB37 on 09/07/2023 6:05 PM
Court ruling affirms HOA board emails don’t violate Open Meeting Act:

https://www.dailynews.com/2023/09/07/hoa-homefront-court-ruling-affirms-hoa-board-emails-dont-violate-open-meeting-act/

How about this scenario: 3 directors sit at the chairman's patio table drinking wine. Chairman says, everyone have their email ready? Yes, we do. So they send emails to each other for the formality, then they resume discussing business.
Per te court's reasoning, discussing HOA business in-person appears to qualify as a "congregation" of directors, so HOA Open Meeting Act restrictions apply, and such a patio meeting is not allowed without proper notice to owners et cetera.

Exactly my point, showing the stupidity of the court's decision,

What would you use to define "congregation"? "Congregation" being one of the words section 4090 uses to define a meeting of the board.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Congregation is irrelevant to 4910b1; only to 4090a.
It says plaintiff only used 4090a in claim. That was a mistake.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 09/08/2023 8:34 AM
Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 8:26 AM

It DID PROHIBIT such discussions at 4910b1 but the plaintiff used the wrong statute for the claim.

No, wrong. The court observes that 4910(b)(1) uses the word "meeting." The court then turned to the sections defining "meeting." The court said email communications are not a meeting, due to the meaning of "congregation."

Not a legal meeting. That means practice is illegal. This is going to be overturned.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 09/08/2023 8:34 AM
Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 8:26 AM

It DID PROHIBIT such discussions at 4910b1 but the plaintiff used the wrong statute for the claim.

No, wrong. The court observes that 4910(b)(1) uses the word "meeting." The court then turned to the sections defining "meeting." The court said email communications are not a meeting, due to the meaning of "congregation."

Court's logic was wrong. 4090a defines a legal board meeting. If email discussions between directors are not a legal meeting, it's an illegal meeting.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 8:47 AM
4090a defines a legal board meeting. If email discussions between directors are not a legal meeting, it's an illegal meeting.

You are assuming that email discussions are a "meeting" as defined in 4090. But 4090 says

"Board meeting” means either of the following:

(a) A congregation, at the same time and place, of a sufficient number of directors to establish a quorum of the board, to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item of business that is within the authority of the board.

(b) A teleconference,...

(Underlined emphasis added by me.)

It appears you do not like the court's definition of "congregation." It would help if you stated why.

We shall see if this is appealed to the California Supreme Court.

The 2017 election dispute made it to the appeals court but then stopped there.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 09/08/2023 9:00 AM
Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 8:47 AM
4090a defines a legal board meeting. If email discussions between directors are not a legal meeting, it's an illegal meeting.

You are assuming that email discussions are a "meeting" as defined in 4090. But 4090 says

"Board meeting” means either of the following:

(a) A congregation, at the same time and place, of a sufficient number of directors to establish a quorum of the board, to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item of business that is within the authority of the board.

(b) A teleconference,...

(Underlined emphasis added by me.)

It appears you do not like the court's definition of "congregation." It would help if you stated why.

We shall see if this is appealed to the California Supreme Court.

The 2017 election dispute made it to the appeals court but then stopped there.

That is wrong. Not what I said. 4090 describes legal board meeting. I just used it in court. Email discussions are not part of this definition because they are forbidden in 4910b1.
If it doesn't go to Supreme Court, there will be another case down the road that will contradict it.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 8:42 AM
It says plaintiff only used 4090a in claim.

No it does not. The plaintiffs-appellants also used 4910(b), inter alia.

Read the opinion. Be aware that in the opinion, "appellants" here is synonymous with "plaintiffs."

Do you know how to do a keyword search of an internet site?

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

4910b1 says that conducting a meeting via a series of emails is indeed a meeting that should never happen. I am officially blue in the face and will wait for the next trial to vindicate me.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/08/2023 9:06 AM
4090 describes legal board meeting. I just used it in court. Email discussions are not part of this definition because they are forbidden in 4910b1.

A real debate means you say X; the court addresses X and possibly adds on Y; you address X and Y.

Here the court observed that 4090 requires a "congregation." You refuse to consider that "congregation" is essential to understand what 4090 says.

The court also observed that 4910(b) uses the word "meeting," with reference to a board meeting. Hence the court goes to 4090 to determine what a "meeting" is. Section 4090 requires a "congregation" of directors for a meeting to occur. The court ruled that email exchanges are not a congregation.

I do not know the context of your arguments in small claims court on this matter. If you care to share more, feel free, and I will offer my thoughts on whether this recent appeals court ruling has any bearing on what you argued recently.

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

Be careful what you ask for... could be considered harassment...

Former HOA President