Other Businesses on Agenda

LmT (California)
Posts: 237

Posted:

Our Manager always puts 'Other Business' as the last item on our Agenda. I don't think it should be there but I can't find anything on the Davis Stirling website that addresses this subject. Does anyone have any advice on where to look for a definitive answer?

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

It wouldn't happen if the BOARD would set the agenda - they're supposed to decide what makes the agenda and where it goes.

You probably won't find this addressed in Davis- Stirling because not everything in HOA land is covered by state statute. Mif you're on tge board, you should already know this. It it and your documents don't address what the order of business is supposed to be, let your common sense be your guide (just like your last discussion on resident forums- the state law says you have to have them, but the board can and should set rules on the length, how residents should present a topic and how to keep decency and order.

As a practical matter, it makes sense to place other business at the end because the board is usually busy discussing issues that require a decision at that meeting because they time sensitive. You also need a recap of what happened at the last meeting because when those minutes become official after the board approves them (and the sooner homeowners can review them). Committee reports should be done earlier so you can keep track of what they're doing and provide additional instructions if needed.

Other business may not necessarily need to be addressed - at our meeting, it's usually FYI stuff like the landscaper returned on X date to replant the correct flowers at the entrance or the handyman will be on vacation from. X date to Y date, so non critical tasks will be postponed until he returns. Most of the time it was written as "for board information" on the management report and not mentio ed at all unless someone had a question

Try not to overthink this stuff. If you think "other business" should be addressed sooner in your meeting, make you case before your colleagues and call for a vote. If they agree, fine, otherwise, you'll have to focus on the rest of the agenda as it's presented and be prepared to say what you want to say at the appointed time. Remember that if you've had a long meeting, people will be less likely to listen because they want to go home, so be succinct in what you say.

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

LmT (California)
Posts: 237

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By SheliaH on 09/25/2023 9:44 PM
It wouldn't happen if the BOARD would set the agenda - they're supposed to decide what makes the agenda and where it goes.

You probably won't find this addressed in Davis- Stirling because not everything in HOA land is covered by state statute. Mif you're on tge board, you should already know this. It it and your documents don't address what the order of business is supposed to be, let your common sense be your guide (just like your last discussion on resident forums- the state law says you have to have them, but the board can and should set rules on the length, how residents should present a topic and how to keep decency and order.

As a practical matter, it makes sense to place other business at the end because the board is usually busy discussing issues that require a decision at that meeting because they time sensitive. You also need a recap of what happened at the last meeting because when those minutes become official after the board approves them (and the sooner homeowners can review them). Committee reports should be done earlier so you can keep track of what they're doing and provide additional instructions if needed.

Other business may not necessarily need to be addressed - at our meeting, it's usually FYI stuff like the landscaper returned on X date to replant the correct flowers at the entrance or the handyman will be on vacation from. X date to Y date, so non critical tasks will be postponed until he returns. Most of the time it was written as "for board information" on the management report and not mentio ed at all unless someone had a question

Try not to overthink this stuff. If you think "other business" should be addressed sooner in your meeting, make you case before your colleagues and call for a vote. If they agree, fine, otherwise, you'll have to focus on the rest of the agenda as it's presented and be prepared to say what you want to say at the appointed time. Remember that if you've had a long meeting, people will be less likely to listen because they want to go home, so be succinct in what you say.

In California only items on the agenda may be discussed. My point is that other businesses would open the door to discuss items not on the agenda; therefore, it should not be on the agenda in the first place. Perhaps that’s the reason why. Before I ask our manager to remove the item I would like to have evidence to back up my request.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Civ 4930 says only items on the agenda may discussed & acted on —with a couple of caveats. Show the manager that citation, which you seem to know anyway. Do you have the authority to instruct the manager to take it off?

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

And you have a problem with this because...? Other organizations have placed "other business" or "new business" on the agenda and haven't had a problem with it. Kerry brings up a good point - if you don't think other business shoukd be on the agenda because of the statute, why do you need evidence to back you up? Can't you make your own argument - or did you try that and failed?

Then again, you expressed concern about resident forum because you were concerned one resident might get rowdy. Who is running your meetings? These are supposed to be business meetings, not a bitching session. When people get rude, tell them to stop it or leave- or escort them out. If you're president, get some books or read some articles on holding effective meetings. There are even older conversations on this website on how to do that- find what works best for you.

What's really going on - are your meetings overly long? That may be the fault of the president (you?) who's supposed to run the meeting and make sure everything on the agenda, especially the time sensitive stuff, is addressed. If people are rambling or repeating themselves you put a stop to that and emphasize that board members should come to meetings prepared to discuss and vote.

And what's wrong with setting some rules on what "other business" is for - maybe people don't know the difference between that and "new business"? Has there been complaints about this?

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By LmT on 09/25/2023 7:55 PM
Our Manager always puts 'Other Business' as the last item on our Agenda. I don't think it should be there but I can't find anything on the Davis Stirling website that addresses this subject. Does anyone have any advice on where to look for a definitive answer?

That's an easy one. Civil Code section 4930a. Board may not discuss or act upon any item of business NOT ON THE AGENDA provided with the notice.

LmT (California)
Posts: 237

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By KerryL1 on 09/26/2023 1:33 AM
Civ 4930 says only items on the agenda may discussed & acted on —with a couple of caveats. Show the manager that citation, which you seem to know anyway. Do you have the authority to instruct the manager to take it off?

I can request it be removed. I think the manager may believe it's a way around discussing items not specifically mentioned on the agenda. I will definitely ask for it to be removed and cite that Civil Code.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Your manager would be correct; our state legislators decided many years ago--I think in 2006-- that Owners have the right to see a notice & agenda listing every agent item 4 days before an open meeting. Good reason is so Owners can decide if they want to attend.

Another reason is so that a director or board majority cannot suddenly spit out an agenda item AT the meeting and blindside other directors and owners, too, thereby possibly getting a poor policy passed by the Board. Sort of a shock & awe attack. Other directors would have had no chance to think about the topic or research relevant source material.

My question is: WHY does the manager want to surprise everyone with sudden unnoticed agenda items? If management has an agenda item or more, they should get their act together and submit it by the deadline with background materials like everyone else.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

In SC we would allow a New/Other Business Agenda Item. It would be used to introduce discussible items for future discussion. We we would not vote on anything other then the idea that a subject should be discussed more.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

I've posted this link before. I refer to it often. Written by one who contributed to writing the Open Meeting Act.
https://www.tahoedonner.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Item-15-b-Summary-of-Davis-Stirling-Open-Meeting-Act.pdf

AidylP1 (California)
Posts: 173

Posted:

Now that California has voted to allow virtual board meetings without having a physical location, except for counting ballots, what is to stop a board from discussing items not on the agenda BUT not taking actions when no homeowner shows up for the meeting?

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AidylP1 on 09/27/2023 8:55 PM
Now that California has voted to allow virtual board meetings without having a physical location, except for counting ballots, what is to stop a board from discussing items not on the agenda BUT not taking actions when no homeowner shows up for the meeting?

So are you advocating "cheating" when no owner is watching/listening?

AidylP1 (California)
Posts: 173

Posted:

The speed limit in California is 65 MPH, but does anyone really obey the law? Not if you don't want to get run off the road.

The Open Meeting Act was changed in 2012 for one reason alone, to eliminate Action Without a Meeting, NOT Discussion Without a Meeting. Personally, I have no issue with having discussions between meetings as long as actions are taken at a Board meeting. For the record, I don't abide by the 65 MPH rule.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AidylP1 on 09/27/2023 8:55 PM
Now that California has voted to allow virtual board meetings without having a physical location, except for counting ballots, what is to stop a board from discussing items not on the agenda BUT not taking actions when no homeowner shows up for the meeting?

The Open Meeting Act was enacted for the benefit of homeowners so they would know what the board was doing. If a homeowner decides to miss a meeting, that's his prerogative.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AidylP1 on 09/27/2023 9:35 PM
The speed limit in California is 65 MPH, but does anyone really obey the law? Not if you don't want to get run off the road.

The Open Meeting Act was changed in 2012 for one reason alone, to eliminate Action Without a Meeting, NOT Discussion Without a Meeting. Personally, I have no issue with having discussions between meetings as long as actions are taken at a Board meeting. For the record, I don't abide by the 65 MPH rule.

Members want to know the reasoning behind the board's decisions. They want to know each director's viewpoint so they know who to vote for next time. The law requires that board decisions are made with care. How else would homeowners know those things without hearing their discussions? Our board must have discussions between meetings because they never have them during meetings.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 4:49 AM
The law requires that board decisions are made with care.

I do not think this is a fair rendering of statutes and case law. My own take: The law imposes a fiduciary duty on directors to act in the best interests of the HOA. To me, this means Directors, when taking action via a vote, do not have to demonstrate that their reasoning is sound. Instead, and if push comes to shove and litigation ensues, the board only has to demonstrate that the final, voted upon action was in the best interests of the HOA. As most here are aware the courts give boards a lot of latitude in decision-making, using for example the business judgment rule.

We shall see if the California legislature responds to the recent certified (and so binding, for now) California appeals court decision. In other words, will the legislature amend the HOA OMA to prohibit a quorum of a board from discussing (but not voting on) board business by email?

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 09/28/2023 5:47 AM

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 4:49 AM
The law requires that board decisions are made with care.

I do not think this is a fair rendering of statutes and case law. My own take: The law imposes a fiduciary duty on directors to act in the best interests of the HOA. To me, this means Directors, when taking action via a vote, do not have to demonstrate that their reasoning is sound. Instead, and if push comes to shove and litigation ensues, the board only has to demonstrate that the final, voted upon action was in the best interests of the HOA. As most here are aware the courts give boards a lot of latitude in decision-making, using for example the business judgment rule.

We shall see if the California legislature responds to the recent certified (and so binding, for now) California appeals court decision. In other words, will the legislature amend the HOA OMA to prohibit a quorum of a board from discussing (but not voting on) board business by email?

From Lamden:
"In sum, the business judgment rule provides that “a director is not liable for a mistake in business judgment which is made in good faith and in what he or she believes to be the best interests of the corporation, where no conflict of interest exists.” (Gaillard v. Natomas Co., supra, 208 Cal.App.3d at p. 1263, 256 Cal.Rptr. 702.) “ ‘ “Courts have properly decided to give directors a wide latitude in the management of the affairs of a corporation provided always that judgment, and that means an honest, unbiased judgment, is reasonably exercised by them․” ’ ” (Id. at p. 1264, 256 Cal.Rptr. 702.) Hence, courts will generally “uphold decisions made by the governing board of an owners association so long as they represent good faith efforts to further the purposes of the common interest development, are consistent with the development's governing documents, and comply with public policy.” (Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 361, 374, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 63, 878 P.2d 1275; Liebler v. Point Loma Tennis Club (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1600, 1613, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 783.) However, as we shall explain, the trial court here should not have applied the business judgment rule in determining whether Association's actions satisfied its responsibility with respect to treating termites."

Members are entitled to witness a board's judgment and its reasoning for making decisions. This is just one example. There are many more.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

The California legislature does not need to amend the Open Meeting Act because it already forbids board meetings via electronic transmissions. That would be emails, texts, or any other kind of electronic transmissions. Even if they met via semaphore signaling, a quorum discussing business would be an illegal meeting.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 6:20 AM

Posted By ElleN on 09/28/2023 5:47 AM

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 4:49 AM
The law requires that board decisions are made with care.

I do not think this is a fair rendering of statutes and case law. My own take: The law imposes a fiduciary duty on directors to act in the best interests of the HOA. To me, this means Directors, when taking action via a vote, do not have to demonstrate that their reasoning is sound. Instead, and if push comes to shove and litigation ensues, the board only has to demonstrate that the final, voted upon action was in the best interests of the HOA. As most here are aware the courts give boards a lot of latitude in decision-making, using for example the business judgment rule.

We shall see if the California legislature responds to the recent certified (and so binding, for now) California appeals court decision. In other words, will the legislature amend the HOA OMA to prohibit a quorum of a board from discussing (but not voting on) board business by email?

From Lamden:
"In sum, the business judgment rule provides that “a director is not liable for a mistake in business judgment which is made in good faith and in what he or she believes to be the best interests of the corporation, where no conflict of interest exists.” (Gaillard v. Natomas Co., supra, 208 Cal.App.3d at p. 1263, 256 Cal.Rptr. 702.) “ ‘ “Courts have properly decided to give directors a wide latitude in the management of the affairs of a corporation provided always that judgment, and that means an honest, unbiased judgment, is reasonably exercised by them․” ’ ” (Id. at p. 1264, 256 Cal.Rptr. 702.) Hence, courts will generally “uphold decisions made by the governing board of an owners association so long as they represent good faith efforts to further the purposes of the common interest development, are consistent with the development's governing documents, and comply with public policy.” (Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 361, 374, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 63, 878 P.2d 1275; Liebler v. Point Loma Tennis Club (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1600, 1613, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 783.) However, as we shall explain, the trial court here should not have applied the business judgment rule in determining whether Association's actionssatisfied its responsibility with respect to treating termites."

Members are entitled to witness a board's judgment and its reasoning for making decisions. This is just one example.

It's an example of the courts demanding that actions of a board meet a certain standard. An attorney for a board/hoa is going to present why the action is reasonable and in the best interests of the HOA. The actual reasoning each director used is not relevant.

As far as I am concerned, where an owner has a viable litigation is when the board's action is not in the best interests of the association.

Owners concerns should be solely with violations of the statutes and covenants, AFAIC. To me, you have not provided evidence that the actual reasoning a board uses (as opposed to the reasoning the HOA lawyer later presents to a court) can in some way be used to hold the board liable.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 6:30 AM
The California legislature does not need to amend the Open Meeting Act because it already forbids board meetings via electronic transmissions.

I look forward to your bringing litigation on the point and getting the August 2023 certified California Appeals Court decision reversed.

Until then, I advise operating in reality.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

The board is liable in that its judgments can be overturned if it does not follow all the necessary criteria for making decisions.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 09/28/2023 6:40 AM

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 6:30 AM
The California legislature does not need to amend the Open Meeting Act because it already forbids board meetings via electronic transmissions.

I look forward to your bringing litigation on the point and getting the August 2023 certified California Appeals Court decision reversed.

Until then, I advise operating in reality.

The only thing that court decided was that the lower court made no reversible error.
That decision will not be appealed because the original premise was faulty.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Here is the reality CA Civil Code section 4910b1, no email meetings, except emergency meetings.
No meeting without an agenda, except emergency meetings.
No discussion on items not on the agenda.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 09/28/2023 5:47 AM

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 4:49 AM
The law requires that board decisions are made with care.

I do not think this is a fair rendering of statutes and case law. My own take: The law imposes a fiduciary duty on directors to act in the best interests of the HOA. To me, this means Directors, when taking action via a vote, do not have to demonstrate that their reasoning is sound. Instead, and if push comes to shove and litigation ensues, the board only has to demonstrate that the final, voted upon action was in the best interests of the HOA. As most here are aware the courts give boards a lot of latitude in decision-making, using for example the business judgment rule.

We shall see if the California legislature responds to the recent certified (and so binding, for now) California appeals court decision. In other words, will the legislature amend the HOA OMA to prohibit a quorum of a board from discussing (but not voting on) board business by email?

What is fiduciary duty? It's acting with a duty of CARE and loyalty. Exactly what I wrote. Do you always have to find something wrong with a post?

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 6:48 AM
The only thing that court decided was that the lower court made no reversible error.

So you insist. Authorities say otherwise.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 7:06 AM
What is fiduciary duty? It's acting with a duty of CARE and loyalty.

You can capitalize all you want. Facts: the courts say whether a fiduciary duty was breached "depends." The courts give boards a lot of latitude.

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 7:06 AM
Exactly what I wrote. Do you always have to find something wrong with a post?

If one is trying to be persuasive, I have found speaking in hyperbole (de facto lies) always backfires and subtracts from the credibility of the speaker.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 09/28/2023 7:07 AM

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 6:48 AM
The only thing that court decided was that the lower court made no reversible error.

So you insist. Authorities say otherwise.

From Justia: PRIMARY HOLDING
The Court of Appeal found no reversible error with respect to appellants' Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act claims.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 09/28/2023 7:12 AM

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 7:06 AM
What is fiduciary duty? It's acting with a duty of CARE and loyalty.

You can capitalize all you want. Facts: the courts say whether a fiduciary duty was breached "depends." The courts give boards a lot of latitude.

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 7:06 AM
Exactly what I wrote. Do you always have to find something wrong with a post?

If one is trying to be persuasive, I have found speaking in hyperbole (de facto lies) always backfires and subtracts from the credibility of the speaker.

Why would I care if you think I'm not credible since you attack everyone's credibility?. To you, competition is foremost.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 7:13 AM

From Justia: PRIMARY HOLDING
The Court of Appeal found no reversible error with respect to appellants' Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act claims.

... meaning, among other things, this (from the appeals court decision):

We therefore read section 4910, subdivision (b)
as specifying a third method, in addition to and different from those defined
by section 4090, by which the board may conduct a meeting and take action
on a matter of homeowners association business, and which may be used only
in an emergency as defined by section 4923. It is not a subset of the type of
board meeting defined by section 4090, subdivision (a), by which the board
may take action on association business matters in nonemergency situations.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 09/28/2023 8:02 AM

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 7:13 AM

From Justia: PRIMARY HOLDING
The Court of Appeal found no reversible error with respect to appellants' Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act claims.

... meaning, among other things, this (from the appeals court decision):

We therefore read section 4910, subdivision (b)
as specifying a third method, in addition to and different from those defined
by section 4090, by which the board may conduct a meeting and take action
on a matter of homeowners association business, and which may be used only
in an emergency as defined by section 4923. It is not a subset of the type of
board meeting defined by section 4090, subdivision (a), by which the board
may take action on association business matters in nonemergency situations.

What's your point? The court focused on 4910b2 not b1 to show that emergency meetings is a LEGAL form of email meetings,
As stated ad nauseam, if the plaintiff had used 4910b1 in his claim, he likely would have won. Using 4090a, he assured a loss.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 8:33 AM

Posted By ElleN on 09/28/2023 8:02 AM

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 7:13 AM

From Justia: PRIMARY HOLDING
The Court of Appeal found no reversible error with respect to appellants' Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act claims.

... meaning, among other things, this (from the appeals court decision):

We therefore read section 4910, subdivision (b)
as specifying a third method, in addition to and different from those defined
by section 4090, by which the board may conduct a meeting and take action
on a matter of homeowners association business, and which may be used only
in an emergency as defined by section 4923. It is not a subset of the type of
board meeting defined by section 4090, subdivision (a), by which the board
may take action on association business matters in nonemergency situations.

What's your point?

The appeals court set a precedent. The precedent is what I quoted above.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Aidyl asked: "Now that California has voted to allow virtual board meetings without having a physical location...what is to stop a board from discussing items not on the agenda BUT not taking actions when no homeowner shows up for the meeting?"

If no Owners are present, whether virtual or in-person, how would anyone other than directors & perhaps a PM know the Board violated the requirement of an item being on a posted agenda 4 days before the board meeting? As JohnC so often has written, "Cheaters cheat."

The correct legal way to handle a topic that suddenly comes up that is not on the agenda is: the presider or any other director or the PM reminds the group perhaps this way: "Sounds like a worthwhile topic. I suggest we place it on next month's agenda to give the Board (or the PM) time to look into this."

Now, if the Board agrees by voting on the spot that the topic is urgent and needs attention now, the Board, per Civl Code, may proceed with discussion & vote.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 09/28/2023 9:08 AM

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 8:33 AM

Posted By ElleN on 09/28/2023 8:02 AM

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 7:13 AM

From Justia: PRIMARY HOLDING
The Court of Appeal found no reversible error with respect to appellants' Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act claims.

... meaning, among other things, this (from the appeals court decision):

We therefore read section 4910, subdivision (b)
as specifying a third method, in addition to and different from those defined
by section 4090, by which the board may conduct a meeting and take action
on a matter of homeowners association business, and which may be used only
in an emergency as defined by section 4923. It is not a subset of the type of
board meeting defined by section 4090, subdivision (a), by which the board
may take action on association business matters in nonemergency situations.

What's your point?

The appeals court set a precedent. The precedent is what I quoted above.

That is not a precedent.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 10:08 AM

That is not a precedent.

It's certified. It's precedent. It's binding on the lower courts. Sue to overturn it (and so try to prevent a discussion, without a vote, by a quorum by email) at your own risk.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 09/28/2023 10:20 AM

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 10:08 AM

That is not a precedent.

It's certified. It's precedent. It's binding on the lower courts. Sue to overturn it (and so try to prevent a discussion, without a vote, by a quorum by email) at your own risk.

We both have to have the last word. If we were siblings, our parents would put us up for adoption.

AidylP1 (California)
Posts: 173

Posted:

California pretty much is a Socialist state. The Governor and most of the members of one party. I disagree with many of the provisions of the Open Meeting Act. It was changed to correct the wrongs that Action Without a Meeting had, but the other 49 states still have Action Without a Meeting in the Bylaws the same as California had before the revision. It was changed for one reason and one reason alone, boards were taking action with the AWM and not informing them of what took place at the next meeting and in the minutes.

It ok to handcuff legislators because they get paid pretty well, but Board members are volunteers without compensation. I like to see Board members having discussions about what is going on in their community. What I despise are board members who show up to a meeting and haven't even opened up their board packet.

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AidylP1 on 09/28/2023 3:11

Board members are volunteers without compensation. I like to see Board members having discussions about what is going on in their community. What I despise are board members who show up to a meeting and haven't even opened up their board packet.

Yup. Which is why the board president (not the property manager) needs to set tge agenda and make sure it's followed, If board members don't bother to cone to meeti gs prepared, it adds more time that wasn't necessary. It's OK to ask questions, but it's annoying if someone brings up a questions that was addressed in the paperwork he/she received before the meeting. Those packets shoukd be sent in a timely manner so people won't miss part of the discussion reading the information they shoukd already know.

I should have done this sooner, but here's an article on running board meetings that addresses other vs, new business. I don't know if this information would pass muster with California law, but if someone wanted to put "other business" as an agenda item, would it be possible to ask every board member BEFORE THE MEETING if he or she has an announcement for "other business".

Remind everyone these are announcements only and will not be discussed in detail. You only get to make one announcement and if no one has any, other business won't be listed at all. Otherwise, use a few words to describe the announcement"board member candidate deadline approaching". This way everyone knows what's coming up fir that meeting and it won't be discussed in detail. Curious homeowners can always approach the board member for more information and that could lead to a request to add tbe subject as new business for the next meeting. This shouldn't take all night (you've been there long enough)

https://www.boardeffect.com/blog/how-to-run-a-board-meeting/#:~:text=committee%20for%20consideration.-,Other%20Business,them%20before%20the%20next%20meeting.

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

LizD3 (California)
Posts: 200

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By SheliaH on 09/26/2023 7:17 AM
AOther organizations have placed "other business" or "new business" on the agenda and haven't had a problem with it.

They should have a problem with it - it negates the entire point of having an agenda. The advantage of having an agenda is everyone knows what will be discussed and can review the governing documents or the RRFP or estimates or statutes or get questions answered, etc. in advance so they are prepared to make what could be costlyor impactful or long-term decisions with knowledge. “Other business” robs everyone of that important advantage, thus leaving the homeowners blindsided and unprepared which is never a smart idea.

AidylP1 (California)
Posts: 173

Posted:

Other business in California would mean Open Forum.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Nice article about business meetings in general, Shelia, that mainly draws from Robert's Rules of Order. but it does' fit HOA board meetings in CA and in several other states, too, I think.

There are at least two points in it that do NOT apply to CA HOAs. 1. Agendas must be posted for Owners to review 4 days before open Board meetings. By CA statute, ONLY items listed on that agenda may be discussed and/or voted on at the meeting. I do believe other states have this statute too. So....the board does not approve of the agenda AT said meetings as in Robert's.

Next, but Robert's Rules would agree, HOA board presidents do vote with other directors unless the boards are exceptionally large, 12+. Even Robert's agrees that presidents discuss and vote in small "assemblies," e.g., HOA boards.

In HOA boards, at least in CA, things that most folks can "announce" would be, as Aidyl (oh, I now "get" the name; clever) notes, announced in Open Forum. Other announcement often are embedded in the reports of say, the Social Committee chair, as in the open board meeting of 9/26/23: "Mark your calendar for our pasta dinner on 10/xx, while the inspectors of election are tabulating the votes!!" Or the PM in his report announces, "Window washing (high rise) will begin on 10/3. Notices will v be sent to all residents & owners." Such reports ate listed on the agenda.

In CA, "business" or "items of business" are those that require Board action, which requires #1, above for reasons that Liz & I point out.

.

AidylP1 (California)
Posts: 173

Posted:

It's my mom's name spelled backward.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Items of business are things over which the board has authority whether or not action occurs.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AidylP1 on 09/28/2023 5:02 PM
Other business in California would mean Open Forum.

Open Forum is not other business. Open Forum is whatever members want to address.

AidylP1 (California)
Posts: 173

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 7:27 PM

Posted By AidylP1 on 09/28/2023 5:02 PM
Other business in California would mean Open Forum.

Open Forum is not other business. Open Forum is whatever members want to address.

Apparently you didn't take the time to read the article

LmT (California)
Posts: 237

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AidylP1 on 09/27/2023 8:55 PM
Now that California has voted to allow virtual board meetings without having a physical location, except for counting ballots, what is to stop a board from discussing items not on the agenda BUT not taking actions when no homeowner shows up for the meeting?

From a Davis Stirling newsletter dated November 2022

Quote
It's a little anticlimactic but Gov. Newsom announced the "State of Emergency" will end on February 28, 2023.

Physical Locations. It means boards who want to use video conferencing for their meetings must designate a physical location in their meeting notice so owners who want to attend in-person, can do so even though the meeting is being held virtually.

In addition, at least one director or a person designated by the board must be present at that location with a laptop or conference phone setup that allows members to hear the meeting and, during the Open Forum portion of the meeting, be heard by the board. (Civ. Code § 4090).

End quote.

LmT (California)
Posts: 237

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By LmT on 09/28/2023 8:48 PM

Posted By AidylP1 on 09/27/2023 8:55 PM
Now that California has voted to allow virtual board meetings without having a physical location, except for counting ballots, what is to stop a board from discussing items not on the agenda BUT not taking actions when no homeowner shows up for the meeting?

From a Davis Stirling newsletter dated November 2022

Quote
It's a little anticlimactic but Gov. Newsom announced the "State of Emergency" will end on February 28, 2023.

Physical Locations. It means boards who want to use video conferencing for their meetings must designate a physical location in their meeting notice so owners who want to attend in-person, can do so even though the meeting is being held virtually.

In addition, at least one director or a person designated by the board must be present at that location with a laptop or conference phone setup that allows members to hear the meeting and, during the Open Forum portion of the meeting, be heard by the board. (Civ. Code § 4090).

End quote.

Ahh. I just saw your previous post. This is good news for our board meetings.

AidylP1 (California)
Posts: 173

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 7:27 PM

Posted By AidylP1 on 09/28/2023 5:02 PM
Other business in California would mean Open Forum.

Open Forum is not other business. Open Forum is whatever members want to address.

Did you miss this from the article?

Other Business
During this part of the meeting, the chair invites members to raise other matters that don’t require discussion, such as announcements. Other business may include items for future discussion so that members will have time to review them before the next meeting.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AidylP1 on 09/29/2023 12:28 PM

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 7:27 PM

Posted By AidylP1 on 09/28/2023 5:02 PM
Other business in California would mean Open Forum.

Open Forum is not other business. Open Forum is whatever members want to address.

Did you miss this from the article?

Other Business
During this part of the meeting, the chair invites members to raise other matters that don’t require discussion, such as announcements. Other business may include items for future discussion so that members will have time to review them before the next meeting.

What article?
What is your point?

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

I'm missing Aidyl's point too. what "article?" Does it apply to CA HOAs? The word "business" has a specific meaning in CA HOA statutes.

There are plenty of opportunities to make announcements at CA HOA open Board meetings, including but not limited to Open Forum." Committee Reports often have items of business that the Board should discuss or vote on. But they often comprise a just report of their activities and also announcements.

AidylP1 (California)
Posts: 173

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/29/2023 1:17 PM

Posted By AidylP1 on 09/29/2023 12:28 PM

Posted By TerriS6 on 09/28/2023 7:27 PM

Posted By AidylP1 on 09/28/2023 5:02 PM
Other business in California would mean Open Forum.

Open Forum is not other business. Open Forum is whatever members want to address.

Did you miss this from the article?

Other Business
During this part of the meeting, the chair invites members to raise other matters that don’t require discussion, such as announcements. Other business may include items for future discussion so that members will have time to review them before the next meeting.

What article?
What is your point?

Can't teach stupid, the article Sheila posted.