CA email case depublication request

Started by TerriS6 • 43 replies • 472 views

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

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

LNSU#1 v. Alta Del Mar

The requestor is asking the CA Supreme Court for the selective depublication of that portion of the Opinion related to the determination as to what constitutes a "meeting." He is asking for 2 reasons:

1) Court of Appeal interpretation of the plain language of the Act thwarts, rather than supports, the underlying legislative intent.

2) Without a definition or finding a definition or a finding as what constitutes an "action" there isn't objective criteria to prevent an unscrupulous majority of the board from conducting essentially all of their deliberations via a series of confidential emails. In sum, the Opinion would turn the transparency safeguards of the Open Meeting Act into a nullity,

The appellant has asked for Supreme Court review and both cases are consolidated and scheduled for Dec 26, 2023.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

The only thing I see on the net is (1) what TerriS6 linked in the other thread and (2) one other site, as follows:

https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/m09272023%28w%29.pdf

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/centers/calconcen/courts/

The above Ca Supreme Court site says this about December 26:

The time for ordering review on the court’s own motion is hereby extended to December 26,
2023. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(c).)

It does not appear to be an appeal of the appeals court's substantive decision on the case itself. Rather the Ca Supreme Court appears to be only considering whether to depublish the lower court's decision (and so make the appeals court decision not binding in all of California).

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Petition for Review was filed on October 4, 2023

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 11/06/2023 7:37 AM
Petition for Review was filed on October 4, 2023

This is not on the web sites I linked above, or any of the sub-links from these sites.

All the sub-links say is this:

Trial Court Case:37-2018-00032291-CU-MC-CTL
Court of Appeal Case

081204
Supreme Court Case:S281992
Division:
Case Caption:LNSU #1, LLC et al. v. Alta Del Mar Coastal Collection Community Association
Case Type:CV
Filing Date:10/04/2022 [ElleN note: Not 2023]
Completion Date:
Oral Argument Date/Time:

Supreme Court Case:S281992
Court of Appeal Case(s):
D081204
Fourth Appellate District, Division One
D080208 (lead)
Case Caption:LNSU #1 v. ALTA DEL MAR COASTAL COLLECTION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Case Category:Review - Civil Appeal
Start Date:10/05/2023
Case Status:case initiated
Issues:none
Case Citation:none

The language I quoted above ("on the court's own motion") makes me think the plaintiffs did not appeal the substantive appeals court decision. The plaintiffs might have been the ones to request depublication, but I do not know. If someone has a link with the facts, please post it.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 11/06/2023 6:01 AM
LNSU#1 v. Alta Del Mar

The requestor is asking the CA Supreme Court for the selective depublication of that portion of the Opinion related to the determination as to what constitutes a "meeting." He is asking for 2 reasons:

1) Court of Appeal interpretation of the plain language of the Act thwarts, rather than supports, the underlying legislative intent.

2) Without a definition or finding a definition or a finding as what constitutes an "action" there isn't objective criteria to prevent an unscrupulous majority of the board from conducting essentially all of their deliberations via a series of confidential emails. In sum, the Opinion would turn the transparency safeguards of the Open Meeting Act into a nullity,

The appellant has asked for Supreme Court review and both cases are consolidated and scheduled for Dec 26, 2023.

Put another way:

1. Under the Open Meeting Act, "Taking Action" is not a necessary and sufficient condition to have a "meeting."

2. Opinion is inconsistent with legislative purpose of the Open Meeting Act.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 11/07/2023 6:28 AM

Put another way:

1. Under the Open Meeting Act, "Taking Action" is not a necessary and sufficient condition to have a "meeting."

That's fine, but the trial court and appeals court were homed in on 4090's phrase "congregation, at the same time and place" in the 4090 definition of meeting.

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 11/07/2023 6:28 AM
2. Opinion is inconsistent with legislative purpose of the Open Meeting Act.

This is the requestor's opinion. The appeals court said otherwise. From the decision:

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.”

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

The Request to De-publish quotes the Court of Appeal concluding if no action is taken, the email exchanges don't constitute a meeting. Just because no action was taken, it doesn't mean there wasn't a meeting. The definition of a meeting at 4090 does not even mention "action." It's still a meeting if only to hear, discuss, deliberate but not take action. The Opinion doesn't define "action." 4355b calls "decisions" actions.

P.4 "The Court of Appeal parses the language of Civil C. Section 4090 to settle on a definition of "meeting" in order to answer the question"...whether the directors' e-mail exchanges constituted board meetings under the OMA..." (Opinion p. 21). The real issue, however, was not the definition of "meeting". Rather the issue was whether the unnoticed, unagendized, and closed e-mail exchanges between a majority of he board members violated the Open Meeting Act."

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 11/07/2023 8:48 AM
The Request to De-publish quotes the Court of Appeal concluding if no action is taken, the email exchanges don't constitute a meeting.

First, I would have to see the request to verify what the request said. So far it does not appear to be available on the net.

Second, if the request says what you claim, then one should be able to find this in the court's decision. No where does the decision say "no action taken" = "not a meeting." On the contrary, the court decision says that if an action is taken by email, then this is a game-changer.

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 11/07/2023 8:48 AM
Just because no action was taken, it doesn't mean there wasn't a meeting. The definition of a meeting at 4090 does not even mention "action." It's still a meeting if only to hear, discuss, deliberate but not take action. The Opinion doesn't define "action." 4355b calls "decisions" actions.

The fact that you continue to ignore 4090(a)'s definition of "meeting," and what the court said about this definition says to me you know you are trying to hammer your square peg into the statute's round hole.

If the Ca Supreme Court depublishes the appeals court decision, IMO their reasoning will have nothing to do with what the requestor allegedly wrote (as conveyed by you). As soon as I saw "underlying legislative intent," in your first post, and assuming the requestor really did use language like this, I figure the requestor is an amateur. Why? Because such a line indicates the writer does not understand that, unless the statute's actual wording indicates the intent, the courts will not guess at intent. Here it seems to me the actual wording indicates the legislature did want a different standard for HOA board discussions vis-a-vis municipal, county and state officials' discussions.

AidylP1 (California)
Posts: 173

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 11/07/2023 6:28 AM

To get the legislative purpose of the Open Meeting Act, you need to speak to the Senator who authorized the bill. Action without a Meeting comes into play.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Second, if the request says what you claim, then one should be able to find this in the court's decision. No where does the decision say "no action taken" = "not a meeting." On the contrary, the court decision says that if an action is taken by email, then this is a game-changer.

<

Page 31

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

"intent, the courts will not guess at intent"

The court didn't guess. See Opinion p.30: "to ensure the homeowners of a homeowners association are informed about and have input into the actions to be taken by the association's board of directors on matters affecting the community in which they live."..."holding open meetings and taking account of various opinions among community members before acting on items of association business."

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 11/07/2023 9:53 AM
"intent, the courts will not guess at intent"

The court didn't guess. See Opinion p.30: "to ensure the homeowners of a homeowners association are informed about and have input into the actions to be taken by the association's board of directors on matters affecting the community in which they live."..."holding open meetings and taking account of various opinions among community members before acting on items of association business."

I said, "unless the statute's actual wording indicates the intent, the courts will not guess at intent."

Page 31 says nothing like what you seem to claim.

And you continue to believe 4090(a)'s definition of meeting should be ignored. Undoubtedly because it takes your peg and makes it square.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AidylP1 on 11/07/2023 9:41 AM
To get the legislative purpose of the Open Meeting Act, you need to speak to the Senator who authorized the bill.

... and then even if the intent was as TerriS6 wishes, if this intent is not evident in the wording of the statute, then oh well. A buncha other legislators voted for this statute section. They may have had a different intent.

The courts do not like guessing.

I do not know how the Ca Supreme Court will rule. I can say I have yet to see any law firm assert that the lower court's reasoning was wrong.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Appellate Opinion page 31:

"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 [4090]."

As noted, the appellate opinion said no action = no meeting under 4090 - which absurd.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

The intent quoted was the exact language of the Appellate Court. The body of law in the Open Meeting Act clearly represents that intent.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 11/07/2023 10:21 AM
Appellate Opinion page 31:

"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 [4090]."

As noted, the appellate opinion said no action [elleN edit: by email] = no meeting under 4090 [snip unhelpful editorial remark]

You are right about what the appeals court said, re no actions taken by email = not a meeting under 4090. I got things confused.

The statutory hurdle regarding "congregation, at the same time and place" remains. Time and again, you simply refuse to address this. Yet is is an enormous part of the lower courts' reasoning.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 11/07/2023 12:36 PM

If this was the sole definition if a meeting, then an emergency meeting via a series of electronic transmissions would not be a meeting.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Email meetings among a majority of directors are exactly like emergency email meetings......without the emergency!

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 11/07/2023 1:07 PM

Posted By ElleN on 11/07/2023 12:36 PM
The statutory hurdle regarding "congregation, at the same time and place" remains. Time and again, you simply refuse to address this. Yet is is an enormous part of the lower courts' reasoning.

If this was the sole definition if a meeting, then an emergency meeting via a series of electronic transmissions would not be a meeting.

Yup. The court interpreted the two statute sections as defining three types of meetings. You appear to want to add a fourth type of statutory board meeting for which notice et cetera must be given: Email exchanges among a quorum of directors, where no vote is taken and there is no emergency.

But then why did not the legislature include this the way they did with teleconferencing in 4090(b) and emergency situations in 4910(b)(2)?

This is the legislature's fault for using the word "meeting" in 4910(b)(1) while simultaneously insisting on giving a definition of "meeting" in 4090(a), 4090(b) and 4910(b)(2).

The court cannot lawfully repeal a statute section like 4090(a).

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 11/07/2023 1:30 PM

This is the legislature's fault for using the word "meeting" in 4910(b)(1) while simultaneously insisting on giving a definition of "meeting" in 4090(a), 4090(b) and 4910(b)(2).

Civ Code 4910(a) also uses that pesky word "meeting," again forcing the reader to go look up how the statute defines "meeting."

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

The requestor is stating that 4090 is ambiguous not irrelevant. The Opinion says ere has to be "action" to be a meeting but 4090 doesn't. And 4910 (b)(1)&(2) call a series of electronic transmissions meetings. The requestor states on page 5 "Taken in the context of the OMA and section 4090, the common-sense interpretation of sections 4910(a) and (b)(1), respectively is: the board cannot take any action outside of a meeting and secondly, cannot even conduct a meeting, via a series of emails, and where meeting is intended to mean to, "...hear, discuss, or deliberate...").

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Main thing is: it's called the OPEN Meeting Act for a reason. Look forward to Supreme Court's view.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 11/07/2023 1:42 PM
The requestor is stating that 4090 is ambiguous not irrelevant. The Opinion says ere has to be "action" to be a meeting but 4090 doesn't.

The opinion says that when communicating by email, there has to be action for there to be a board meeting.

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 11/07/2023 1:42 PM
And 4910 (b)(1)&(2) call a series of electronic transmissions meetings. The requestor states on page 5 "Taken in the context of the OMA and section 4090, the common-sense interpretation of sections 4910(a) and (b)(1), respectively is:

You just described four judges with around a century of experience between them as lacking in common sense.

The reason they are not lacking in common sense is because they were scratching their heads as to why the legislature, for the HOA statute open meetings section did not just use language like the Brown Act* and why they chose to define a non-emergency meeting as a "congregation, at the same time and place." Judges are not allowed to re-write statutes, ya know. They are only allowed to interpret them.

If I were on the Ca Supreme Court, and no new arguments had been presented, I would be drumming my fingers, disgusted with what the legislature did here. But I would also be stuck with the actual wording in the statute. Just to spite the legislature I think I would leave the lower court's opinion published.

Either way (published or not), if the legislature does not like the lower court opinion (whether it is binding on only the two parties or whether it is binding throughout the state), I expect the legislature will act.

* “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.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

The time for granting or denying review is extended to January 2, 2024.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

For today's update, see https://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/centers/calconcen/courts/; click on the LNSU case; then click on "docket."

Or just see the attachment.

Per the web site and attachment, the requestor is one Edward M. Teyssior. He is 69 years old; an engineer and attorney (passed the bar in 2004, around age 50). He lives in the same city as the two parties in the lawsuit. He is not the attorney for either of the two parties in the lawsuit. I am not sure if Teyssior has an ownership interest in LNSU LLC or owns a home in the Alta Del Mar HOA. Teyssior is on record as having been involved several years ago in a legal dispute with another HOA (Pacific Ridge).

Teyssior made the de-publication request on Sep 26. The defendant (Alta Del Mar) filed its response to this request on Sep 29.

In addition the record shows that the plaintiffs (LNSU #1 and LNSU #2; both being the losing parties at the appeals court level) filed a "petition for review" on October 4. I think, but am not certain, that the "petition for review" is a bona fide, full-on appeal of the appeals court decision.

The defendant filed its "answer" to the "petition for review" on Oct 20. The plaintiffs filed their "reply" to the "answer" on Oct 30.

Per the attachment:
11/21/2023
Time extended to grant or deny review
The time for granting or denying review in the above-entitled matter is hereby extended to and including January 2, 2024, or the date upon which review is either granted or denied.

If this is an appeal, then the appeal is to be distinguished from the depublication request.

📎 Attachments (1):

⏸ Downloads temporarily unavailable

📄11121224732471.pdf(80 KB)

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Info on the Ca Supreme Court process:

https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/efiling-and-procedures/frequently-asked-questions

One may also sign up for robo-notification via the link above.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

As of today, the California Supreme Court has denied both the petition for review (the appeal) and the request to depublish.

The California Appeals Court decision, allowing California HOA boards to communicate by email as long as certain conditions are met, is Thee Law in California.

See https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/disposition.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2758136&doc_no=S281992&request_token=OCIwLSEmLkg9WyBBSCJNSENIUFg0UDxTKyJOIzNTXDtPCg%3D%3D

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Case law, not the law. 4910b1 is still enforceable if you can prove it.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 12/13/2023 3:21 PM
Case law, not the law. 4910b1 is still enforceable if you can prove it.

One, case law, with statutes et cetera make up Thee Law.

Two, 4910 (b) (1) is enforceable if the board has congregated at the same time and place to hear or discuss any business over which the board has authority and is exchanging emails. E.g. the board meeting is held by zoom. Board members are exchanging emails simultaneously.

But I know you are going to continue to lie to people here and say that hoa boards may not lawfully communicate by email on any board topic.

The problem with your approach is it can and will be used against you. E.g. every time you have quoted case law as Thee Law (and there are many instances of your doing so to date), someone can come along and say, "Oh no. The law is what the court says tomorrow. Disregard the case law TerriS6 cited." Which would be foolish and more foolish.

The correct response to today's development is to write one's state representative and state senator and ask them to amend these sections to look more like the Brown Open Meeting Act.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AidylP1 on 12/13/2023 3:31 PM
At long last, a court that allows volunteer boards to do their job and not get harassed by sue-happy individuals

:-)

Do you think the Ca legislature will try to amend the state's HOA statute to give Terri and others what they want?

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AidylP1 on 12/13/2023 3:39 PM

Posted By ElleN on 12/13/2023 3:34 PM
Do you think the Ca legislature will try to amend the state's HOA statute to give Terri and others what they want?

Not a chance in hell. As Adrian Adams pointed out, as long as no decision is made, then emails are fine. It all goes back to why the Open Meeting Act came into being. It was the abuse of Action Without a Meeting, which wasn't being followed. It wasn't the emails between directors that they had a problem with, only the actions that boards weren't transparent about.

Well shucks, that's interesting. Thx for sharing.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Now I know for sure some of the posters here are lawyer flunkies and nothing more. Such a waste of time when some pretend to be helping others. For sure , on this forum, no help is intended for homeowners only for board members and its attorneys. They're just not that smart.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 12/13/2023 4:22 PM
Now I know for sure some of the posters here are lawyer flunkies and nothing more. Such a waste of time when some pretend to be helping others. For sure , on this forum, no help is intended for homeowners only for board members and its attorneys. They're just not that smart.

I advise you to never again cite any case law in this forum.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

I too have heard/read the reason that Aidyl presents. I also can see that in small HOAs, that're self-managed, or where an MC only provides minimal services per a board's wishes/budget, directors may need to discuss a few things before an open meeting, especially if they only meet quarterly.

For me, in Ca, if an item of business is NOT an emergency, when a board CAN take action without a meeting or call an emergency meeting of the Board with no notice, why is there any need to discuss, deliberate and debate between monthly meetings??

I've accepted the court decision, but believe it returns abusive Boards back to their glittering glory days when a board quorum could deliberate and discuss and debate trivial or important items of business behind owners' backs.

Lazy or so-called "efficient" boards only need, in any open board meeting, to present an agenda item of business, motion, and vote to take action/make decisions. Owners are completely in the dark about why, or the process by which decisions are made, what the cost is (if any), etc. Boards are bench-occupying rubber-stamping blobs that (yes, "that") are robotic decision-announcers. As open meetings become empty sites of nothing but announcements of prepackaged decisions, owner attendance will drop. This, of course, is very welcome by abusive secretive boards.

Owners have no clue which directors are dunces, and which are informed about the topic or even are knowledgeable about their HOA. Who, if any, deserve to reelected? Owners have no idea of the pros and cons of any item of business.

Since a board quorum may engage in these behind-locked-door meetings to discuss and deliberate, they may keep out directors who are "obstacles," " or "pains." The latter, at the open meeting, are blind-sided. They may try to offer a different point of view at the meeting, but can easily and quickly shut down.

About all owners can do is in open forum (OF)ask for the reasons or justifications for board decisions. The can happen if the OF is at the beginning of the meeting: "I see the Board will make a decision on refurbishing the mail rooms." Will you please provide the options available that you considered and the cost of these options before you vote?" If OF is at the end, the same question can be asked. No one can force any director to reply, but at least other owners can hear that the Board made decisions with no discussion or debate.

My only hope is that decent, moral boards, who believe that they are SERVING the community, will continue to deliberate and discuss and debate in open meeting. This transparency (ugh, so overused, but...) and reasoned exchanges build Owners' trust of the board AND its decisions.

So I agree with Terri that this court decision is bad for Owners and fabulous for lousy boards.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By KerryL1 on 12/13/2023 5:15 PM
Since a board quorum may engage in these behind-locked-door meetings to discuss and deliberate, they may keep out directors who are "obstacles," " or "pains."

Probably not legally, boo-boo.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

In his 12/14/23 Newsletter, A. Adams at Davis-stirling.com comments: "Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied the request and the Alta Del Mar case can be relied upon as binding precedent. It means directors can discuss matters via email that might come before the board, provided they do not make any decisions. Final discussions and decisions on non-executive session matters must take place in a properly noticed open meeting."

While he asserts that "final discussions" must take place in an open meeting, where in the relevant case is it written that "final discussion must occur in an open meeting?" I'd feel a lot better if that were true and IF there were a way by which such discussions could be enforced.

Well, Aidyl, the HOAs' board meetings you're familiar with are a lot different than mine. And each of ours might be a lot different than many others. Open board meetings in my HOA attract about 30 owners every month, about 1/2 attend via Zoom and have for about 2-1/2 years now. Our PM's supervisor, who oversees several HOAs and attends open meetings claims our attendance is pretty good. An Open Forum (OF) is held at the beginning of the meeting. There rarely are complaints and, over 16 years, I'd say only one or two owners have left following it.

But, you're probably right, very few owners, if any, other than I, will notice if discussion/deliberation/debate are suddenly missing on all agenda items or even some items of business. As I wrote previously, I will, in our 2nd OF, ask for details.

elle opines that to be "legal" all board members must be included in these online discussions/deliberations/debates. Please cite evidence for your opinion, elle, otherwise it's just idle speculation.
"Boo-ooo"; is that some kind of friendly HOA phrase? Back atcha---I guess?

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By KerryL1 on 12/14/2023 12:48 PM

In his 12/14/23 Newsletter, A. Adams at Davis-stirling.com comments: "Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied the request and the Alta Del Mar case can be relied upon as binding precedent. It means directors can discuss matters via email that might come before the board, provided they do not make any decisions. Final discussions and decisions on non-executive session matters must take place in a properly noticed open meeting."

While he asserts that "final discussions" must take place in an open meeting, where in the relevant case is it written that "final discussion must occur in an open meeting?"

I think he's just being a little loose with the wording, nodding to the reality that the vote has to be on the agenda of a properly noticed meeting; owners have the legal right to comment or ask questions; and that it is unlikely that the agenda item will consist solely of a call for a vote. Someone has to motion; someone has to second; and if RONR or common courtesy is being observed (in the best interests of the HOA), discussion is invited.

Quote:

Posted By KerryL1 on 12/14/2023 12:48 PM
elle opines that to be "legal" all board members must be included in these online discussions/deliberations/debates.

Nope. First, You called it a "meeting," as in board meeting, which Civ Code 4090 defines. As a "meeting," statutes require all directors receive notice.

Second, if you mean behind the scenes directors' email exchanges (not "meetings"), where no vote is taken and other criteria are met, the presence of a quorum is not relevant. It's true the law does not require all directors to be included in such exchanges. But I do not see that this has practical ramifications. Director A and Director B can also lawfully go have coffee at Starbucks and exchange HOA board-related information, as long as they are not a quorum. So what.

Today I am Yogi. You are boo-boo.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Ah, now non-Calif., non-attorney, VERY short-term board member years ago, elle, presumes to judge a well-respected CA HOA attorney, who's given all of us the excellent davis-stirling.com website, as been "being a little loose"in his Newsletter that goes to hundreds of HOA board sand members too, like me. Such hubris. And then, she tries to read his mind about what he was "really" trying to say, which is completely unpersuasive & plain silly.

Let's see if A. Adams will reply to my query about this "final discussion" that he seems to imply is required by boards at open meetings. I hope boards WILL have these discussions. I feel our current Board in my HOA will. I do know, of course, that "discussion" doesn't even make sense for every agenda item of business. Approval of the proposed minutes, for instance.

You're right elle, I should not have used the word "meeting" when talking about any online gathering of the quorum of the Board. Everyone, via Elle's edict, you may not use the word "meeting" or "meet," either re: CA HOAs unless you're talking about noticed board or members meetings. Wait...maybe this only refers to me?

In these online gatherings, sleazy directors have no legal requirement to notify directors they want to exclude.* So swell of you to admit your error on this point, elle.

Let's say 2 are excluded/not contacted in a board of 5. Those two always obviously were able to, uh, gather as they are not a quorum. elle's "practical ramification" is a quorum, i.e., the majority will easily prevail. They've already discussed & refined their desires, and will cut short/down the minority* voices who have not heard their argument due to the former's secrecy.*

*We know there are Boards like this. We read about them fairly often on this site. And I served for two years (of 14 total) with a secretive Board, and observed a 2nd such Board years ago during the months before I was first elected. AND with access to their email gatherings after my election, their illegal "gatherings" were obvious. Because of hard work by active owners, in the first example we saw three incumbents defeated in an election and the good guys prevailing on a new Board the night of an election. (Two good guy-directors had been a minority, and were now a majority! In the much learner yes, it took a year to get a good-guys majority.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Oooooo, elle is a large, overweight male bear covered in brown fur? And I'm some sort of adorable baby bear? Um, ok.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By KerryL1 on 12/14/2023 7:16 PM
You're right elle, I should not have used the word "meeting" when talking about any online gathering of the quorum of the Board. [Gish gallop gibberish snipped]

Since the LNSU decision relied entirely on this distinction, and the decision is the subject of this thread, this is correct, Boo-Boo.

🎯 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