Open board meeting notice ordered removed from Nextdoor

Is your bulletin board on HOA-owned property (not the street, but on ground adjacent to the street)?

Did you ask the board if you should do this, or did you just assume you could?

NextDoor is not comparable to official HOA social media pages. Many people do not have NextDoor accounts. FWIW, the few times I've looked on NextDoor, I saw no official HOA business on it. Probably for good reason - that's not why NextDoor exists. Anything you post there will miss part of your target audience, and it will be seen by a large number of people who aren't in your target audience. Seems to serve no useful purpose unless you want to stir up conflict.

Let's keep it simple. I can only think of positive results by sharing the meeting notice and agenda with my HOA neighbors. The goal is to get more members interested in attending meetings. Half the time our bulletin board is covered with condensation and notices can't be read.

The chairman I presume. It was his wife's email and it wasn't signed.

Wow! I'm glad you asked. This is ridiculous.

There is a page titled "official association communication designee & general delivery notice location."

Then it says "Official Communication Designee: xxxxxxxxx, president" with mailing address and "physical address: none"

Then "notice of option for individual delivery of general notices' then it says how individual notice is given and revoked.

No location for general notices and what the heck is an official association communications designee.!!!!!!!! That was never on an agenda.

Bottom line: it doesn't really matter whether or not Nextdoor is the correct place for posting this. One board member can't decide on their own that they know best and do what they want. Board decisions are always group decisions, although the group may vote to give one director the authority to make decisions about certain things.

Regardless, a skilled board director works to promote effective working relations with the rest of the board. Poking the bear does nothing to improve the functioning of the board, and certainly does not serve the interests of the community.

Our Property Management Company sends out the Board agenda and a zoom link to each owner four days of Board meeting.

The notice agenda was shared only with our subdivision, 99% members. There are some notice/agendas posted on our website which is open to all public. Our bulletin board is on a public street but there is no outlet so not much public exposure. Amazingly we had some members attend the meeting and one suggested a member group on Nextdoor which I started but people don't like groups usually. Ultimately, if a non-member came to the Zoom meeting, the host doesn't have to let them in.

During the meeting we were asked to pick inspector of elections, a firm we've used who's good. Then it was discovered by accident that the chairman was in possession of the IOE's contract for six weeks but never showed it to the board! I got a copy today from the IOE. So he's going to sign it but the board hasn't approved it...or seen it until this morning...I sent it to the other directors.

Then you would be subject to a $500. fine as an association is prohibited from restricting posts on social media.

From https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/C/Censuring-Directors:

Censure is a Form of Free Speech, Not a Disciplinary Action

While expressing strong disapproval of a director's behavior, a censure does not remove a director from the board or impair the director's ability to attend meetings, make and second motions, or vote on motions (unless there is reason for recusing the director from a particular vote).

U.S. Supreme Court. Houston Community College System (CSS) board member David Wilson had a history of criticizing fellow directors and filing lawsuits that cost CSS more than $270,000 in legal fees. As a result, the Board censured Wilson and barred him from holding officer positions on the Board or receiving travel reimbursements. After the board publicly censured Wilson for his behavior at a 2018 meeting, he sought damages against CSS and fellow directors for mental anguish, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees, claiming the censure violated his First Amendment right to free speech. In a 2022 unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Wilson. The Court wrote that,

Elected representatives are expected to shoulder a degree of criticism about their public service from their constituents and their peers—and to continue exercising their free speech rights when the criticism comes. Second, the only adverse action at issue before the Court is itself a form of speech from Mr. Wilson’s colleagues that concerns the conduct of public office. The First Amendment surely promises an elected representative like Mr. Wilson the right to speak freely on questions of government policy, but it cannot be used as a weapon to silence other representatives seeking to do the same. The censure at issue before us was a form of speech by elected representatives concerning the public conduct of another elected representative. Everyone involved was an equal member of the same deliberative body. The censure did not prevent Mr. Wilson from doing his job, it did not deny him any privilege of office... It involves a censure of one member of an elected body by other members of the same body. It does not involve expulsion, exclusion, or any other form of punishment. (Hous. Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Wilson (2022) 595 U.S. 468, 479, 482; emphasis added.)

The court also noted that censure dates back to colonial times, and long-established precedents affirmed the right of public assemblies to censure their members. "[A]s many examples show, Congress has censured Members not only for objectionable speech directed at fellow Members but also for comments to the media, public remarks disclosing confidential information, and conduct or speech thought damaging to the Nation. Censures have also proven common at the state and local level." (Id. at 469.)

Uh huh. D-S.com and the Supreme court both say you that the act of censuring (to be distinguished from "censoring") is free speech.

I think you are used to being either censured or chastised by other directors/owners.

Just take the continued slaps on the wrist and keep posting the agendas.

If I were on this board, I would continue to be mindful of how you prevaricate and threaten litigation. I would listen to the points you make (a broken clock is right at least twice a day) and vote my conscience. Many would not be as generous.

It could be. Rule 36. No owner or occupant of lot shall post any notices of HOA meeting in any public place or public internet sites without the express written consent of the HOA board.

I don’t know, but you said you did.

I disagreed with Terri posting on NextDoor comprised of ppl, in part, of ppl not in her HOA. It's none of their business. I, however, having read hundreds of open meeting agendas over 20 years in my HOA, can say it's exceptionally rare to see some horrifying item about our HOA on it. She mentioned Inspectors of election. In a previous post, she mentioned selecting a Reserve Company and a couple of other routine, but necessary matters. Zzzzzz.

So I think Elle’s insistence that Terri be censured is a distraction to this Board’s important business and the big role Terri is playing to tamp down the dictatorial methods of their current president. Do recall, elle, it was the prez’s WIFE who demanded Terri take down the Next Door post. Is that OK with you?

And, in a previous post 2 other directors called for this Special Meeting. So a majority of the Board was very interested in good attendance.

I did ask Terri why she didn't simply get the email addies of all members and send them the agenda. (I think most HOAs do this and nowadays.) Why not, I also asked, put up a yard sign urging attendance to the meeting? Publicizing the meeting within the HOA’s premises is legal per Civ. 4515.*

Meanwhile, Terri, why not ask your PM to comply with CA requirements for open meeting notices & agendas. Or you may need a Board vote to follow the law. See www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/B/Board-Meeting-Notice-Agenda

This is your Board’s main problem. The bulletin board does’t comply with statute b/c 100% of your owners cannot read it even if only one owner lives offsite.

Other options are send it with. Billing statement, include it in a newsletter that goes to all owners.

So vs. punishing you, Terri, I continue to support your efforts to get your Board on the right path.

* I do not think Terri “prevaricated” about Civ 4515, but was mistaken. This is the 2nd time in a week or so that elle has called poster a liar.

Kerry, I do have several email addresses but far from all. A yard sign is a good idea. Good news a terrific neighbor will run in this year’s election. Was supposed to be May or June but now July or August. We have several members who live elsewhere primarily. I need to review the notice requirements because there is no way all members could see the notice requirements thank you.

I see now that we will have to give individual notice of all meetings the rest of this year because the location of the bulletin board was not given in the annual policy statement per 4045(a)(3). And I will have to check to see if notices are being sent individually to non-residents.

Also, members have a right to copy records as long as they are not sold or used for a commercial purpose. Sharing a notice with my neighbors is reasonably related to my interest as a member. That is lawful.

You omitted parts (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Civ Code 4515.

If in the context herein, you had posted only Civ Code 4515 part (a) to NextDoor, and I were on your board, I would again consider a motion to censure you for repeated prevarication about what the law says.

Same thing if, while serving as a director, you posted to NextDoor the falsehood that a censure violates the D-S act.

When the chairman deliberately tries to prevent members from attending open board meetings, as a director I have a responsibility to do what I can within my limits to help my neighbors/fellow members.

At the last meeting, he posted the notice 3 days in advance, not 4, deliberately omitted the Zoom access information, and called it an Executive meeting solely because executive sessions only require 2 days notice. I wasn't going to be complicit and we were going to vote on an assessment increase (it failed for not getting a second), so I took my copy, added the Zoom info the posted it to my neighbors. Can you imagine? Trying to block members from a meeting where there will be a vote to increase assessments. So of course I was threatened by chairman at the meeting for sharing the notice. He actually said out loud "if I had wanted members to attend, I would have added the Zoom information".

At this meeting, it turns out the annual policy statement didn't include the location of the bulletin board and it is unknown how many nonresidents were noticed. So sharing the notice/agenda with my member/neighbors was in order. Even in a private Nextdoor group, one could post a notice/agenda and members of a household who are not association members could read it. We regularly have non-member spouses at meetings. Nobody objects to that.

I didn't put out any information about the law to owners. I posted the notice and agenda.

Censure is for bad behavior. Helping members get access to notice/agenda when chairman is actively trying to prevent their attendance is good behavior!