A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
🎁 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! →
← Return to Topics List

President of Board Asks for "Special Meeting"

Started by NoelleC • 25 replies • 1367 views

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

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

NoelleC (California)
Posts: 42
Posted:
My board as dramatic as it has been pretty much has stopped with the angry emails as I mentioned in my earlier post.

However, today I get a email from the President of our Board asking if I could meet for an hour or so to "get to the root" of the boards problems.

First of all, I have no interests in "getting to the root" of any personal issues that our board has. I am fine, and I am not looking for BFF's here. However, I responded to her that I was advised by my atty due to the nature of rude, inappropriate emails from a board member that has gone without without intervention I will not meet with her or anyone else in regards to any board issues unless it's in executive session so everything and all will be documented in our minutes for our records.

I did not get a response, but I assume this was the best thing I could said.
BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820
Posted:
transparency is the best thing to do "to get to the root" of any problem.

If you are afraid of transparency, then you really don't want to get to the root all that bad.

I think you did fine: if folks want to solve the issue, they should be willing to solve it with notes, documentation, etc...
NoelleC (California)
Posts: 42
Posted:
I also sought out the advice of our management company who are the best. They suggested to confront and let the individual know his emails are inappropriate and then block his emails.. ( Which I have done )

I was also advised to have a conflict resolution meeting with all members in order to seek out the issues and move forward. The manager stated there are layers if issues that need to be disected if you will. Executive session is inappropriate as it may be harmful to the HOA on a whole as so stated.

I do not have any wish to sit down and have tea with these folks, be BFF's or do lunch with them on weekends. ( that is sarcasm not literal) I myself can conduct myself in a business fashion and move forward. However, the ones with the issues and feelings and unaddressed personal issues are there's and there's alone. I don't need to have a cathartic moment with the man who asked me via email and another to step off the board. ( he was kind enough to forward it to everyone on the board and the management company. ) I am not the one with the issues, and frankly I can't change the man or his actions and vote to move forward, let the past be in the past and get on with business.... But that won't happen.

Next month this man be voted out of office anyway... so wish me luck.

GeraldT4
Posts: 1,022
Posted:
NoelleC - Well, you'll never know what the President was going to discuss with you now will you? Perhaps the President was looking to be a bridge of sorts to smooth things over. Assuming that possibility on your part and thanking the President to that effect may stand you in much better graces. Sometimes a weak or splintered Board is worse than one solidified over bad principle because it does delay and cause dysfunction which trickles down, insinuates its way through the rest of the Association. However, I think you did right by requesting a meeting or discussion to be in formal executive session, etc. If it does ever occur, at that time everyone needs to let go of their egos and move on with a renewed spirit and perhaps some mutual respect. : )
SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202
Posted:
Unless your president has the power to call "Special Meetings" then they can't be called.

Insist on a professional coming in to work with this Board.

Sounds like a house-cleaning needs to be done. I can't help but believe the residents don't know about all of this.
NoelleC (California)
Posts: 42
Posted:
Susan you are right about the homeowners not knowing about this. I personally do no have the energy to rehash the last 6 months worth of wrong doings. But the president wishes too.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Noelle,
Also, any "special meeting" is required to be open to the general membership. So, if this is just a meeting for the Board members only, then it would be illegal unless it is called as an Executive Session. According to your Docs and the Davis/Sterling Act, what constitutes an Executive meeting?. I'll bet not a hashing, bashing session.
NoelleC (California)
Posts: 42
Posted:
Donna, I thank you for the information. I knew her request is illegal and I thought it may need to be open to the general membership unless it is something we needed to ask about in executive.

This request is not going to be granted by myself. So, if the others wish to attend I may look into the legality of the request.
MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
I'm curious.

What if she (the president) is merely trying to engage in some sort of "mediation" so that the "team" can work better together?

Is that considered a "board meeting" that is required by law to be open to the residents?

Isn't there some sort of "workshop" status under which such a "mediation" type of get together falls?

In a neighboring community, one of the residents filed a complaint with our local Department of Neighborhoods (which does not have any sort of governance or whatever over neighborhoods or HOAs, but is merely a resource center of sorts), that their board was so contentious the neighborhood business wasn't getting done. The head of the department contacted various board members and was able to talk them into a Conflict Resolution seminar that helped them resolve some of their "team" issues.

It was free to the HOA, so I'm guessing that helped, but would their Conflict Resolution process have been qualified as a "board meeting," requiring "minutes" and being open to the residents? I certainly hope not. I can't imagine it being very productive, if so.

SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202
Posted:
I have seen several incidences where municipal councils or Board had gone on "retreats," and a portion of it was spent on decision-making, conflict resolution, group dynamics and getting-along skills.

It is not considered conducting "business" so it would not be a "meeting."
BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820
Posted:
i am not a lawyer, but i watch Law and Order and Boston Legal on TV:

I would tend to think that a meeting (for legal purposes) would be a gathering of people who can affect change/make decisions who discuss, share information, vote to enact or not enact, effect change, or exchange opinions about subjects that concern the operations of the business, ie, spending money, effecting change in procedures, making a decision, etc..

In this manner, folks getting together to discuss "why can't we work better" would not be a "meeting", because working better is NOT one of the aspects of HOA life that a board is required to do to run the organization. Paying bills, sending letters, assessing fines are all HOA business. Being nice to each other, exploring communication styles, bonding, etc. are not.

If two board members meet and say "Wow, don't you think that paint color is ugly", I don't think that's a meeting. However, if one says "Hey, that paint Joe used is ugly. I think we should send him an assessment letter, and fine his behind, don't you?" and the other says "Yeah, I do. In fact, I will send the letter today", then I think they just had a meeting.

One was an expression of opinion, with no action. The other included action, and that action IS tbe board conducting business.

JMO...

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Brian,

Apparently you've never read any of the Attorney General opinions regarding the AZ HOA open meeting law. Opinion issued by then AG Grant Woods in 1996: a quorum of the board meeting informally cannot discuss assn business whether or not any decision is made. This will be written into law if SB1019 passes the legislature this session.

Now I know you said 2 members; however if it's a 3 member board, 2 is a quorum. :-)

Mary
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Susan,

In AZ, those type "retreats" would be called workshop meetings and are subject to the public body open meeting law in that they must be properly noticed and no they cannot take any action. HOAs also have an open meeting law which does not cover quite all the topics as the public body open meeting law. However, there have been several opinions issued by past attorneys' general stating a quorum of the board meeting informally cannot discuss assn business whether they take any action or not.

In some states the open meeting laws are called sunshine laws.

Mary
SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202
Posted:
My post said: "I have seen several incidences where municipal councils or Board had gone on "retreats," and a portion of it was spent on decision-making, conflict resolution, group dynamics and getting-along skills."

There was NO business conducted. These are more "group counseling" and "How To communicate" than anything elses, including social. It's done often around here, especially Boards or Councils that can't get anything done because they don't even know how to talk to each other!
HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906
Posted:
MaryA1 aka sweetpea: Attorney General Opinions are just that: Opinions. Not law. They can and frequently are reversed by the courts. If you're going to base a legal defense on an attorney general's opinion, you could be in for a rude awakening.
MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
HaroldS, aka "Fuzzykins" - I think she knows that per her comment here: "This will be written into law if SB1019 passes the legislature this session. "
RobertG (Arizona)
Posts: 505
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By MaryA1 on 03/28/2008 1:44 AM
Susan,

In AZ, those type "retreats" would be called workshop meetings and are subject to the public body open meeting law in that they must be properly noticed and no they cannot take any action. HOAs also have an open meeting law which does not cover quite all the topics as the public body open meeting law. However, there have been several opinions issued by past attorneys' general stating a quorum of the board meeting informally cannot discuss assn business whether they take any action or not.

In some states the open meeting laws are called sunshine laws.

Mary

I am reasonable sure that HOAs are not subject to the public body open meeting laws you refer to in the first sentence. As such, the Attorney General's recent opinions (especially on emails) does not apply.

However, you are very correct in stating the HOAs are subject to the planned community open meeting laws which are slightly different and have specific topics.

The bottom line is still you are correct in your analysis about the workshop being governed by open meeting laws.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Harold,

I know what the word "opinion" means. However, these AG opinions are taken very seriously. Even though they may not be law, they are an interpretation of the law. IMO, no different than a judge interpreting the law in a court case.The 2005 opinion regarding email communications for public bodies is being adhered to by public bodies even though the law has yet to be changed to include this "opinion".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michele,

Thank you!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert,

I am well aware of the fact that the public body open meeting laws do not apply to HOAs. I only referenced them in reply to Susan's remark about city countil "retreats". And, although she may not believe it, in AZ these WOULD be called workshops, and as I said b/4 would be subject to the public body open meeting law. Thank you for agreeing with me on this. It appears you are well aware of the AG opinions and the importance of them. I'm aware that some states do not have open meeting laws, perhaps even for public bodies. I also know the AG's '05 opinion on emails does not apply to HOAs.

I am a past Glendale City Commissioner and a past HOA board members, so I am very familiar with both open meeting laws. I wrote an amendment to the HOA open meeting law which is now SB1019. A number of sections have been added to address various types of meetings, email communications & tape recording meetings to bring it more in line with the public body open meeting laws. A new section has also been added which clearly outlines the intent of the law. At this point, it has passed the Senate and we're waiting for it to be scheduled for a hearing in the House. I hope you'll take a look at it, and, more importantly, voice your support for it when the hearing comes up.

Thx,
Mary

HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906
Posted:
Michelle - your attempt at whatever is spurious.
But why does she IMPLY that we should abide by an attorney general's opinion? Indeed, if this opinion was based on any existing law, why would the legislature have to be addressing it now? An attorney general's opinion is just that, an opinion. What don't you understand about that? It's even called an "opinion."
From the current Arizona Attorney General's Office - even he doesn't think he can make laws: "Opinions of the Attorney General are advisory, and do not have the same effect as decisions of a court of law."
MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By HaroldS on 03/28/2008 4:09 PM
Michelle - your attempt at whatever is spurious.

I'm sorry, Furrykins, is my cutesy and affectionate familiarity any less genuine than yours?

Does it tend to demean and condescend? I hope not. I mean, you don't intend that with your lovey monikers, do you?

Hugs.
HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906
Posted:
Lovey monikers! ROFL. No - MaryA1 was/is "sweetpea" in another internet incarnation until she was busted and banned. That's what she called herself; not something I made up. Oh My. Still rolling.
HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906
Posted:
And Mary: I'm still confused. If you are just making a law now, just what law was your AG "interpreting" back then? You stated: "Even though they may not be law, they are an interpretation of the law." So in other words he is making a law where there is none? Or he is interpreting other laws and stating they really meant this to be that? It is still just an opinion, Mary.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Yeah, Harold is right. Sweetpea is my email address and I was banned from a Yahoo message group. Banned because I dared to disagree with the moderator!
But, busted???? I've never been "busted" for anything in my life! However, what does all of this have to do with participating on this group?

Harold went on to say:

03/29/2008 4:03 AM Quote Reply
And Mary: I'm still confused. If you are just making a law now, just what law was your AG "interpreting" back then?

Harold, the bill I spoke about -- SB1019 -- is an amendment to the HOA open meeting law. But, golly, you're so up on HOA issues I thought you would have known that!

More from Harold:
You stated: "Even though they may not be law, they are an interpretation of the law." So in other words he is making a law where there is none? Or he is interpreting other laws and stating they really meant this to be that? It is still just an opinion, Mary.

Well, Harold, it appears you know nothing about the AG opinions. No, the AG is not "making a law where there is none". He's interpreting the meaning of an existing law. In this case, the public body open meeting laws and the HOA open meeting laws. Here's how it works. A constituent asks a legislator if his HOA can communicate thru email. The legislator sends the question to the AG and asks for an opinion. The AG researches the HOA open meeting laws and issues his opinion based upon what the existing law says. If a board is smart they will abide by the opinion of the AG, even though, as you say Harold, IT'S JUST AN OPINION.

Now I think it's about time to put this baby to rest. You can continue to think it's just an opinion and I can continue to believe it's more than just an opinion and the twain shall never meet! So, shall we agree to just disagree?

Mary
RobertG (Arizona)
Posts: 505
Posted:
MaryA1 - It is interesting to note you are talking about the AG interpreting HOA laws. From the fact sheet of the bill SB1019 you reference comes the statement

"Unlike public bodies, HOAs are not subject to investigations by the Attorney General or county attorney for violations of their meeting requirements; however, members are entitled to file suit against boards that are in violation of state law."

This seems to indicate that the AG does NOT get involved in HOA laws.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
That's right, if a h/o goes to the AG with a problem, they will not get involved. But, that doesn't mean they will not issue an opinion on an HOA law. The Office of Administrative Hearings has been designated to hear HOA complaints, but there must be a violation of State law or HOA gov. doc.

Mary
MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
Oh, I see. So Harold considers it his job to carry over drama from another board and introduce it here.

And he calls *my* comments *spurious*?!

🎯 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

Terms of Use and Privacy Statement