Limiting the dissemination of information

I'm throwing this out for discussion. Owners have a right to see the information, but I think they should be required to sign a document stating that information is private to the association, the owner, and his or her legal counsel, power of attorney or agent. Any dissemination of the information is prohibited unless approved by the board. I would also stamp every document as "Confidential" before they were allowed to obtain a copy.

This is similar to what I had earlier suggested regarding taping of meetings. It's OK to tape but not to post it on YouTube. Anyone requiring owners to sign anything before they receive association information? Or limit what they can do with it?

Joe

Depends on what "information" you mean.

I think HOA members have the right to see upon request or posted in a newsletter: approved minutes of the Board meetings, minutes of the Annual meetings, budget with a YTD running tabulation against the approved budget, monthly financial reports (same as the board sees), annual audited financial report to the Members, a list of the members of the corporation w/ addresses (no phone numbers), and the Board of directors. Dates of board meetings should be posted. Contact names for board members and committee heads should be posted.

I do not think that should be able to see: itemized financial reports, the checkbook, receipts, personnel files, list of delinquent HOA members, list of violations and/or violators names, any legal case paperwork in progress, committee reports. These are all behind the scenes paperwork that need the approval of the Board to be acted upon in an official capacity.

I think that the intention of "openness" or "transparancy" has been wrongly interpreted. The Board is under no obligation to release any material or information that has not yet been officially "adopted" by the Board.

Basically a signed agreement would make it very easy to sue for damages that resulted from the release of the information that caused harm to the association or owners; defamation, loss of value etc, - it would show, by an owner breaking the agreement - that there was intent to do whatever they did. Having said that, it might make people a little more cautious about what they do with it.

Most state laws that require the "books be open" for the owners, don't address or prohibit the association requesting the owner sign for receipt of it, or attaching an agreement limiting its use outside of the association.

If someone refused to sign, I would simply attach the agreement and note that it was given to the owner, who refused to sign. I would also include in the agreement that an owner's refusal to sign would not remove the limitations on the use of the documents (since it would have to be an association policy anyway)

I guess I've been looking at too many blogs and web sites, where an owner is lifting items out of context and battering people, the board or the association with it. To me , this can be the same as some of the heavily edited videos on YouTube, where they were edited to make specific people or groups look bad, or worse.

I don;t mind that you have the material, but I really care what you do with it.

Joe

Mary,

Parliamentarians would also agree with you that, as you said, "I also feel unapproved minutes to meetings should not be given to a member. IMO, they are not an official record until approved."

We do not release our minutes to the membership until after they have been approved.