Unofficial HOA Websites

Has anyone had the unpleasant circumstance to deal with a past board member who started a website for the association who was then told it would not be supported by the association board? Then after that the owner continued the site in a public forum with postings about association business that are not authorized by the board and therefore not official statements? the concern is dissemination of sensitive information about board discussions, personal information about owners or board members, and misinformation being out there for the board to ahve to counter on a continuous basis. And all this is labled as "transparent" and "full disclosure" implying that the board has hidden agendas which just do not exist.

Yes, I know of at least one person in Colorado who was ordered to pay I think $40,000 to an HOA board for things said and done on an "unofficial" website.

Unofficial sites are the same as distributing material door to door and can be useful as an information source in communities that do not provide operational information readily. If a homeowner uses it only for that purpose, it can be useful in prodding a board to be more open. If a homeowner makes clear that the site is private and there are no libelous comments on it, it cannot and should not be stopped by an attorney.

Has anything libelous been posted? Any personal attacks? If yes, take legal action accordingly or send them a warning. If not, what is the problem? Other then closed session issues (ACC violations, billing issues…) everything discussed by the board should be open to the homeowners.

Imagine living under a government that only tells you what they want you to hear, and then tries to block anyone from discussing or sharing information. Think of the website as the NY Times or Fox News. As long as they follow the rules it is good that they are there.

Wanting to shut them down because you are “concerned” they may do something is not justified and will make the board look very bad.

I suggest working with them. Talk to them and tell them as long as they follow the law and are clear that they are not an HOA supported site you have no problem with them. However, if they break the law, you will come after them accordingly.

Mary, Esq., Jr. writes:

>>>In reading this it's apparent to me that the intent of this website is to run down the board.<<< And also (might be) using "misinformation and innuendo."

So what? That's a hallmark of the NY Times (among other mainstream news organizations).

As long as no laws (such as libel) are being broken, that's your basic freedom of speech. As long as no laws (such as libel) are being broken, all the letters from all the Esqs. in des Etats-Unis cannot stop (nor should stop) these exchanges.

Better to counter the protesters/rumor mongers/troublemakers with accurate info in a dispassionate manner, be it letters to Membership, a "sanctioned" web site, whatever. Or as someone noted, getting together with them for a chat and hopefully smoking peace pipe.

OK, Mich. I'll bite. What would such a warning be composed of and what would be the penalty for not accepting/following the warning (in your own non-Esq. words)?

Trust me, John, in my profession I've written quite a few of these.

But I'd be foolish to do so here without having the copy on the website in front of me.

But in general, my letter would be a letter of caution and a request to remove any non-public information (which much of the HOA business material is) and to remove any personal characterizations of board members and/or misrepresentations of material facts.

He's more than welcome, also, to keep the site up as long as he does not use the official name of the organization and posts a clear disclaimer that the site is not an official site for the organization.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Do you think attorneys only write bullying letters? tsk tsk tsk

The letter written to me had several factual inaccuracies, probably because the pres and/or PM gave her bad info. The letter cited no laws I was breaking, it just said they are requesting I take the site down and gave a few long winded double talk reasons.

It did say I could not use the name of the community, but that is not true (I did my home work). The HOA's articals of incorporation witht he state say "community name homeowner association". I don't have "home owners association" on my web site and the HOA does not have exclusive rights to a community name as it is considered a geographical location. Example, "Philidelphia Cream Cheese" can not tell "Philidelphia Heating and Airconditioning" they have to stop using the "Philidelphia" part.

one thing not mentioned in detail here is that there are two levels of "people" out there in the world: Those who are members of your HOA (shareholders in your business) and those who aren't.

ANY website (official, semi official, unofficial, or smear) should understand that there may be things that the board should know (only), things the MEMBERSHIP should know (most things) and things the PUBLIC should know (how great the property values are, the visitor rules, etc.)... I, for one, don't mind if other members of my association know about our dues, assessments, street repair plans, lighting options, security service contract negotiations, etc., but I do not want everyone in the general public to know it.

Just like IBM, Microsoft, Dial, etc. don't disclose everything about their business to the entire world, a website owner shouldn't either. Disclosure to all the MEMBERS should be nearly complete (as the laws allow), but disclosure to every TD&H out there isn't always a good thing.

So, is that website restricted to provide information only to members? Is it providing business information to those not in the business?

Daryl,

I formed my opinion based on the info that was posted by the OP. Nothing wrong with a "bitter homeowner making noise", whether they have a legitimate beef or not, as long as what is posted on the website is the truth. I don't like hearing about misinformation being posted and also info that might be confidential. I agree that the property owners have a right to know what is going on, but only if it's the truth. I don't condone spreading lies whether it be by a member of the board or a member of the community. As far as I know the OP is only concerned about the misinformation and confidential info being posted on the website.

I would advise one to be very careful when dealing with this. I would request that the person give a chance for a board member to look over their notes of the meeting before posting. Should that fail, then make a habit of checking and requesting corrections.

Another alternative would be to post the unapproved minutes on the official web site shortly after the meeting. Follow this up with the approved minutes after the next meeting.

In many of these cases the BOD has much more to loose. And it has happened on more then one occasion that the attack on such a site led to the standing BOD's demise and removal from the BOD. (Often the main force behind the site ends up in their place.)

The best way to deal with misinformation is with good fast information.

Brian the best I can tell is that it is open to the general public with no filters for some informaiton being strictly tightened down to just the owners/residents of the community. anyone can sign up. We have websites designed by a servicer Association Voice for other associations and had one for this association that allow for tighening down the access to only owners actually who register and gt a passwrod and username etc. This site does not seem to have those controls.

The person was on the board and resigned after he taken to taks for posting misleading information on his webiste which was fully supported by the board at that time. In consisted of cutting and pasting "snipets" of informatino from board only e-mails regarding changing a meeting date in order to gain a board quorum for the meeting to take place and the "snipet" di dnot contain all of the discussion and had personal informaiton about a board members family that was inappropriate at least to be broadcast to the members but was in fact made public to anyone who could open the site. In a fit of pique he resigned and posted to his now Unofficial Website a version of his resignation that held only a passing glance at the truth. this is a very small association where everyone knows what the board is doing and the board routinely questions owners about upcoming projects and the expense involved and does take the members input to heart and seriously considers it, unlike many boards who are very good at pretending to be interested in the residents opinions but go their own way regardless. this association consists of a community who by far is older and not very inclined to electronic communication as a whole and this gentleman is a youngish 30 who's business is internet and building websites. he was I beleive offended that the board and membership were not all a gaga over the site he created and his perceived function for the site and the inability to move the board in the direction he beleived they should go with all electronic communication with even the possibility of the Annual meeting being held on-line.

the board has authorized a notice to go out to cover this as well as meeting attendance and owners participation. In colorado there are laws SB-100 which allowed the board to make specific provision on this so this will go in conection with that reminder and encouragement to the membership to attend the meetings or contact us for copies of minutes. If this does not suffice to qwell any future mispostings a motino was made to have the attorney do a cease and desist to the person for particular pieces of information such as personal informaiton of the board or anything resembling minutes that have not been cleared by the board first.

I do thank everyone for their posts and suggestions. Seems like my board is on the right track with handling this unfortunate situation

Mary,
(cc: Michele)

I don't mean to parse words - strike that - I'd prefer not to - but I shall nonetheless.

Misinformation, I'd say, has evolved into a a term that implies deceit or deliberate untruth(s). But what it actually means is incorrect information.

In 2nd year Evidence one day, about 5 minutes into the day's lesson, a woman walked in to the classroom, said something to the Prof, he replied, she removed something from a bag and said something else, he replied, she set something on his lectern. While this is going on, a guy enters from the opposite door, steps up three tiers, and takes a seat. Woman leaves, as does guy a few minutes later. The lecture continues.

At the bottom of the hour, Prof says "Let's discuss that incident from earlier." He tosses out Qs like: What was woman wearing? What did she say? What did she take out of the bag? What did I say? What was the guy wearing? How long did he stay? Etc., etc., etc.

Say 60-70 students in the class. Considerable disagreement as to every issue raised. We'd all "witnessed" the exact same transaction though had at times widely disparate versions of the simple progression and details of what we saw.

How could this be? According to Prof, though we all heard and saw the identical "facts", we likewise mostly processed the info according to the way our brains were wired. We weren't being untruthful; we simply interpreted things differently.

Michele noted in her response to my critique of her proposal, that I was picking a fight. I was being petty. Aggressive. That's her version. I thought I was simply stating my opinion. Michele focused on a point about sanctions, a point I'd asked about. She said she'd never made that an issue. True, I did. But rather than stating what should/might be sanctions, she apparently took this as a slight. Okay. That's her version, too.

But neither version is untrue, or for that matter, misinformation, if we were relating our separate takes.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Until proven wrong. Which will not occur, as our perceptions are our realities. Or something along those lines.

Anna: I did mean Ann, sorry!

John: this isn't a court of law and we are neither your argument experiments nor your fellow "barristers." People come here to get opinions, advice and perspective. We offer it. I doubt they expect they're getting either legal opinion or group-think etched in stone.

You singled out my response alone to "pick apart" and mine was the least aggressive of all. That's what triggered my annoyance, not your escalating my response and in the process implying that I was connecting dots to sanctions.

My response recommended a kinder, gentler approach than a "cease and desist" letter.

And then you escalate my words to make. . . what point, exactly?

And, quite frankly, you're much too humble. I think you rather enjoy parsing words.

The point is that the former member appears (based on what the original poster has communicated) to be using the website as a form of weapon.

You say "misinformation" is "mistakes," the board who is reading them is characterizing it as obvious snip and clips, out of context "mischaracterization" (i.e., also a polite way of saying lying) or spinning to lead people to his predetermined opinion.

We are hardly in a position to determine who has the accurate perception.

But we can reply to the poster in a way that we think makes sense.

And I quite clearly qualified my response: IF he is outputting misinformation (lies) and IF he is posting personal information, and IF he is making negatives comments about the board members. . . .

The board members are private citizens. The bar is set much lower on any claim they may wish to make for libel or defamation. much lower. And they don't have to prove his characterizations of them are wrong as much as he will have to prove they are accurate.

If he's not getting into personal attacks, and if he is not posting improper, inaccurate, or personal information, he's free to play on his website to his heart's content.

A "gentle" reminder from their attorney that he not engage in such activities is neither uncalled for nor inappropriate.

And doesn't have to involve "sanctions" at that point.

Now, if he ignores the gentle request, that's a different story. . . .

I deny the allegations and defy the alligator.

(Disclaimer: the use of the term alligator in reference to one making allegations is a pun and is in no way meant to infer, imply or indicate reptilian characteristics possessed by any person posting here, posting elsewhere, or anywhere throughout the universe for eternity).

are you an attorney JohnK? LOL

I agree that the best way to deal with mis-information, or deception, or slanted coverage is to be more open and forthright. Start a web site and post the minutes. Be very open about the whole thing. Makes notes of why a meeting date has changed.

The other thing is to keep in mind that just because a web site exists doesn't mean it is visited.

Use the HOA Talk search engine to find other posts on this subject.

This seems to be one of the "hot button" issues. Why? Many of the comments suggest that the person providing the alternate views is wrong. Do we want censorship? Isn't a "cease and desist" letter a form of censorship or a form of intimidation? Isn't a reminder about the potentials for libel just an intimidation. Hell knows no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle. Are other views important? Aren't we champions of free speech? How do you know that the board is providing misleading and incomplete information, or isn't?

Before the internet, groups used newsletters and other communications to get their messages out. The internet has just made it much easier.

People should be accountable for what they do and say. If a person creates a website and uses it for libel, that is his/her problem and he/she should be accountable.

If a person or group wants to provide another view or perspective by creating a website, that is their right. As with any "newsletter" it is best to positively state the purpose of the website, and define the terms and conditions for participation. If an owners association is involved, it is best to state that the website is not the official website of the named owners association. Since the name of the association is a public name, it is in the public domain and can be used without permission.

Websites and newsletters related to an organization get started because of dissatisfaction with that organization. When boards are fair and considerate of other views in their decisions, and allow alternate views to be presented and considered, members may not necessarily be happy with the decisions, but they appreciate that they had their "day in court". Alternate views should be encouraged. Healthy debate is a sign of a healthy organization. Disagreement is everywhere and can lead to better understanding. The board should provide full and accurate information, not just the good news that board want members to know about. Providing full and accurate information also means transparency. Members should have access to all documents and records unless release would result in material harm to the association. This is essentially the requirement in Virginia and Florida laws.

If the board indeed provides full and accurate information and members have access to the documents and records, then any incorrect information is automatically countered by the association. When boards try to manage the news, the trust is destroyed and members turn to alternate sources for their information.

The unofficial websites are going to be read only if they are of interest. Boards determine whether or not members will have an interest in seeking alternate points of view.

MicheleD

It doesn't matter which. People have a right to their own opinions and their own soapboxes. The more serious question concerns why some people try to take away their soapboxes.

Don, no one is trying to take away anyone's "soapbox" and it's not near as "serious" an issue as using said "soapbox" in an improper and unethical manner.

Censorship exists. And rightly so.

Instead of leading a cardboard marching band around it, the one abusing the "open" forum of the internet needs to understand the ramifications of it.

There is no such thing as unfettered "free" speech.

There are always caveats and restrictions.

One can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Nor can one put out lies, disinformation, misinformation, innuendo, mischaracterizations, etc, whether it's on a public forum, or whether one prints it up on their typewriter and passes it out door to door.

An HOA, and the board members who run it, have every right to expect their reputations not be mangled under someone else's presumption of "free" speech.

Outputting information that one feels the management is not yet should be putting out is one thing.

Having a vendetta and using the internet (or Staples' copy machine) to put out incorrect, inaccurate and improper communications, and making private information public, is not only unethical, it could put the person on the disappointing end of a lawsuit.

Again, this particular situation has less to do with the HOA not sharing enough info than it does a particular person feeling slighted and apparently "getting back" at the board.

Two entirely different things. One set of circumstances would be "protected" speech, the other, not so much. . . .

I would prefer not to have this situation at all. I certainly would not prefer to have black outs of information or the type of censorship that you seem to imply we are discussing. But as a manager I have concerns when a member comes to a meeting hears about half of the discusssion, has no background information and then reports to the membership a board action without verification of facts or clarification of the decision. You are correct that anyone can say anything wheather it is correct or not, accurate or not, complete or not and short of falsifying information or reporting a falsehood as fact there is not much anyone can do about it. One correction he was not asked to resign, he chose to resign because the board would not go along with his vision for using the internet as a primary if not exclusive means of communicatiom between board members and members up to and including annual meetings.

Example: XYZ Board has a request to install additional lights at the entry. After several contractors review the request and the association common areas and assets that can be utilized for this project they provide the information that it would require installation of a new transformer to provide electric, running 550 feet of buried wire from the current transformer box or hooking up to a unit's electric. The board before taking any further action asks the effected owner if they would consider allowing the hook up. the owner says no. it is known that the cost for a transformer will be greater than $5000 and the wire run around $3000. The light is not a safety issue or the replacement of a capital item. All this happens from one meeting to the next. At the subsequent meeting the board makes an motion and votes to not pursue the owner requested light due to cost constraints. the only thing that is reported to the membership thorugh the "unofficial" minutes is the final vote. The "official" minutes have an explanation of the process and reason for the decision. Now the owners have the "unofficial" minutes first because there is no process of approval for them prior to issuance.

Tell me in the above scenerio that the actual official minutes do not look like an attempt to defend? That is how it is taken no matter what anyone beleives is free speech. Perception in this business can be more important than fact.