Minutes

Question: There are some people that almost never attend the monthly meetings but, they want a copy of the minutes within a few days after the monthly meeting. Why I don’t know… I’m wanting to know if the minutes can go out to a homeowner before they are approved at the next meeting

If they want them after the meeting, then why consider sending them out before? There is a potential for a lot of confusion sending out drafts. Also, they may not be entitled to see the draft if your documents only allow members to see OFFICIAL documents of the association. Until approved they are not official.

Do you have a website you can post them after the meeting?

The HOA has a website but no one knows the code to write in it. They are lazy here but want everything now..

If the minutes were put on the website it would still be a draft would it not? Because the minutes are not approved till the next meeting - or - should the be approved beforehand?

TamH
There are many website programs where you don't need to know code to go in and edit them. All you need is a password and a WORD like screen comes up where you can type in or paste in information, hit upload and the info on the internet. Look around.

Also, Maryland just passed a law which states that Minutes must be sent to any homeowner that requests them in writing within 21 days.
Jeanne

Did you mean that minutes aren't transcripts? Wouldn't transcripts (I'm thinking of transcription) be a complete record of every word spoken at the meeting? Don't transcripts get "transcribed" from some type of audio/video recording of a proceeding? Any time I did transcription, I had to type every Um, Uh, oh, and duh.

Or, am I thinking of something else with a different word?

I guess I left out 2 letters. I meant to write "Minutes aren't transcripts". Of course I used transcripts in a very loose meaning as some people tend to want to put all the conversation about an issue in the minutes.

Tam,

In answer to you question: Yes the minutes can go out to a h/o b/4 being approved; however, IMO, they shouldn't. The BOD can do whatever they want; I doubt there is anything in your bylaws to prevent this. However, IMO, the BOD should simply let the member know that the minutes are not available until after they are approved, which will take place at the next regularly scheduled board meeting.

Why should the Secretary have to go to this extra trouble just to satisfy the whim of one or two members? I think the BOD should be accommodating but there is nothing wrong with the member having to wait until the minutes are approved to obtain a copy.

Wait until the day that you post a draft of minutes and leave out a "not" in a motion and no one picks it up until the next board meeting when the minutes are actually under scrutiny for approval. By then the entire membership has seen something that is the opposite and takes actions based upon the negative. Even though you can claim it is only a draft, too many people will believe it is the rule since it was posted by the HOA.

Yes, I put a lot of "ifs" and "buts" in my scenario, but is it worth the risk for one or two members?

TracieS had a good point. I called the president and asked for the minutes. WoW! What I got was the minutes and Residents’ Comment and Directors’ Comments word for word about 20 pages, prior to the closing of the meeting. (Adjournment)
Are the minutes and transcripts suppose to be separate???

Yes, and better yet, have them adjust their schedule to attend themselves for meetings. No one (outside of the board) sees our minutes until approved.

IMO the Minutes should be adopted/approved by the board before release to any Owner. In our day of by the click of the mouse or button we want it now! The Owners, if they wanted to know so badly should have gone to at least 1 board meeting to see and hear what is going on. The board should post or give upon request after its adoption.

I endorse RogerB's practice posted on 07/20/2009 11:25 AM

"We email a DRAFT of the minutes the day after a Board meeting to all Board members and request any changes. A couple days later we post a DRAFT of the minutes, with any changes received, on the website for associations which have a website which we maintain.

Why do members want the minutes within a few days? I think we all want the news now, not in a month. And Board members need it as a reminder on action items for which they are responsible. At some Board meetings I have witnessed it get confusing to some.

A significant part of the value of his post is that it describes what is done, but also explains why. The understanding is often enhanced by explaining why. That also applies to meeting minutes.

If a separate summary is provided to members, it becomes another document and is also subject to errors.

Errors are bound to occur in draft minutes and likely exist in the approved meeting minutes. The practice should be to quickly take a new action that corrects any error in existing records. Destroying records is very risky. Perhaps there are no other copies of a tape recording but don't bet on it. Members may take recordings of the meeting even if the board doesn't. Paper and electronic copies abound.

If a copy of a "destroyed" record surfaces, it is typically very hard to explain. I recommend a well-defined records retention policy that incorporates good organizational practice and is approved by the association's attorney. Such a policy should define when records are to be destroyed, and that might include tape recordings of meeting minutes at the appropriate time. Destroying records according to the retention policy would then be acting on the advice of an attorney which should limit any personal liability of individual board members.

I have commented on the question concern content for meeting minutes in prior posts. I have summarized those comments and the ideas of other in Discussion Concerning Meeting Minutes. Please add your comments to that post. Thanks.

Don,

If they are too disinterested to attend the meetings they should not be catered to by having a copy of the minutes until they have been approved. They are typical of folks who want to have their cake and eat it too.

I disagree with this statement.

Agree with Tracie and Michelle -

Once again I'll use the analogy of a typical corporation (appropriate since most HOAs are, in fact, corporations):

The corporation (HOA) has certain objectives that are really derived from the mission & vision of it as an entity.
The stockholders (e.g. the HOA members) entrust the Board of Directors & "hired" mamagement team (HOA BOD) to conduct the business to achieve those objectives.

As such, the BOD serves the HOA directly and the members only indirectly as their interests and desires are aligned with those of the HOA.

DonN -

I think:

1). We're moving this thread off-topic enough that it might warrant a separate thread, but I'm not sure I want to do so since .. .. ..
2). We may end up just politely agreeing to disagree.

I admit that I haven't read Madison's Federalist Papers, but I think I'm familiar enough with the concept of oligarchy to continue.

Similarly, I admit that the corporate analogy applied to HOAs isn't perfect, but I would also argue that the governmental analogy is not necessarily any closer. I believe that the HOA model lies somewhere between corporations and governmental entities - and where I think we might agree to disagree is on which one is more closely representative.

The fact that some states are changing from registering HOAs as corporations (and thus being subject to corporate laws) to entities that are subject to very specific laws directed more precisely at them, doesn't mitigate the fact that the majority of states still consider HOAs to be non-profit corporations. As such I think regulatory status of most HOAs remains closer to the corporation model than a governmental one.

But more importantly, I think there is a fundamental philosophical difference that also favors the corporate analogy. Governmental entities affect the populace solely by virtue of geographic boundaries - it makes no difference whether you own some of the geography, merely reside in it, or (in some cases) are merely passing through it. One you choose to establish "residence" within the geography you are both subject to the governance as well as have the opportunity to participate in establishing the governance structure and function.

This is, I believe, distinctly different than the HOA situation where the governance structure/function is attached to real property that you choose to purchase - regardless of whether you choose to physically reside there or not. It's here where I think the corporate analogy (choosing to invest in the entity by purchasing stock to which there is a governance attached) is more appropriate than that of the government. You don't have to work at (e.g. reside in) what you purchase, but you should be aware of what you're buying and the consequences of that purchase.

Again, I respect your opinions, work, and commentary - I just think my analogy is closer than yours

DonN.

Nobody is saying an owner should not see the minutes AFTER they have been approved. I agree the board should be transparent and should keep owners informed. However, a "full and accurate" reading of UNAPPROVED minutes will not be informative. We have a PM who really screws up the minutes so after they are corrected they are available to everyone. She likes the words "unanimously approved" when in several instances they have not been, etc.

As to people not being able to attend a ONCE A MONTH meeting because they have other commitments..then I would say they are not interested. Our board members also have family and job commitments but everyone knows that the board meeting will be held the same date every month and adjust their schedules accordingly. My single daughter with two children and two jobs serves on the board and makes it so why can't they? As to the length of the meetings they last no more than one and a half hours. Just curious..how much time do these "interested" owners sit in front of their tv?