Board Meeting by Conference Call

Put it the other way... There is nothing (that I found) in the statutes that prohibits it. Check your by-laws.

We have been doing it for a couple of Board members - snowbirds.

RuthN.

It is permissable. The Statute is (617 Florida Not For Profit Corp Statutes) under which your HOA is registered

617.0820 Meetings.--

(1) The board of directors may hold regular or special meetings in or out of this state.

(4) Unless the articles of incorporation or the bylaws provide otherwise, the board of directors may permit any or all directors to participate in a regular or special meeting by, or conduct the meeting through the use of, any means of communication by which all directors participating may simultaneously hear each other during the meeting. A director participating in a meeting by this means is deemed to be present in person at the meeting.

RuthN,

You are welcome. Many of us forget about using 617 and I always turn to it about administrative questions. Usually the answer is in there.

Mary,

Statutes 617 was written prior to the year 2000 when the ole wise State of Florida drafted seperate statutes for HOAs(720, condos(718) and mobile homes(723) But all of these associations prior to 2000 are still registered under 617 and unless their Articles have been amended, they follow 617 along with their respective condo, hoa or mobile statutes.

If you compare 617 with the others, you will find no conflict between the two and they reference each others numbers. and Board meetings are open to all.

The O.P questioned ----- "Is it permissible under Florida code for a Home Owners Association Board of Directors meeting to be held via a conference call? This is assuming that proper notice has been given (posted) to association members and the meeting site where many of the Board members will be physically present is open to the membership. "

My answer is a simple " YES YOU CAN"

Donna,

I was not questioning your answer. I was only saying that if the AG were to issue an opinion I feel he would state a speakerphone would be required to be in accordance with the open meeting law that is in effect. I also think any prudent board would arrange for a speakerphone even though it is not explicitly required by statute. Of course we all know not all boards are prudent!

Mary - That quote actually supports my position. The AG's client is the State on one side of the legal table. So the AG is giving his client advice and in doing so is rendering legal opinion and statute interpretation for the benefit of his client. However he is not able to render an interpretation on the validity of the statute itself - that remains the role of the State Supreme Court.

Mary - We're actually in fundamental agreement. I just didn't want anyone to infer that AG issued opinions confer anything other than (a) the state's (one party of any given legal issue) "read" on what the law is and how it should be interpreted, and consequently (b) the likley course of action the state would take in applying the law for a given set of circustances.

From a very practical point of view the AG opinions ARE incredibly important precisely because they DO provide insight into the state's postion.

As I said in my first post on this topic, I'm being "picky, picky, picky" and cutting pretty fine distinctions.

I suppose it's part of my nature, giving some credence to the "devil's in the details" mentality.

First, I probably didn't clarify specifically enough the statement about it not being an appropriate role for an AG. Of course, it's an appropriate role for the AG's to do so for his clients - who are the state and its agencies. It is not necessarily meaningful for the AG's opinion to be automatically interpreted by other (non-clients) as anything more than a lawyer's interpretation of a law and it applicability for HIS client.

As the AZ State Attorney General's website states, "The primary role of the Attorney General’s Office is to provide legal representation to the State of Arizona, its agencies and state officials acting in their official capacities. The Office is not authorized to advise or represent private citizens . .. .. "

So as to your inference that my statement led you to believe that I think the AG does not have the authoritty to issue an opinion on existing statues, that's not correct. Of course he has the authority - the same as any other attorney has such authority to do the same for their clients.

And no, I'm not back pedaling - I'm merely trying to acknowledge the idea that while an AG opinion is practically important, it is not, philosophically, the be-all and end-all legal opinion regarding the laws' interpretation. That's why courts exist - to test the legal hypotheses.


People can choose to believe the AG's opinion or not. WHAT people should believe is that this is the State's attorney rendering an opinion for his/her client, the state. It is a public opinion that may or may not be correct for individual citizens. As such, there's no mandate that the individual state resident believe the AG's interpretation of what the statue actually is - only what the AG advises the state it is. As for who else should issue an opinion, that could be virtually any learned attorney representing his or her client - or no client at all if the pursuit is academic.

As to my comment making no sense - I'm sorry you feel that way.

Let me make it very simple - AG opinions will tell you the state's version of what they think a law says and how it should be applied; whether or not that actually turns out to be true or not.

John,

What I interpret you to be saying is that a board member (a private citizen) shouldn't be concerned with abiding by an opinion of the AG. This is totally incorrect. If the AG renders an opinion on a state law that is used by a private citizen in the course of his work that opinion is to be abided by. When the AZ AG rendered an opinion regarding the public body open meeting law, all individuals working for a "public body" entity were apprised of the opinion and were required to follow the ruling.

Sure any attorney can also issue an opinion regarding any state law, but his opinion is not regarded the same as an opinion issued by the state's Attorney General. The opinion will hold more weight in a court of law than the opinion of a practicing attorney.

Don't bother to respond, John, because I'm not going to get into a Pxxxing match with you over this.