Websites: Policies and Procedures

It doesn't matter which company hosts it as long as they have the proper security options and controls in place and as long as the company is true HOA/Condo Website Service Provider. Why? Because, if a board member/volunteer hosts the site via a standard hosting company then the hosting company will have nothing to do with the site security since all they give you is a blank canvas and a single account password that anyone could change and take over the site.

With a full 'website service' like Community123.com, we give you a fully built website and ultimately we control the overall security. There is no way for one person to take over the site because we have ultimate control anyway and we report to the entire BOD.

What would Community123 do if one Editor started posting bad information or trying to take over the site? Any Board member could request that we remove that person's access and we would. In the event of a conflict among multiple board members and some emergency, we could lock down all access until resolution was reached via board vote (we've never had to do this).

Also ensure your site has good backups (normal hosting companies may not have them for you). REAL EXAMPLE: Editor deletes site info and quits.
We had a case where an Editor was a board member. He got mad at the board and resigned. He was also the main web editor so he went and deleted much of the content from the website too. After getting approval from other board members, Community123 revoked his editor access and restored the site from backups so nothing was lost.

You can see the benefit of having a HOA/Condo Website Provider give the association the site as a service vs. having a volunteer go and get standard web hosting. We work with the whole board, not just one site owner (as a hosting company would) AND we are able to protect the site for the board, unlike a normal hosting company.

So host your site with a professional HOA Website Service and don't let one volunteer ever have total control of the site. This is your best protection even without any formal policy.

After you get a professional service to run the site, then having a formal policy helps a bit, but it won't be 100% necessary if the service provider is good.

And some sites police/moderate their discussion areas quite tightly, even WITH a TOS.

I disagree that "trying to limit speech is fraught with problems."

It's very easy to do. The "delete" option works very well.

No one is guaranteed "free speech" in the InterTubes.

Don,

You asked: "Who is qualified to censor speech". I would simply say the moderator of the website. Usually there is a policy stated on the opening page of the website. If anyone violates the policy their message may be deleted. If they are continually abusive they may be banned from the site.

Nope. Not gonna fly in my world.

We had a discussion board on our website.

We had to shut it down.

If someone wants to exercise his or her "free speech" then he or she can either do it in person or through the U.S. mails. . . for whatever reason, neighbors get all hostile when they communicate in front of a screen. It seems looking into someone's eyes or having to take the time to write it down, find an envelope, buy and apply a stamp and then make one's way to a mailbox. . . seems to temper the tempers, so to speak.

As I said before, people's homes, their turf, it's personal.

When one neighbor thinks another neighbor is infringing on him, or causing his "peace" to be disrupted, or doing something else that person doesn't like, it can spill over into an online forum and get to be a very hostile environment, regardless of attempts at moderation.

We removed our discussion forum due to extremely hostile and offensive posts and abusive behaviors, and it's not likely to be resurrected.

And yes, we are an upscale community. That doesn't necessarily mean that people in such communities are less irrational.

We didn't have the time or patience to continually moderate, and the discussions were not something we wanted the casual homeowner member to stumble upon. Those that did were quite taken aback. It reflected badly on the association.

And the hostility wasn't even directed at board members, except for the occasional rant when someone received a violation, which is always expected.

Sometimes neighbor feuds exist. It happens. And people get very bizarre when they are shielded from the direct and immediate feedback/impact of their words.

We have no regrets removing the discussion board option from our site.

If people have things to say to their neighbors, they can do it in person or by the U.S. mail.

Seems to work better that way sometimes.

The weirdest thing about it, our association has maybe fewer than 30 members who use the internet. Out of close to 600 residents.

It only takes a handful to cause disruption and chaos.

Don, I think the censorship everyone here is talking about is not censorship of ideas but censorship of language. We don't all agree on every matter, even here but we are adult enough for the most part to express our difference of opinion without resorting to foul and offensive language.

Grr. Bungled the quote.
Good point, but it already is:

"[HOA Name] is a [real nice community] in [location].
This is not the [HOA Name] web site!
The [HOA Name] Board's official HOA web site can be found at [URL link].
This is a privately-owned web site managed by and for homeowners in [HOA Name],
to increase communication among neighbors and within the community."

Unfortunately, I have not had time to do any more with the site than post the disclaimer; but that is writ large, front-and-center, atop the public home page.

John, "anonymous" doesn't always need to be "anonymous." In other words, one can always sign up to a website with a fake name with any number of the free email services available.

We use a free website, which limits our ability to "limit" people who register and join in the reindeer games. We have an option to either use a forum or disable that feature. Not much other flexibility with it, especially in terms of approving access.

And, as I mentioned, when you have a development where over 90% don't even use the internet, then the amount of maintenance time to invest in monitoring a discussion board that devolves into personal attacks, and worse (we had one poster who was posting pictures of poop and captioning it with his neighbor's name - how's that for "upscale" behavior!) it's just not worth it to us, so it's gone.

If we had a larger portion of our community who would actually use an online extension of the neighborhood, we would handle it differently, I'm sure. We would be able to have a much tighter approval/membership process.

Thanks everyone for all of the replies. Once again, its clear that a policy that works for one HOA might not work for others.

I understand that typically every website will have posting guidelines and rules for forums.

I do not want to argue whether the forums should be moderated or not. Every frum I've been involved with is moderated for reasons stated in the posts above.

Now, given the forum will be moderated, how does the HOA set up who will be the moderator(s) and how does one put this in writing for the future, when different owners will be the board?

Of course, the BEST case scenario would be for the board to be moderated by an uninvolved third party.

But that would most likely involve fees.

An answer to MichaelK11's 10/17/2009 9:48 PM post that free speech is a government issue beyond the scope of a short reply. I wouldn't argue that point as applied to government, but I believe organizations work best when free speech is the norm. There are many commentators who refer to owners associations as "private government" or "quasi-governmental organizations". This arises from the mandatory membership requirement, regulation of some aspects of family living, the authority for fines, etc. What shareholder in a for-profit corporation is subject to those conditions? A requirement for owners associations based on democratic principles should be the subject for another thread.

There seems to be a high correlation between abridgment of speech and denial of access to records and abuse of closed (executive) board meetings. And that is not limited to owners associations.

States, such as Florida and Virginia, that have been active in addressing owners'/members' concerns with owners associations have revised their laws by requiring open meetings properly noticed and the equivalent of freedom of information. The Virginia POA Act requires:
"§55-510.2. Distribution of information by members.
The board of directors shall establish a reasonable, effective, and free method, appropriate to the size and nature of the association, for lot owners to communicate among themselves and with the board of directors regarding any matter concerning the association. "
Note that the provision does not allow the board to censor the information. It is obviously consistent with free speech.

Several commentators have observed that the common thread — perhaps the "golden thread" — in the reactive owners association legislation has been the adoption of democratic principles for owners associations.