members videotaping board meetings

Is it legal for members to audiotape or videotape monthly Board Meetings and then publish the video for non-present members to view? I've read that Board's should not tape record their meetings, and if the Secretary uses a tape to create the minutes, the tape should be destroyed afterwards. But what is to prevent non-Board members from taping?
Is this considered a 'public' meeting where they would have that right?

Lynn,
If I recall the last time this came up it sort of worked it's way down to. copy the big boys, sort of. Now congress, and all governmental bodies videotpae nearly all meetings, the publish minutes of meetigs and these records are all dicoverable, nearly always. You want to speak at your city council meetings, you get videoed and recorded. I expect nearly all POA meetings are recorded and if you attend a county council meeting you are videoed, recorded and maybe simucast to local TV. So if your city, state or county does it follow their lead. I do believe the Board should make the decision of how they record the meetings, but how could you stop a visually impaired person from videoing a meeting or a hard of hearing person from recording. I just don't think it would be worth the effort to try and stop it. What is said in a members meeting is said for all members, what they do with that information is hardly classified. If a BOD puts a financial report on a web site, they can't say, no one can repeat any of this information. Suppose this information was relevant information in a court case, can you stop anyone from repeating the information.

Maybe it is just a question of: why should the Board try to restrict members information. The information does not belong to the Board, it belong to the association, bought and paid for.

One word: YouTube

With minimal amount of editorial comment on this post of 2007, my comment is:
Good luck on that one.

I respectfully disagree with Joe West's proposed policy. We live in a open society with freedom of speech. My owners association doesn't have the authority to restrict my speech.

Moreover, some states require disclosures to prospective buyers. That would include the financial statements, governing documents and policies. Many questions would be raised about the policy proposed by Mr. West. What is the association trying to hide?

Our association recently had a members' vote on an increase in annual assessment. The board advocated the increase and presented only one side of the issues involved. Members with an opposing view were not given "equal space" to express their views. The result was that the issue boiled over to the local newspaper which provides for posting of issues and discussion of those issues.

Members voted NO two to one on the assessment increase proposal.

If the board is doing such excellent work, I believe they would welcome the public recognition of the good job they are doing. Transparency helps produce results based on facts and good reasoning.

All,

As has been stated, taping of meetings are both good and bad.

The Good:

Promotes the perception of openness on board actions
Provides an alibi file for what was actually said
Encourages some (not all) to act civil at the meetings (if that is an issue)

The Bad:

Provides a record of what was actually said.
Can inhibit open discussion (for fear of how the discussion can be perceived)
Can encourage grandstanding
Recordings (audio or video) can be edited

Personal Opinion:

Working in the Broadcast industry, I see both the good and the bad. Depending on which side of the table I was on, I may argue for it or against it.

I know that as a member of the Board, if I knew that an outside source (member vs. Association) was going to videotape or audio record a meeting, I would insist that the Association also record the meeting so the Association could dispute anything that was misrepresented.

I also know that if I was just a member, I wouldn't consider taping any meeting unless the activities of the Board gave me (perhaps others) the perception of improprieties and/or actual wrong doing. If I had the perception that I would be treated fairly and justly, I wouldn't even consider the need to record a meeting or process.

Conclusion (at least mine):

If the Board conducts themselves professionally, treats every member equally, considers design changes based on merit and existing covenants vs. personal taste, publishes and holds open meetings and keeps the membership informed of Association issues and actions - the issue of if a meeting can be recorded will probably never come up.

Yes, I know that there will always be one or two members that this conclusion doesn't apply to. However, I believe that if the Board conducts themselves as above, those one or two members may see begin to see things differently as well.

Tim

Don,

First, I'm not restricting your speech - you can post whatever you want to the internet or any other medium, as long as its your face and your words. The pupose of my policy proposal wasn't to hide anything from the members. They could share it with other members, or with their counsel, but why should they have any right to publish it to the public at large. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has to do with an individual's right to privacy, something that is disappearing all too fast these days. A meeting of the members of a comunity association is not a public event. Board members are not celebrities and have a right to not see their faces plastered all over the internet.

My own opinion is that all meetings should be video'ed and made available on the association's secure web site for all member's to see. However, no one should have the automatic right to blast it out onto the internet. I've seen all of the videos posted, and I can guarantee you that no matter what you see, it's only a small piece of whatever the total story is.

I wonder how people would feel if the board took the video of the audience at some contentious meeting and posted it on YouTube. The screams from the owners about "right to privacy" would be heard from one end of the internet to the other. And yes, I know that privacy is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, but it is something those of us not in the public eye should have a right to expect.

Joe

In that case it would be better for the Board to video the meeting themselves and let any H/O that wanted to see it borrow it since they would own the copyright on the tape. This of course would not work for the states that guarantee the right of the H/O to video.