Unnecessary redaction's

Roger and blogers
You might remember me, I was complaining about the over 35 redaction's on our HOA's financial's I have recieved. At last months BOD meeting I presented then with a summary of all the redaction;s along with the civil code 1365.2 which clearly spells out the guidelines for legitimate redaction's. I questioned who was responsible for these decisions. The Mgmt Co. told me that they were, as they had guidelines to follow. I assumed they meant the Davis Stirling Act 1365.2 ~ However our "in house" attorney assured me she would look them over to see if the redaction's were appropriate.

At last night's BOD meeting our "in house" attorney said she had given our Mgmt Co. guidelines to follow for redaction's and that they (the Mgmt Co)had been a little over zealous in doing so. Therefore after viewing the redaction's our "in house" attorney said that she found NONE of the redaction's were necessary. It sure makes me wonder what kind of advise we are getting from our Mgmt Co. However I do suspect they fell on the sword for this attorney (which is a personal friend). I have been told by a insider that this attorney was the one that was doing all the redactions, as she wanted to keep certain information from me.

NancyM2

Nancy, I forgot to congratulate you for your excellent work. HOA's need people like you

Nancy,

I find it necessary to go to our Board meetings with Davis-Stirling in hand. The management company we have also gives out wrong information or completely forgets information that is valuable to the homeowners.

Everyone in California should know the DS Act states the management company does not have to work in the best interest of the association. In other words, they can work in their best interest and many do.

Kathy

Kathy and Nancy - I don't know about California or other states, but in Arizona management companies do not need to be licensed, and they are not included under the new state agency with oversight of HOAs. Anyone can declare themselves an HOA management person. But it boils down to the board being ultimately responsible for any actions or in-actions of their employee - the management company and/or their attorney.
So in Arizona it is only the board which is taken before the Office of Administrative Hearings. This is unfortunate because the board relied on the management company for direction and advice. Ultimately the board and its members and not the management company will pick up the cost if the OAH rules against the board. Harold