« California HOA Elections - Is Small Claims the Right Venue? | Main | The "Taste" Test For Your Upcoming HOA Election - Do You Want Sour Lemons or Butterscotch? »

January 29, 2008

NEW HOA AGENDA BILL - DOES IT LIMIT HOMEOWNER FORUM?

I have been writing about Owner frustration more than Board frustration because weighing the incoming emails, more HOs seem to be willing to write about it than Boards. And, there is this, the issues raised are worthy of a blog.

Here is the latest question, and it came in context from an Owner who mentioned the new Agenda law, so I am wondering if the boards and/or attorneys are using the new Agenda law to try and control Homeowner Forum content. This was the question:

Can the Board force homeowners to submit in writing before the Board Meeting starts items the owners wish to discuss during the open forum?

My answer: I do not see anything in the new law that allows this Boards to limit subject matter in the comment time. The board can let a homeowner say what they want to, and move on, using the new agenda law to say that no action can be taken on the homeowner comment, which may be a better approach than trying to say a homeowner may not talk about his or her issues or concerns. If a member raises an issue and the Board cannot talk about it, then another option for the Board is to ask the member to submit their request in writing, but to require them to submit their subject before the homeowner forum occurs, that does not feel right to me. It smacks of the possibility that the Board may misuse that information.

[I wrote the above and the prior two sentences before I heard from some Board members as to their purpose for asking about subject matter, so I have a different perspective now, and refer you to my March 8, '08 blog on the subject. My view has changed but I wanted to leave this blog in tact so you could see how more information often turns the conversation around in discussing what is reasonable and what is not. So I suggest reading this older blog with the understanding that I might have just erased it and no one would then get the real picture of how asking a simple question - like "why do you want to know what subject we are going to address" might have resolved this difference of opinion.]

Perhaps the Board's intentions are based on a misunderstanding of the new law. If the Board is receiving legal advice, that assumption may be a stretch to find good where other motives may be lurking. It seems likely to me that in some cases the intent might be to (1) make it harder for members to address the board, (2) get an opportunity to object or stop someone from addressing the Board, (3) try to control content in the homeowner forum, or (4) intimidate or discourage owners from speaking who might show up poorly on paper.

People: understand that if an owner plans to address the board on some outrageous subject, they will shoot themselves in the foot! So let 'em talk their 3 or 5 minutes! If the Board is more business-like in their manner of receiving the blast, the attendees will immediately see who is the right party to place their trust in. If the speaker is logical and rational in their approach, and the Board is also so, the attendees will have respect for the process. There need not be fear about what someone says. If they criticize the Board or management, so be it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And that is just what it is, an opinion. If someone raises a big political issue, it is better for the Board to know what is coming so it can respond appropriately, without trying to address issues that are discussed through the rumor mill.

I personally see no good purpose to be served by forcing something that is not in the law. It just creates stress for everyone.

That said, of course, a Board might have a need to set some limits on the forum time so that the whole time set for the meeting is not used up by owners attacking the Board or management, and that (setting a time limit on comment) is allowed. 3-5 minutes seems to be the going allotment of time per member as far as I can tell, leaving about 20 minutes to a half hour before the meeting or during it for members to speak up. If someone has more than 3-5 minutes of "presentation", they should do it on paper and submit it. A writing engenders more accountability than a spoken presentation anyway. It becomes part of the permanent association record.

Perhaps Boards are mislead by the limitations and restrictions in the new California Agenda law, and feel "hobbled" about speaking of certain matters, but all the Board has to do if someone asks the Board to take action on something that is not on the agenda is say "We cannot address new business at this meeting that is not on the agenda," or "You are entitled to your thoughts, if you want more information on the subject .... or you want to submit the request to the Board, ... [please do so in writing ... or tell them how to get additional information]."

If someone out there can provide me with feedback on the necessity for this practice, and the actual source of authority other than the new Agenda law (which I do not see as support for this practice), I will review it, and comment. Until then, I believe it might be perceived as an improper intent to "chill" homeowner comment.

[You can contact me through my website at http://www.californiacondoguru.com.]

I remain open-minded; I have changed my opinions before, given sufficient evidence to support an argument. And perspective can be an important consideration.

[See my blog of March 8 to see how feedback can change an opinion.]

Posted by Beth Grimm at January 29, 2008 8:18 PM