Is there a good answer

Well, that's why I don't like the idea of "everyone" being invited to Board meetings. It's a business meeting - why are non members even there? Yes, I know that there are laws that say Board meetings are "open" but too much witnesssing of board business as they struggle to make decisions opens Board members to individual scrutiny and in-fighting with the audience!

Decisions that come out of Board meetings should be a "Board decision" - after all is said and done. To have witnesses to the debate and discussion is sometimes not in the best interest in coming to a group decision on hard issues. It disturbs me, too, that individual board members are harassed and confronted by residents who hold them personally responsible for what is a governing Board decision. At no time should any Board member be expected to have to take on harassment and blame in the name of the Board.

There are NO individual board members - there is only the total Board and if ONE if attacked, they all are - and ought to deal with it as such. I keep saying that the President's role is to keep control of the meeting, so
that discussions are kept objective in nature and that no "one" person is held responsible for the entire board's decision. Minutes should be short and to the point, not personal journals.

Having said that . . . each board member should accept the decision of the board and not bad-mouth the results of voted motions, even though they might disagree with it. Speak with one voice.

The the issue of requiring a public apology, this is rife with problems. It the board member was abused in such a manner as to actionable by the courts then he/she needs to start that action and follow it to its conclusion. If you start with some agreement on the side, then your case will be dropped as it becomes a civil matter. You can't pick the case back up either.

I would not support our organization attempting to fine (or otherwise punish) a member for any action against a board member. There simply is no authority to do such in our documents. Further, I would never buy a place that did give such authority to the BOD as it would be all to easy to be abused.

As for Susan's concern, I would look to arrange someone to be at every meeting of your BOD. If you can't deal with people scrutinizing your position, I simply don't believe you are BOD member material. I have every right as an owner to scrutinize a BOD member's beliefs and voting. I have every right to vote against someone based on what has been said in a meeting. Hopefully I am smart enough to deal with the idea that a member doesn't always agree with me. And hopefully I am smart enough to realize that opposition can be a good thing. But again, I decide how I vote and I have a right to look at the record. I have a right to listen to the proceedings before hand as it can influence my vote.

Now the exception is when the BOD is dealing with an enforcement issue. This discussion should be done in executive session. The final vote is done in open session. There are a few places where open discussion is not appropriate, but very few. And enforcement action against a member is one of those places. Just as the homeowner should be able to address the BOD in executive session. There may be some circumstance which is not the general membership's business.

Susan said:

"Well, that's why I don't like the idea of "everyone" being invited to Board meetings. It's a business meeting - why are non members even there? Yes, I know that there are laws that say Board meetings are "open" but too much witnesssing of board business as they struggle to make decisions opens Board members to individual scrutiny and in-fighting with the audience!"

I believe Susan meant "non board members" when she said "non members". But the truth of the matter is that the members of the assn should have the right to attend board meetings if "only" to witness what business is taking place. That doesn't mean they should be able to jump up and confront the board members while they are conducting that business. It's up to the Pres. of the board to maintain order; if he/she can't do that then he/she shouldn't be the Pres. And, if the board is afraid to have members "witness" their meetings and "scrutinize" their actions, then they shouldn't be on the board. All government entities are subject to open meeting laws -- state legislators, school boards, city councils, etc. These are all elected officials, just like HOA board members, who are subject to the scrutinization of their constituency. It's just part of the job! If you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire!

Robert if a person slanders or libels you, you have recourse in the courts if they physically threaten you then it's also against the law. Now you want a law to protect BOD members or volunteers from people who disagree with their actions if they are not polite about it? IMHO the bigger deal you make out of it the more it legitimizes the position of the offender - "Me thinks he doeth protest too much." While it is human nature to want to defend yourself and justify your actions ignoring the person as insignificant aggravates them much more than a response does. If the attack is totally spurious others will see and understand.

As usual, I'm having a difficult time even parsing what the actual question is.

I don't do well with hypotheticals.

But if a homeowner were to "attack" me personally as a result of my duties on the board, I'm not sure how I would proceed.

I have, in fact, had more than one homeowner get hostile with me. Most have been verbal assaults, only one was during an association meeting.

For the one during the meeting, I was president at the time. Before I had a chance to even develop a mental decision tree on how to handle it, my vice president jumped up and intervened.

The gentleman was asked to be quiet and sit down and address his concerns after the meeting in a one-on-one with the board, to which the man just threw a packet up papers in the air and stormed out.

He was trying to get the CC&Rs changed to allow for above-ground pools (which he had already built and had refused to take down after notification of violation. We told him we would not move forward on the pool removal until after his attempt to get the CC&Rs changed. The meeting he was at was where the amendment was voted down and he help me personally responsible.)

One man threw a rack at me when I had to hand-deliver ARC approval forms along with a cease building notification as he was erecting a fence without prior ARC approval.

He said he could do whatever he da** well pleased on his own g** da** property.

When I reminded him of the restrictions and he hurled a rake at me and ordered me off his property.

He DID stop building the fence until after the approvals were received, however. I think his wife had something to do with that.

The other "incident" involved running into a woman in Walgreens who was the wife of a self-employed plumber who had been notified to keep his commercial vehicle in his garage.

Again, I was president at the time, which means I was a lightening rod for hostility and complaints from anyone to whom the HOA sent a CC&R violation notice.

She started screeching at me in the store and calling me some pretty harsh words, which we've all heard before, but which kids don't necessarily need to hear.

I wasn't even CLOSE to her in the store, I was at the end of an aisle and she was at the other end.

When I didn't respond or reply at all she grabbed some items off the shelf and started hurling them in my direction.

Then her daughter grabbed her and she stormed out of the store. I waited until I saw her car gone before I left the store. I wasn't in the mood to be run over in a parking lot!

The thing is, I did NOTHING in response to any of the incidents. What would be the point? The people were in a rage and to respond or retaliate in any way could have been even more detrimental to the situation.

After the fact, what's the point? They know what they did was wrong. So do the people who witnessed it.

I've always been a strong proponent of letting one's reputation speak for them. I would continue to behave and operate in an ethical and professional manner. Therefore, when people make wild comments or challenges to my behavior, my reputation speaks so I don't have to.

Do we like being called names? Of course not. But sometimes you have to thicken your skin and move on.

If your physical safety is at risk, that's another issue and you should seek immediate legal protection. Otherwise, recognize that people can recognize crazy, erratic behavior, and if it's not coming from you, then it's the other guy. . . so keep your head low and your mouth shut.

Robert our documents do not give us the power to arbitrate between feuding neighbors. If two H/O have a problem with each other there is a complaint form that they can fill out. If the problem in question results from a CC&R violation then we will begin action to remedy the violation. But if it's just two people who don't like each other and can't get along we don't have the power to make them be nice to each other nor IMO should we.

Michele,
Even though the problem as proposed is hypothetical you certainly have experienced some extremes of having your space violated by bad conduct. I also understand the better the community communicates the happier the community, but that is also another problem. (Note I am speaking of the communities ability here).

But putting all that aside, did you ever feel the association has a obligation to protect you and provide you with the real protection to defend yourselve? All this; forget and move on, sticks and stones, let it roll off your back, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen (Harry Truman I believe), put aside. Should there be something concrete in our documents?

Glenl,

When I was on the board an owner who had bent sent a violation notice took to numerous, insulting emailsto the board. After I received a couple I informed him all his mail would be deleted without being read. Then he took to bashing on board members doors and berating them. When he came to mine I simply didn't answer. He sent one last email then went away. It appears he liked the fight more than he resented the notice so yes, irgnoring an offender frequently does work.

Ellen and Glen,
I admire you both for not letting this stuff (harressment) got to you. I also know or think I do that everyone has some hot buttoms and all are not the same. So, good for you all and the conduct you described is clearly over the top, and may well be past th endurance limit of some elected or appointed or any Homeowner. So,I ask does the Board provide that kind of protection in their CC&R's? I really don't know and don't believe our documents address it. On the other hand, what do I know. Certainly the Board has the power to secure a non disruptive atmosphere during meetings, do they have the right to maintain a peaceful and safe condition on Regime property? They can call the fuss just like any owner can to quell disruptive behavior, can they step in and make any action a sort of class action instead of one on one? I know lots more stuff I don't know than what I do know. Or maybe this amounts to plain rhetoric.

My case is closed.