Board wants control or removal of website

Started by DarylF • 20 replies • 2196 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

DarylF (Washington)
Posts: 157

Posted:

Before our neighborhood HOA was turned over to the community we created one of those free web sites sort of like a yahoo group to get everyone together. The web site is nothing more then a portal for photos, polls, and it has a way to send email to everyone on the site. It’s been a great way to communicate and arrange things and about half the community is on it.

Well, our HOA board is not real happy about the site, possibly because a lot of the discussions on the email lists are critical of them. The HOA attorney is suggesting that the board request control of the site, or ask that the site be removed.

My $.02, I feel it would be wrong for the board to be able to moderate or abolish discussion in the neighborhood. I do not intend to turn it over to them or remove it.

Do they have any rights other then asking me? Can they fine me or take legal action against me?

Or should I just put all sorts of disclaimers out there that the site has nothing to do with the HOA?

NicoleO4 (California)
Posts: 160

Posted:

There is NOTHING that they can do. I think it's fantastic to have a forum where homeowner's don't feel threatend and can ask questions ect. But the board should make it clear that they do not suport the current venue of chatter and do not claim to have any ties to it just for liability issues.

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Nicole is correct. And make sure that you do not post any HOA business like minutes or any documents. As long as they are not paying for this, the Board has no input. But I also feel that it should not be a Board bashing site. The best way to accomplish solutions to any problems in the community is to attend meetings and act as responsible owners. Work thru the problems within the HOA system. It makes everyone much happier.

JeanneK3 (Maryland)
Posts: 562

Posted:

Keep the site but make sure the site does not imply it is the official web site for the association. A disclaimer on the home page should do it. Why the Board is afraid of honest and open discussion should be the next discussion topic.

BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535

Posted:

I'm tempted to say keep the site, but there are some precautions:

1. As already suggested, make sure it is clearly posted that it is not an official site.

2. Be careful that whatever is posted is factual and truthful, lest you find youself defending a liable suit.

3. If it is a site that is acceessible to the general public, remember that what is posted there can have an effect on the desirability of owning a home and living in your community.

GeorgerwilliamsW (Indiana)
Posts: 975

Posted:

Check out this link:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brookstone-Fieldstone/

It is a non-HOA-sponsored message board that has been around for six years. In fact is is more active than even the officially sanctioned HOA message board: http://p068.ezboard.com/btwincreekshoa
which hasn't seen a posting in nearly a year or so.

SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202

Posted:

There is nothing "official" that the Board can do about the site - BUT be sure that the comments on the site do not libel individuals on the Board or mis-stae facts.

I have a problem with these kinds of critical blogs, anyway. Members should attend meetings to register their complaints/concerns. Not hide behind a web site.

What happened to its original intention - to share photos, etc?

BradP (Kansas)
Posts: 2,640

Posted:

Actually I disagree with those who have said there is nothing "official" the board can do about the site. It appears to me by reading this that this website was created a long time ago as kind of a central place for discussion, communication, etc...and has taken on the appearance at the time as the official website of the HOA. I don't know what has happened inbetween then and now and if there is another "official" site or not. But given the history, if this website does not have disclaimers that it is not the official HOA website then one could argue that the board would have a valid argument for it to be turned over, shut down, or totally revamped. The other question I would have is who pays for the domain and who paid to get it started? Was it started with HOA funds?

If this is just one person who decided to start something on their own and they put up disclaimers then there is nothing the board can do...but to me it appears it has entered a gray area and the board might have options on what to do.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Brad, this is a Yahoo Groups sort of "website," so it was most likely "free" and no HOA funds would have been needed or required.

However, I support your interpretation of the situation.

BradP (Kansas)
Posts: 2,640

Posted:

Michele:

Thanks...didn't catch that...I still think the major argument in this case is has this website been the "unofficial" official HOA website at some point and time. Without all the history it is hard to tell. Just because the attorney asked for it to be turned over or shut down does not mean they will go after it if you decline.

To answer the other question, unless your documents have a clause against free speech, then your board can not fine you for this...

DarylF (Washington)
Posts: 157

Posted:

thanks for the replies!

It is a free site and it does state that it is not an official HOA site. It has come up at meetings and the HOA has said it is not an offical HOA site. If anyone has some advice on legal wording for a disclaimer I'd appreciate it.

We started the site as a community discussion tool. Unfortunately a large pecentage of our community is not happy with our board (the president actually) and they discuss that too.

The site isn't all complaining though. It's a typical community discussion. People asking about places to eat, lost/found pets, party invites, looking for advice on a bee problem...

BradP (Kansas)
Posts: 2,640

Posted:

Daryl:

If your board has recognized it as a non-official website then I don't see any issues...I am not a legal expert but I would have a disclaimer on each page that the comments, thoughts and content on this site is not affliated with XXX Association.

The only thing I would be concerned of as the board's owner is rampant speculation or rumors that can lead to issues. If you do a good job moderating the discussion then no worries.

KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665

Posted:

I would simply put the words:
This site is not sponsored by, or directly affiliated with My Wonderful HOA.

I suspect that the board is of the belief that if they can control the site their problems will be over. They blame the site for the discord. What they don't realize is that trying to hush the dissenters will only make them more lively then ever.

DonN (Michigan)
Posts: 357

Posted:

Websites with discussion forums seem to be contentious in many owners associations, mostly by boards who want to control messages. HOA Talk gets along fine and provides good information to many participants with "controlling" the messages.

The board can take the most important step, which is to establish a website that includes a discussion forum that is not "controlled" by the board. Control by the board will become quickly known in the community which will discredit the board.

Some of the information on the discussion forum may be critical of the board. But if the board members have open minds, it will be helpful to them. President Truman characterized the reality, "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen."

Don Nordeen
Governance of Property Owners Associations

JohnO6 (Georgia)
Posts: 424

Posted:

I happen to be the President of our HOA and also administer the HOA's website which does include a Discussion Board available to all owners/residents.

We have a "boiler plate" set of Discussion Board rules available on the website, but fundamentally I won't delete any message unless it's obscene or vulgar.

We HAVE had posts/threads that are critical of Board activities or of perceived Board activities, which I frankly see as constructive and helpful to the Board.

Since "perception is reality", it is extremely helpful to understand how the community perceives what we do. If what is perceived is either not accurate or wasn't the Board's intent, then I would much rather know that than not. And our response can be to either clarify, explain the rationale of our course, or change what we're doing.

And frankly, discussion board activity indicates community involvement, so I welcome it.

GeorgerwilliamsW (Indiana)
Posts: 975

Posted:

John,

I couldn't agree more with you. Providing a place for venting frustrations and criticisms is healthy, as long as normal bounds of decency are observed. It is far better that the discussion is hosted by the board of directors than by an owner/member.

To me, even the worst of criticism tells me that somebody out there actually cares enough to say something. I want to encourage participation, not discourage it.

I applaud your open minded, thoughtful approach to the issue.

DarylF (Washington)
Posts: 157

Posted:

One thing to note. The web site does not have a fourm. The website makes it easy to send an email to all (one email address that goes to all), and people can reply, which then also goes to all. And, the messages are not saved on the web site (like yahoo groups does). Furthermore, everyone on the site has a profile and at the least is required to have their real name posted. Most also post their address, a photo and phone number as well.

Thus, only people that subscribe to the site can see the emails or send one, the person making the comment is always clearly identified (you see their email address and any name at the least), and past messages are not posted anywhere other then your email box.

TinaF1 (Washington)
Posts: 14

Posted:

Meetings aren't always convenient for people to attend and some BOD's don't allow homeowners an open discussion time at Board meetings.

It's my opinion that any BOD's who wishes to quiet the masses and try to suffocate a venue for their right to free speech and information sharing has something to worry about. If people are upset about individuals on the Board or the BOD's activities it should be heard - loud and clear. This is usually the result of a) a true reason to be upset or b) a lack of information sharing from the Board.

So long as it's stated on the site that it is not an HOA web site and comments found there are strictly the opinion of the author - what's the big deal?

Just my thoughts...

BradP (Kansas)
Posts: 2,640

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TinaF1 on 07/23/2008 7:44 AM
Meetings aren't always convenient for people to attend and some BOD's don't allow homeowners an open discussion time at Board meetings.

It's my opinion that any BOD's who wishes to quiet the masses and try to suffocate a venue for their right to free speech and information sharing has something to worry about. If people are upset about individuals on the Board or the BOD's activities it should be heard - loud and clear. This is usually the result of a) a true reason to be upset or b) a lack of information sharing from the Board.

So long as it's stated on the site that it is not an HOA web site and comments found there are strictly the opinion of the author - what's the big deal?

Just my thoughts...

Tina:

On the flip side of your argument I would argue that it is very easy for information to get skewed as it passes along the chain. That can easily happen as it passes from Johnny to Sally to Bob to Ruth....Issues that are important to the association can cause rifts because of this. I don't agree with censoring speech, I think forums have their place, but they easily can be used for one's personal agenda if they don't like the board or what is happening and you see that all the time.

And even if you state on the website it is not the offical HOA site it will be construed that way anyway by some.

JosephW (Michigan)
Posts: 882

Posted:

Are you using the association's name in the title or heading of the site? If so, the association may, repeat may, have some grounds for action, if they have taken the time to register the name, or can show ownership to the name.

Joe

Joseph West
Official HOATalk.com Sponsor
Community Associations Network, LLC
www.CommunityAssociations.net
*See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal

KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665

Posted:

Quote:

Or the board may have the right to spend a legal fortune only to discover that fair use doesn't stop you from using the association's name regardless of how many places they have registered it.

The only way the arguments holds up is if the board can show that a reasonable person might be confused and believe that the site is an official site of the association. If you make it clear that you do not represent the association and are not affiliated directly with the association the association has no claim.

While the argument held water for a very short time, it is now punched full of holes and litigation can become very costly as defendants have been winning more and more counter claims for legal defense against frivolous suits. Both the original trademark laws and case law clearly show that registering a name does not give full legal control over the use thereof. In spite of what some big media organizations want to believe.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here