Community Website Advice

I designed and set up my community website a little over 2 months ago. My husband, who is a Board member has been utilizing the site to keep the community up to date on some positive changes that have been going on in the community through the Discussions forum since they never were put in the newsletter. There has been a lengthy debaucle going on with allowing or prohibiting trampolines in our neighborhood. He recently posted an quick synopsis of the chain of events since he has been on the Board as well as a "unofficial" survey on the site.

Both of these has prompted a lot of lively but civil discussion on the Discussions forum and there have been a lot of questions posed to the other Board members about details of this issue. (They sent violation letters out, a few people took them down, then a few months later, after the threat of a lawsuit, were allowed again.) To make a long story short, the other Board members have now voted to remove the Discussions from the site as well as to only allow "approved" surveys. The Survey feature aside - is it not against the residents' first ammendment rights to be censored in this way? I have not been officially told to remove anything but I will not be a part of an illegal action.

Thanks in advance.

Robin

RobinW,

A discussion blog is not a constitutional right, nor one your by-laws had as mandatory. Therefore, you are not censoring owners by removing the feature to vent their frustrations to the entire community. IMO, an hoa association discussion blog on it's own website is not wise. I would not ever advise it. The HOA could be held responsible for the publishing of untruths. It's one thing to solicit community input on a secure website that is directed to the board or management privately. It's another to run the risk that debates can be viewed by everyone. IMO.

GeraldT1
NNJ

RobinW,

All that I would do is remove the discussion blog feature but provide a method for owners to contact management via the web/email. If the board wishes to keep the .com and or .net, the should reimburse you for that, just have your husband recuse himself from tha particular vote. You can have the existing site point to another site that will host it for your community. I recommend this. Technically, the web-hosting site will know what to do, if they do not, don't use them.

The service of a web-page you have provided for your community is wonderful. But the association should pay for it or the MC should provide it gratis. Mine does, so far. Designing and hosting a web-site is a great deal of work, especially for volunteer owners.

Best of success!!
GeraldT1

Just for the heck of it.....

Slander Defamation Lawsuit Libel

Defamation and libel are defined as a false statement that injures someone's reputation and exposes him to public contempt, hatred, ridicule or condemnation. If the false statement is published in print or through broadcast media, such as radio or TV, it is called libel. If it is only spoken, it is called slander.

You often hear "Truth is the perfect defense against libel." A curious notion, not entirely supported by what goes on in the courts. Truth is a very good defense. It may prove an unshakable defense if you have unlimited funds to pay lawyers to defend it. If you don't you should build a better defense and or offense.

Defamation is defined as an untrue statement which causes you to be held in contempt or ridicule and as a
result causes you damages.

Libel is a defamatory statement made in writing and slander is one made orally. If anyone has said anything that was offensive to you, you may have wondered if that person was guilty of having defamed you. A defamatory statement may either be a false writing, a picture or visual representation which exposes you to contempt, hatred, or ridicule, causes you to be shunned or avoided, or tends to injure you in you
occupation.

A slanderous defamatory statement would be one which was false but made through oral communication by word of mouth, radio or television.

Examples of some of the common types of defamatory statements are the following: (1) statements which
make a claim about whether a person has committed a crime; (2) statements which impute the presence of an
infectious or loathsome disease; (3) statements which injure a person with respect to his office, trade or business; and (4) statements which impute some lack of moral dignity.

Even if the statements fit into one of these categories, which are not all inclusive, it is not defamatory if it is
true.

Truth is an absolute defense in defamation cases.
There are also other defenses in defamation lawsuits. A particular statement may be privileged in that the
law allows certain statements to be made without them being classified as defamatory.

For example, statements made by certain public officers during the performance of their official duties are privileges.

Certain other communications may be privileged, but there are too many rules regarding privileges and they are too complex to be stated in the short length of this message. An attorney can help you with any particular case.

False statements which are made maliciously, in other words, those generated with the sate of mind arising
from ill-will or hatred, are more often to be held by the courts to be defamatory than false statements which are not malicious (such as simple jokes or something of that nature). However, if the statement is true, there is still no defamation, regardless of what the person’s state of mind was at the time.

The defamation case is a difficult kind of lawsuit to win. The first amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and the courts have set forth a complicated set of rules that are used to
determine whether particular types of statements are protected by the first amendment, regardless of whether they are false.
--------

Joe

I am actually considering going private with it. I have been reimbursed for hosting on a month by month basis when I submit the receipts but never charged for design or maintenance. I set it up as a "Community" site to begin with and all Board members viewed the site before it went live. Not one of them said anything about it not saying it was an HOA site. One of my announcement emails, which they all received, including the property manager, included the following:

Current month's website updates:

* "What your Board is doing for you" In Discussions

* ALL Board Meeting Minutes through 2006 in Documents

* Searchable CC&Rs in Documents

* Suggestion Box added

* Yard of the Month picture and announcement - added at the beginning of each month

* All Committee members have the ability to make additions to the site as well

This site is not Board controlled. It is here for you all of you, so please utilize it!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ALL of the design, features, updates and additions were mine - not made by the request of a Board member.

There has not been anything posted to the Discussion forum beside valid questions. It is because of this the Board president wants it pulled. She does not want to have to answer them. The history of this is that she has allowed minutes not to be taken at a recent Board/Appeal meeting at the request of a resident - against our CCnRs. The property manager, who was present at the meeting later agreed that this was wrong but said nothing even though he is paid to be in an advisory position.

Sorry for the long post, but does anyone see anything wrong with going private and paying for it myself?

Thank you all so much for you imput!

Robin

Actually, I set it up where residents have to register and be approved before they can utilize the site. As for Discussions, they must follow quite a discriptive and specific set of rules or their posting priviledges are suspended. I can also have every message be screened before I allow it to be posted if there are any issues that arise. They cannot post annonymously since the Discusion is tied to their profiles which must have a street address verified to be approved. All areas are the site are for approved members of the neighborhood only and cannot be viewed by anyone not approved.

As for volunteers to take it over, we can't even get people to volunteer for empty Board positions never mind a new committee. If I gave it up, the Board would just remove it completely since no one has any web experience nor wants to bother with communicating with the community. Residents were recently told that any communication with the Board can only be done at a Board meeting from now on, period.

If any of you have designed and maintained a site before, you know that "just turning it over" would be a travesty. The site has been a very positive change in an otherwise very negative HOA environment.

I guess I will leave this one up to the residents of the community.

Thanks for all of your feedback. It was very enlightening.

RobinW,

The travesty, if there is one, is in a service provided pro-bono and the inability of owners and board members to understand its importance and inability to maintain it.

In your case it was not entirely pro-bono but the design/labor was.

If you are not willing to pass the torch of the website responsibilities, then don't. However, you may be called back to assist, and better appreciated once everyone realizes the loss of the website.

That aside, I don't care how many login features there are on a community discussion board, it will either bog down your ability to keep the site current due to constant editing, or you'll run the very dangerous risk that someone will state something defamatory. It will only take one posting of something defamatory to bring the whole website down.

Short of your hosting becoming a day and night job, a discussion board is something I would NEVER recommend. But that then places you in an unevienable postion of legislating content.

Look at JosephW's post about defamatory statements. You've received several posts based upon this concern.

Best of success!!
GeraldT1
NNJ

In our community, where the developer still controls the board of directors, the web site had a "Residents' Discussion Forum". The homeowners had been posting messages that the developer found embarassing, pointing out instances where the board was not in compliance with the statues or bylaws. The board directed the web master to provide a capability for the board to censor any message. The web master refused. The board then directed him to delete the discussion forum from the web site. Fortunately, the web master had access to another server not under the board's control so he moved the discussion forum to the other server. He then email'd a link to the new server to all users. The discussion forum continues to be the primary way homeowners communicate among themselves.

We are having our annual HOA meeting this Tuesday where it will be discussed. Thanks to all of you I feel much more prepared. I will let you know how it all turns out.

To: hoatalk
Thanks for the info that the link to the Heffernan article on my weblog was obsolete. It has now been repaired. Because internet links often move, I usually provide the title of the article and name of the author so that an internet search will work even if a link becomes obsolete. Thanks again to hoatalk.