My Blog vs The HOA... Boggles the Mind

I moved into a relatively new 55+ condo community 18 months ago. I felt there was a need for a blog so that residents could speak their minds about community issues (i.e. issue with common areas, issues with apartments, social functions, discussions about various rules and regulations, advice on good restaurants in the area, recommendations for plumbers, electricians, painters, etc.).

So, I started one. I put a large photo of the Clubhouse on the first page and the blog has become quite popular in the community, but I appear to be on the Most Wanted List of the Board since, in addition to all the wonderful things the community offers, I also am not shy pointing out that there are faults with the community as well as the way Homeowner's Meeting and elections are handled.

Today I received a letter from the Board. It has three points:
1) I must put a disclaimer somewhere on the blog "acknowledging that it is not sanctioned by the HOA and the opinions are solely those of the individuals making the postings".
2) I must "remove the picture of the Clubhouse from the site"
3) I have to "refrain from posting erroneous, misleading and inaccurate items pertaining to the community".

I can fully understand why the majority of Board members (the ones appointed by the developer) would not want even a hint of bad news coming from a blog of residents, and maybe the resident Board members are worried about resale values if negative press gets out, but I wonder whether they have any right to make these demands.

From my perspective...
1) It would be easy enough to say that the blog is not sanctioned by the HOA, but, it doesn't say or even pretend that it is.
2) Since I am a condo owner, and therefore part owner of all the common areas, it would seem to me that I have a perfect right to put a photo of the Clubhouse on the blog. It is a beautiful Clubhouse and a beautiful picture. In no way is it demeaning and no post has ever berated it.
3) To my knowledge there has never been anything erroneous, misleading or inaccurate stated on the blog, but there have been some reports of leaking garages, broken garage doors, broken sprinkler heads damaging apartments, gates not working, fountains not working, dead shrubbery, complaints about how meetings and elections were held and assorted other issues. Certainly, if you did not want the entire community knowing these things, maybe you would want such posts stopped.

Don't get me wrong. It is a great place to live. It is just not the perfect place that the developer would like people to believe.

I would be interested in your thoughts about how I should handle this situation. Apparently, "The Truth Shall Set You Free" is not everybody's motto.

Thanks!
Steve

Boggles the mind…..really? How old are you? Of course they're within their rights to want a disclaimer that your blog is not sanctioned by the BOD. As to the photo, did you take it or is it copyrighted by someone else? Even if you took it you might not be able to use it since it implies that the blog is part of the HOA. It's called libel and you can be sued for it.

In law, defamation – also called calumny, libel, slander (for spoken words), and vilification (for written or otherwise published words) – is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always, a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."

False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being." If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.

Thanks, Glen.
I am old enough to have been sued before. I understand the responsibility I have to make sure that I tell the truth since that is the ultimate defense (it is why the other time I was sued, I was found innocent). I agree about the potentiality to be sued. Anybody can be sued for anything whether they are in the right or not.

The question is... What reasonable steps need to be taken to reduce the risk? Then I have to weigh whether allowing residents ( or myself) to speak about issues that need to be addressed is worth the chance that I get sued.

The only other option is to close down the blog, and that would be a result that would hurt all the residents in the community.
Steve

I'm not arguing, just playing Devil's Advocate...

Is your blog really the only place where these issues can be discussed? I really think the appropriate venue is more a meeting between BOD/Developer and members/owners. Would you allow comments/postings by BOD/Developer to address what they consider to be falsehoods?

Is there a community website? Is there a community newsletter? How often does your BOD meet? Do you have owner's meetings?

Since you're still under developer control, I'd tread lightly. My association hasn't been under developer control for 25 years, so I'm completely unfamiliar. I've read on HOATalk that it can be pretty contentious at times, though, with the Developer having almost all (if not all) the rights.

Alternatively...do you feel the BOD's attempt to stop your blog (or reign it in within certain parameters) is infringing upon your right to free speech?

Tracie,
I would be happy to have the BOD/Developer say anything they wish on the blog. I welcome their saying that something is incorrect, but, instead, when there was a tremendous uproar about the developer firing security guards and hiring others without even notifying the Board, it was apparent that they signed up pretending to be a resident and made some claims about what occurred so they could hide the fact that they were on the developer's side.

The Developer has a website to sell homes. No blog. No Newsletter. Once every two or three months, there is a Homeowner's meeting that either insists that questions be submitted in advance, or it is run by the Management company and only the head of that company answers anything.

There is no question that they are trying to suppress freedom of speech. Just like everyone else in the community, I do not want people not to buy and prices drop. I have no ax to grind. I talk about observations that are truthful and almost always backed up by photos.
Steve

Thanks, Glen,
Then the question remains... what picture can you put on anything? Looks like my grandson's face is the only thing that guarantees that I do not get sued (unless the obstetrician decides that he owns a piece of that?). What allows the builder to use the picture on his website? After all, the residents probably own 40% of that building since the community is 40% full?
Steve

There may be no "need" but it's pretty stupid not to just do it.

Steve,

The disclaimer sounds good. When I published a non-sanctioned newsletter, the first article was that this is not the official word of the Association. In your case, you might even want to add a link to the Associations web site in that disclaimer. Something like:

If you were looking for the official site of xyz please click here to be re-directed to their home page.

Tim

Why would it not be? This isn't a war. But I can't stress enough how important it is to be sure to have a visible disclaimer that your site is not the official site for the HOA.

It is for your benefit and it is also the truth. Why would someone be ambivalent about either reason?

Our Master Gardener newsletter editor always includes the name of any persons taking photos that are published. We deal with the City newspaper a lot and they will put disclaimers on many articles, especially if they are open to argument. It is such a simple thing to do for the o.p. If he wants to be an vital member of his community, maintaining a web site that allows bitching against his Board and Developer is counterproductive IMHO. It kind of compares to the National Enquirer verses the New Your Times .Who ya gonna believe?

Thanks Donna,
I have to take issue. I am a vital member of the community, and it is for exactly that reason that I started the blog. I can think of at least a dozen instances when things that were wrong were corrected, literally, within hours of their being pointed out on the blog. This, in spite of the fact that the Board tries to make believe that there is no blog.

However, I do not want to leave the impression that the blog was started so I or anyone else could complain. It was started as a way for people to help out each other with recommendations of plumbers, electricians, general contractors, restaurants, etc, etc. In fact, I created an organized thread that lists all of these and it is very long and has been accessed almost 2000 times. I often post pictures of how beautiful the community is and many homeowners and I talk about how happy they are here. But it is not heaven. Things go wrong, and the homeowners deserve to know when they do and have them taken care of.

Case in point... my building had a sprinkler head break late on a Sunday night a few weeks ago. It took close to 30 minutes for the firemen to get to the place where the breakage occurred. There was pretty extensive damage to the building because no one knew where the sprinkler shut-off valve was and said that even if they did know, they would not shut it off without the fire department's approval. One older resident's apartment was leaking like a sieve. Had I not grabbed my camera and done a blow by blow of the events of the night, it is highly likely that it would have been hushed up and no one would have known that there was a delay in response and a possible problem if a sprinkler head goes.

I cannot see how it is not in the best interests of the homeowners to have as much information at their finger tips as possible. My only goal to to help my neighbors. I am not a complainer. It is likely that the developer has some additional considerations in mind.
Steve

GEEEZ Steve,

Why do you think that you can tell the Developer what he can do on his website. It sounds to me from your original post that the Developer has not turned over control of the community to the members yet. Is that the case? If he has not, he is still in control of the community and his website is his property and that includes the clubhouse. You may have bought part of it when you signed your deed restrictions but until you have turnover, it belongs to the developer and that includes the picture of it. Try focusing on the right parts of the community rather than focusing on what is wrong. I have owned 3, 55+ community units so I am aware of what the residents mindsets can get to be. Rather than making the Developer look bad, work to make things better.

Steve,

Here's the biggest problem with your blog -- you said: "I also am not shy pointing out that there are faults with the community as well as the way Homeowner's Meeting and elections are handled." You may have written something about the BOD that really wasn't the truth! People oftentimes complain about things they really don't have the whole story on, or even worse, really know nothing about. I'm not saying this applies to you, only that it does happen. Perhaps one of the members who posted a comment didn't know what he was talking about. IMO, if you want to have a community blog, leave out the "speak out" section. Write about everything that's good about the HOA. But, maybe that would take all the fun out of having a blog???????

Mary,
As I just said to Donna... writing about all sweetness and light serves nobody any good (except maybe the developer). If there are problems, they need to be addressed, and, posting about those issues has consistently been the very fastest way of getting those issues addressed.

When the developer made a change in the security force of the community, Board members were not notified. It was the blog that brought the fact to everyone's attention so the issue could be discussed. When our building was flooded, the Board members were not notified immediately, and it was the postings on the blog that brought the problem to everyone's attention. In both of those cases, nothing was said to the community by the Board at all. Without the blog, they would have been swept under the rug. Whose best interest is served in these cases? Certainly not the residents.
Steve

Steve,

The incidents you mention are a lot different than members posting untruths about the BOD's (the developer's) actions. For example, saying the election was held illegally w/o having any proof of it. It doesn't serve anyone any good to post rumors and lies either and I know you can't tell me that everything posted about the developer has been checked out and verified as gospel. Yes, I agree the blog can be used to disseminate info to the members, but NOT to spread malicious gossip and the latter happens all the time on these "blogs". And that's the reason for the disclaimer and also for eliminating the pic of the clubhouse and any reference to the HOA in the website address or title page.

Mary,
Your points are well taken. The blog was not intended to be a rumor mill, and I will generally chime in when I feel that someone has posted something which is obviously meant to incite or is untruthful or hurtful.
Steve

Open the door a little and who knows what they will demand next. I think the OP is dead on with this legitimate concern. Michelle, it is also the truth that he has not stated that he 'is' the official website ergo, no need to deny something he hasn't claimed.

Steve the Right of Free Speech is not absolute, there are limits, can't shout fire in a crowded movie theater etc. To use your words it boggles the mind that you can't see that the requests of the BOD are in fact reasonable, except maybe for the photo.

1) I must put a disclaimer somewhere on the blog "acknowledging that it is not sanctioned by the HOA and the opinions are solely those of the individuals making the postings".
2) I must "remove the picture of the Clubhouse from the site"
3) I have to "refrain from posting erroneous, misleading and inaccurate items pertaining to the community".

1) See the disclaimer posted by HOATalk below. You said it yourself - The blog was not intended to be a rumor mill, and I will generally chime in when I feel that someone has posted something which is obviously meant to incite or is untruthful or hurtful. But not always and therein lies the rub, unless you are willing to monitor and edit the posts before they go up you can't prevent people with an ax to grind from using the blog maliciously. So this protects you.
2) While you probably have a right to use the image do you really need the hassle? It would IMHO be more effective to replace it with something innocuous with a caption "Picture of clubhouse removed by the BOD's request" or better yet post the letter from the BOD in its place.
3) No brainer you can't deliberately lie about the community and you should be willing to post corrections. Even newspapers post corrections, usually days later and buried in mice type but they do post them.

I hardly think this is starting a war but if anyone is starting one, how about the HOA by demanding he modify his site, a site that doesn't say it is an official site?

There is also the argument about setting a precedent for the demands. He could be easy going and just comply but what has he done wrong? Did he say this is the official HOA site...if not it kind of like saying my site isn't something I didn't say it was!

How about the HOA set up an official site and post it as such. When you google "official website of the ....". It really isn't his job to say his site is something he isn't claiming it to be! Conflict bait my ....!!!

Thanks, DJ1.
It is ironic that my only goal in starting the blog was to help the homeowners, and people elected to do the very same thing are not pleased with me.

I have read every word of what everyone wrote here. Frankly, when I posted my questions in the very beginning here, I was hoping that I would get a single, unified group that would advise me one way or another. You all sound extremely sincere, and, apparently, as with any other forum, there are opinions from every spectrum, and I can understand each and every opinion because I have an ability to see problems from all different angles.

So, I have vacillated from telling the Board to shove it, to doing everything they ask, and every option in between. Right now, unless my mind (or this forum) takes me in a different direction, I think I will take on the first Board request by honoring their desire for a disclaimer, and my favorite wording right now is:

"The ----------- On-line Forum is not sanctioned by the --------- Homeowners' Association. This Forum is, instead, sanctioned by homeowners who are interested in knowing, in a timely fashion, what is happening in their community. Therefore, the opinions expressed herein are solely those of individuals making the postings. The HOA, --------- On-line Forum, and its administrator are not responsible for its content."

It does what they want at the same time it makes clear that the homeowners really want more timely responses to their concerns. It takes the HOA, the Forum, and me off the hook (theoretically).

The next issue to tackle (unless I change my mind about the disclaimer) is the photo. I have some thoughts which I am leaning towards, but will spend a bit more time thinking and reading here first.

You guys are all great. How about running for the Board in my community? We can obviously use you.
Steve

The point in my little rant to Steve above was to make it clear that I don't think there was one single person on here who said anything regarding the content or purpose of his site, that he should or should not be acting as association communication arbiter, or that the mission of his blog was either out of line or improper.

The ONLY thing that to me resembled a consensus from posters here was that it would be in his best interest to post a very clear disclaimer that it is not the official HOA website, and that he should take care that erroneous or potentially misleading or libelous information not show up.

And, as far as I'm concerned, that's not because it would make the BOARD "happy," but simply that both are prudent things to do in order to protect himself down the line.

I have no vested interest in his board, his association or even in him.

But, like most of the other association leaders here on this forum, I know all too well what sort of problems someone can find themselves facing if they don't take care with their on-line presence.

I just hope he doesn't get a muscle strain patting himself on the back so much.

Michele,
I believe no one here said anything regarding the content or purpose of the blog because nobody here knows anything about it. But, it was started because, in my other community, there was a similar type blog (which had no photo nor any disclaimer nor did I or anyone else confuse it for the HOA). When my wife and I moved in, I found it incredibly helpful for finding recommended contractors, favored hospitals, doctors, and places to go because the residents living there had experiences I did not.

Interestingly, about 8 months ago in that community (not my current one) a series of burglaries began (a first time event for a gated community that had hardly ever seen any crime at all). They were talked about on the blog by residents who were neighbors of those who were robbed. But, interestingly, for a couple of months there was never any mention of these burglaries in the community newspaper nor any mention by the people at Public Safety nor releases of any kind on the on-line community site. Why? My best guess is that publication of such events hurts resale values and creates panic among residents. So, perhaps it was best to try to handle the problem, but also keep it under the rug as much as possible.

Fortunately, the chatter on the blog became overwhelming and suddenly there were releases to the community that these events had happened and what was being done. I think that was a very positive outcome and a great reason why a blog serves a purpose.

That blog was not intended to bad mouth anyone (just as mine is not), but when an event arose that created activity on the blog, the blog was there to do its job and that is to inform. I wrote earlier about a flood in our building. The events parallel the burglary problem in the other community quite closely as they pertain to informing (or not informing) the community

As far as patting myself on the back, that's not my thing. Nor do I want anyone else patting me on the back. What I do want is for my community to be the best it can be. I heap plenty of praise upon the way my community is run. Occasionally, things happen that the residents need to know about but are not told, for whatever reason, by the Board. I am one that believes that openness is best for the homeowners. There is rarely a good defense for hiding things.
Steve

Glen,
I am a newbee here. I do not know who is and who is not an HOA member. As I said, I am pretty much convinced that I should write a disclaimer (in fact, I wrote above what it was). Then, let's say, I take down the photo and put up something innocuous, if that is done, is everyone saying I am okay?

I get the sense from Michele that she (and some others) think I shouldn't do what I do under any circumstances. No blog no matter what. No blog if the developer is doing something not in the best interests of the residents. No blog if important issues are not communicated to the residents. No blog, period. Is that the consensus here?
Steve

I might be chiming in late here...I would think the blog is a great idea. I agree with the other posters that you need to separate yourself from the association. I would alos try to makie the blog available for only residents. That way potential buyers would not be swayed by information that they might not understand because of not knowing the complete picture.

No, Steve, you are wholly incorrect. Not one poster here either intimated, implied, suggested or out-right stated that you shouldn't have the blog. Not one.

How many times need I say I couldn't care less what your content is or what your reasons for the blog are?

Is it that you want us to be against your blog? Why would we care? People create blogs about their communities all the time. Most are prudent enough and have the good sense enough at the very outset to make it clear their website is not the official Association website. It's quite curious that you seem to think that is somehow giving up something in some way. But if it makes you feel good to throw some snark while covering your rear, go for it.

And if the way you communicate here is the way you present yourself on your "blog" then you really are heading for some issues. It appears you have serious blinders and are reading things into posts that clearly don't exist.

You are the only one bringing up all the whys, wherefores, and how comes about your blog.

All anyone here has said is simply for you to put up the disclaimers (and quit pretending to be a martyr -- that's the part I added).

And by the way, we most certainly do know what the content and purpose of your "blog" is because you can't seem to miss a post without providing us with a litany of the various wrongs you have righted through the blog.

And for someone whose "thing" is not patting themselves on the back, you certainly don't miss an opportunity to do so.

Why do you persist in trying to get us to weigh in on whether or not your blog should exist?

We only gave you our input on why it would be in your best interest to put up the disclaimers.

I don't even know why you are questioning or second-guessing it. Unless you really are trying to create some conflict with the board, I have no clue why it's even an issue. Given that your suggested disclaimer content is being used at yet another opportunity to snark at your board, it is questionable how non-partisan you can be with your blog. But that's your problem, not ours.

The requests that have been made really are for your best interests, not the board's. Why is it so difficult for you to see that? Is it because they asked? What if it were a friend of yours who made those requests/suggestions?