|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
FranD
(Georgia)
Posts:100
 |
| 03/16/2010 7:45 AM |
|
| I have heard so many different comments about this subject so once and for all, does anyone know the dos and don'ts on taping minutes at any meeting? Someone told me unless you ask permission, it is considered wire tapping. Is this true? If so, what steps can you take towards the HOA member doing this? |
|
|
|
|
MaryA1
Posts:0
|
| 03/16/2010 10:01 AM |
|
Fran,
It all depends upon state law which would be found in the Criminal Code statutes of your State.
In AZ it is only unlawful to ". . .photograph, videotape, film, digitally record or by any other means secretly view, with or without a device, another person without that person's consent under either of the following circumstances:
1. In a restroom, bathroom, locker room, bedroom or other location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and the person is urinating, defecating, dressing, undressing, nude or involved in sexual intercourse or sexual contact.
2. In a manner that directly or indirectly captures or allows the viewing of the person's genitalia, buttock or female breast, whether clothed or unclothed, that is not otherwise visible to the public.
B. It is unlawful to disclose, display, distribute or publish a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording made in violation of subsection A of this section without the consent or knowledge of the person depicted."
Therefore, in AZ it is NOT against the law to tape record meetings. IMO, it's a good idea to let the BOD know you plan to tape record and they should have no objection unless you are disruptive in the process.
|
|
|
|
|
GlenL
(Ohio)
Posts:3526
|
| 03/16/2010 12:54 PM |
|
Fran, as far as I know Florida is the only state to specifically give homeowners the right to record meetings. In the other states it would fall as Mary stated on the law in place.
720.306 Meetings of members; voting and election procedures; amendments.
(10) RECORDING.--Any parcel owner may tape record or videotape meetings of the board of directors and meetings of the members. The board of directors of the association may adopt reasonable rules governing the taping of meetings of the board and the membership. |
|
Too bad the only people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs and cutting hair. - George Burns |
|
|
RobertR1
(South Carolina)
Posts:5164
|
| 03/16/2010 6:04 PM |
|
Well, I'll tell you, there are probably well over 100,000 meeting of HOA's each month. Few have large numbers of attendees, but let us assume all attendees are either by consent or are members. Once in a blue moon we see or hear of some dust-up at an HOA meeting and plenty get heated but only once in a while. We lament on this site of owner apathy and it is real and just maybe we need a little more openness and friendliness at the meetings. Certainly it seems we need more responsiveness from both side of the table. So, we can't seem to answer this question except to break in down into states and that info is scant.
But maybe the question should be, why would anyone object to having the meetings taped. The Board, of course has to set rules to maintain order and decorum, but is it worth the hassle to stop someone from taping. Maybe that is the question. |
|
|
|
|
TimB4
(Virginia)
Posts:3229
|
| 03/16/2010 6:04 PM |
|
Glen,
VA also allows recording of meetings per VA Property Owners Act under meetings of the Board. However, there is discussion on what "recording" is. I believe that it implies audio and/or video.
Fran,
GA has some very specific recoding laws.
In general, you need the consent of all persons involved.
Here are some links:
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - Can We Tape? A simple explanation of GA law on the topic.
Citizens Media Law Project Gives a plainly worded explanation of Georgia recording laws with links.
GA Title 16, Article 3, Chapter 11, Part 62 This section covers Eavesdropping, surveillance, or intercepting communication which invades privacy of another; divulging private message
GA Title 16 Article 3 Chapter 11 part 66 This law covers Interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication of persons under 18 years of age.
Hope these help.
Tim |
|
|
|
|
LynetteB
(Texas)
Posts:141
|
| 03/16/2010 9:11 PM |
|
FranD,
I have seen many discussions on this topic on this site. Some wanted to tape for the purpose of minutes and some for other purposes. You should do a search of this site.
We have had issues with taping here and after researching we found that in Texas, folks are allowed to tape meetings. Our Association is allowed to adopt rules regarding the issue and we did. We require anyone who wants to tape a meeting to announce their intentions and to place the device in plain site. This gives the other members opportunity to excuse themselves if they don't want to be taped.
|
|
|
|
|
RobertR1
(South Carolina)
Posts:5164
|
| 03/16/2010 10:51 PM |
|
LynetteB,
After reading some of the references Glen submitted, I expect your laws must read similar to Frans. The Board announces that the meeting is subject to being taped and that is that. Maybe the crux here is this a public or private meeting. It is private in the sense you must be invited but unless there are restrictions the meeting is public as far as I can see. I expect teleconferencing is permitted and that could include all kinds of people speaking, same as Board meeting or annual meetings with maybe contractor there by invite, certainly employess there, lawyers present.
It also seems to me that if you did not allow taping a meeting, and there was misunderstanding about who said what, how can you decide who is right? Do you poll the audience and count majority?
I think a safe way to decide for the Board is to follow what the local Town, city or council public bodies do. If they allow taping and most do and many video and broadcast, how can you not allow taping with Board restrictions to hold decorum of the meeting. I would also check the non-profit laws of the state to see what they say.
Another consideration is how do you handle the minutes of the meeting. The minutes could easily say that John Doe motions that Jane Doe be appointed to replace a Board vacancy. It get's published by the Board normally. Did the Board get permission from John and Jane to publish their names and what they said.
But, Georgia seems to be a little more independent in what they require of HOA's so if they don't allow it.........don't do it, but the Board leaves some doors open....IMHO. |
|
|
|
|
RogerB
(Colorado)
Posts:4645
|
| 03/17/2010 8:56 AM |
|
Fran asked "what steps can you take towards the HOA member doing this?"
HOA meetings are not public meetings. Therefore, the Board can establish a rule that no meeting may be electonically recorded without permission of the Board. |
|
|
|
|
RobertR1
(South Carolina)
Posts:5164
|
| 03/17/2010 11:34 AM |
|
Roger,
I don't know about this one, that seems pretty all encompassing to me. Would you agree the Board would have to inform the membership of the rule and announce this rule along with any general instructions that the Board has decided that will define the meeting structure? Doesn't Open meetings mean Open meetings. I just have a hard time trying to understand why the Board would object to anyone taping the meeting. I have a severe hearing lost (truly), why wouldn't I be allowed to tap a meeting? We have a large umbrella Hoa that has always taped their meetings, what is wrong with someone else doing it? The tapes are discoverable, aren't they? |
|
|
|
|
DonnaS
(Tennessee)
Posts:5671
|
| 03/17/2010 11:48 AM |
|
The Florida Statutes does allow for meetings to be taped but the wording of the Statutes is entirely too ambiguous with the use of the word "MAY"
720.306 Meetings of members; voting and election procedures; amendments.
(10) RECORDING.--Any parcel owner ((((MAY)))) tape record or videotape meetings of the board of directors and meetings of the members. The board of directors of the association (((MAY))) adopt reasonable rules governing the taping of meetings of the board and the membership.
One of my Florida Boards decided that the tapeing could only be done from a specific table which basically was too far out of reach for someones recorder to pick up the audio. After a few tense moments, because the Board was going to look like big fools, they allowed the member to sit up with the rest of the members to use his recorder.
So the question then becomes, what are reasonable rules? Certain size recorders. what could this possibly mean?
|
|
|
|
|
RogerB
(Colorado)
Posts:4645
|
| 03/17/2010 12:03 PM |
|
Robert,
Recordings are discoverable and that is why I recommend not allowing them. Recordings as well as minutes can be a two edged sword in Court. I think open Board meetings means that association members may attend. I am totally in favor of open meetings and to allow members to speak at Board meetings. |
|
|
|
|
RobertR1
(South Carolina)
Posts:5164
|
| 03/17/2010 12:18 PM |
|
Donna,
What do you think the state is trying to convey with their Statute? Would it be to create confusion. I read this to say the recording of the meeting is legal (the word "may" in this context leaves it up to the member and if he/she decides to do it, then the may changes to "can"), but the board may provide rules governing the recording but they can't deny the recording. Of course these rules must be reasonable. What I am getting at here is there could be justifiable reasons for someone to want to tape the meeting. I ask locally and one opinion is that it is not allowed to tape record meetings because someone could say something that they did mean and the minutes serve to provide everyone with of what went on at the meeting. As you know the minutes serve to inform what board business went on but it does not attempt to be a he said, she said, rightly so. Certainly a reasonable rule would be to insure everyone could hear the meeting and if they were hearing impaired, would it be unreasonable to allow them to record the meeting, or have someone record it for anyone because they couldn't make the meeting. It is also reasonable to allow for teleconferencing, what is the reasonable rule to disallow someone on the phone to record the conversation. I don't know. |
|
|
|
|
RobertR1
(South Carolina)
Posts:5164
|
| 03/17/2010 1:39 PM |
|
Roger,
I usually agree with pretty much what you say.
Your quote, "Therefore, the Board can establish a rule that no meeting may be electonically recorded without permission of the Board"
Do you think the Florida statute says this? Donna has posted the statute or part of it.
The other part of your post had to do with HOA's not being a public venue, they were not required (by law) to record the minutes and of course, could prevent anyone from doing same. Maybe I am reading this wrong.
Then we have the fact that recording a meeting is a two edge sword for the Board. I understand this and am not saying the noard has to record the minutes, they can decide that and it seems wise to not record their minutes. But I don't know if because they don't want to record means they can't be recorded. How could this be a law? Our umbrella POA did record minutes, now they don't, the law didn't change, the POA did....rightly so as I said, but at one point they did give themselves permission to record the minutes, wouldn't that indicate they thought it was legal?
|
|
|
|
|
GeorgeG5
(California)
Posts:19
|
| 03/17/2010 3:08 PM |
|
Although California oriented, the Adams Kessler Website's succinct treatment of this topic contains sections that answer a number of questions asked in previous posts. For example, here is what the Adams Kessler law firm has to say about the negative aspects of taping: "Owners who bring audio or video recorders to board meetings often do so because they are threatening litigation or wish to intimidate participants into silence. Sometimes, they will have a lawyer sitting at their side as they record the meeting. Under such conditions, participants are often reluctant to speak freely for fear of being dragged into litigation or having their voices appear on an internet website. As a result, members' free speech rights are suppressed by the person doing the recording. For these reasons, many boards prohibit recorders."
For the full Adams Kessler essay, point your browser toward http://www.davis-stirling.com/MainMenu/MainIndex/Recordingmeetings/tabid/663/Default.aspx |
|
|
|
|
RobertR1
(South Carolina)
Posts:5164
|
| 03/17/2010 4:31 PM |
|
George,
As long as we are going to use state law and infer (maybe) that Adams Kessler's negative opinion, as if it applies across the Board to all states, (which their opinion doesn't), why not include in the same breath the positive aspects of the synopsis. My concern here is that we stay away from saying one size fit all and because all HOA's are non-profit corporations that means that the process or recording a Board meeting or an annual meeting, the Board can refuse to allow a meeting to be taped. As your example of why a meeting should not be taped is to assume all people are going to act in the manner you described, which is hardly reason for anything. And this does not even touch on the fact that there could be a valid reason that someone would want to tape the meeting. Also, lost in this discussion is WHY the Boards would not want a meeting taped, other than it presents an opportunity for some one bent on mischief to intimidate the attendees. It is interesting that the negative example you cite is not connected to all state law nor is it in reference to a non-profit corporation which has been suggested to mean these corporations are not covered by these laws. |
|
|
|
|
GeorgeG5
(California)
Posts:19
|
| 03/17/2010 4:33 PM |
|
Take a look at some of these internet video postings:
"Homeowners Association Meeting Gone Bad"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlZst63GPNw)
"Green Valley Ranch Citizens Confront Corrupt HOA Board"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuYHjdT4qy4)
"Desperate HOA Directors - Your Are Out of Order!"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8yrKA-7mBI)
"Desperate Directors of Laguna Woods - The Facts Behind the Fiction Part One"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KH3g-vkT9I)
"Southridge HOA board meeting 8/8/09"
(http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1948496)
"Harrington Grove HOA Board Problems, Raleigh, NC"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIInuJ_LQik)
"Harrington Grove HOA Board Member Removal Decision"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehDmqwxt-do)
|
|
|
|
|
TimB4
(Virginia)
Posts:3229
|
| 03/17/2010 4:44 PM |
|
Posted By RogerB on 03/17/2010 8:56 AM
Fran asked "what steps can you take towards the HOA member doing this?"
HOA meetings are not public meetings. Therefore, the Board can establish a rule that no meeting may be electronically recorded without permission of the Board.
Roger,
Wording of that type would imply that, by being a member, I gave up my legal right to deny the taping. This is not the case. Although this wording could be used, it is misleading as it wouldn't eliminate GA law that requires consent of everyone involved (but implies that only Board permission is needed). Additionally, open meetings are normally open to all and not just members of the Association. Granted, it's usually the members that attend but so do other individuals. Our own meetings have had potential buyers, renters, and invited guests. Proxy representatives can be anyone (not just members) the individual wants.
Although it may be possible to get these signatures prior to the meeting, the recording would have to be stopped and permission obtained for anyone arriving to the meeting late. This can cause a disruption to the meeting process. Banning late arrivals can hurt obtaining quorums. Therefore, I believe that the only policy for any HOA in GA (or other States that require unanimous consent) is to deny recording of the meetings.
My two cents.
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
RobertR1
(South Carolina)
Posts:5164
|
| 03/17/2010 6:26 PM |
|
Tim,
I expect you are basing your opinion on the references you included in your prior post about Wiretapping in Georgia. Crap, I'm no lawyer or especially smart but I read those references and I didn't come away feeling that the taping of an HOA meeting could be covered with the Wiretaping Law. I am also not sure this unanimous consent requirement would apply to HOA meetings. In your above post you discribed how HOA meeting often have non members at the meeting and participate in these meetings for one reason or another, so wouldn't that make a meeting public, if not, it certainly would not describe the meeting as a private conversation that is conducted in a private manner, I don't see an HOA meeting as private conversation. The matter of reasonable rules by the Board has also come up, is it reasonable for the Board to conclude that there has to be unanimous consent of all members to agree to the taping. They certainly don't require this when you drive up to the ATM, or enter the grocery store or go into just about any commercial establishment on happen to walk by by of these security camera. Just my opinion.
I did see something today at the Public Grocery store that sort of puzzled me. They had a sign clearly display that said something like this, "When the store is closed the management of this store does not have the combination to the stores safe."
Does this mean: "if you are going to rob the store, don't do it when the store is closed, do it when it is open because then the management will have the combination."
I don't know why I put that in here.I also suspect there is a valid reason for this, I'm just too dense to see it. |
|
|
|
|
TimB4
(Virginia)
Posts:3229
|
| 03/18/2010 4:20 AM |
|
Robert,
Yes, I based my opinion on what I read in GA law. I would certainly offer a different opinion for VA.
This law applies because there is some expectation of privacy (i.e. limited to the membership and guests)and not the the general public, to where anyone may enter. Yes people bring non-members to the meeting. However, it is certainly not a public event where anyone may enter.
Specifically for GA law:
16-11-62.
It shall be unlawful for:
(2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view;
I'm not a lawyer either. I do work within the Broadcasting industry and this type of stuff is always discussed.
As for the Sign at the grocery store, it is intended to mean what you think it does. The hope is that even though the safe can be opened by the day manager, there is enough people around that you would reconsider not robbing the store and, if set on committing a robbery, pick an easier target. Lets face it, this is why we lock our doors. Locked doors do not prevent robberies (as the robber can enter the home if they wish) it just encourages the robber to look for an easier target.
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
RobertR1
(South Carolina)
Posts:5164
|
| 03/18/2010 4:56 AM |
|
Tim,
Of course, in GA, the next question is: can the Board decree that taping of the meeting is allowed, which would declare the meeting public wouldn't it?
Sinced you have some business experience in these laws in Broadcasting I expect you have be very aware of this stuff. Many HOA's condos hold their meetings in a library, church or maybe a public restaurant. Got any thought about that and it seems to me a private conversation is intended to mean conversation that is held in confidence, How does brodcasting lok at this as opposed to an HOA meeting? I guess both have to be treated alike under GA law?
|
|
|
|
|
FranD
(Georgia)
Posts:100
|
| 03/18/2010 6:13 AM |
|
| Interesting. I take so many notes that they are and have always been correct but seems lately we have a small group that run in this pack and love to push my buttons questioning the minutes. He said, she said, I didn't say that kind of thing. I will look into all the links. One asked why didn't I want to tape? I said "what if it didn't work or ran out of juice or for whatever the reason" I take great notes and will always have them on hand for audit purposes if ever needed. This one person is in their 80's and memory failing. I just tell them thank you for your input and goes away until next minutes. |
|
|
|
|
RobertR1
(South Carolina)
Posts:5164
|
| 03/18/2010 7:09 AM |
|
Yikes Fran,
Maybe you have hit on my problems. I will be 80 in Sept, time for me to bow out. But, I was a pistol when I was in my prime...........I think.
Let me get back to you about that, I'll see if I can contact old Boom Boom, she's only about 75. |
|
|
|
|
MaryA1
Posts:0
|
| 03/18/2010 8:10 AM |
|
Robert,
BANG!!! LOL |
|
|
|
|
RogerB
(Colorado)
Posts:4645
|
| 03/18/2010 9:07 AM |
|
Posted By TimB4 on 03/17/2010 4:44 PM Posted By RogerB on 03/17/2010 8:56 AM
Fran asked "what steps can you take towards the HOA member doing this?"
HOA meetings are not public meetings. Therefore, the Board can establish a rule that no meeting may be electronically recorded without permission of the Board. Roger, Wording of that type would imply that, by being a member, I gave up my legal right to deny the taping. This is not the case. Although this wording could be used, it is misleading as it wouldn't eliminate GA law that requires consent of everyone involved (but implies that only Board permission is needed). Additionally, open meetings are normally open to all and not just members of the Association. Granted, it's usually the members that attend but so do other individuals. Our own meetings have had potential buyers, renters, and invited guests. Proxy representatives can be anyone (not just members) the individual wants. Although it may be possible to get these signatures prior to the meeting, the recording would have to be stopped and permission obtained for anyone arriving to the meeting late. This can cause a disruption to the meeting process. Banning late arrivals can hurt obtaining quorums. Therefore, I believe that the only policy for any HOA in GA (or other States that require unanimous consent) is to deny recording of the meetings. My two cents. Tim
Tim, I am not aware of the GA law you referenced. But, I disagree with your implication that anyone at an HOA meeting has a legal right to deny taping. HOA meetings are not public; they are private meetings which are not open to the public. The meetings are only open to members, members legally authorized representatives, and invited guests. Those persons may be provided an opportunity to have the floor to speak but they have no individual authority to deny anything.
The Policies and Procedures (P&Ps) on recording are established by the association, in compliance with higher level rules. This determines recording procedures. The guidelines I use on such P&Ps or Rules- Is the rule reasonable and is it created in good faith? |
|
|
|
|
TimB4
(Virginia)
Posts:3229
|
| 03/18/2010 2:38 PM |
|
Posted By RobertR1 on 03/18/2010 4:56 AM
\Many HOA's condos hold their meetings in a library, church or maybe a public restaurant. Got any thought about that and it seems to me a private conversation is intended to mean conversation that is held in confidence, How does brodcasting lok at this as opposed to an HOA meeting? I guess both have to be treated alike under GA law?
Robert,
As for Private vs. Public Just as any other organization holds a meeting in a public place. If they rented out the back room, it is still private. If they just showed up and held the meeting in whatever space was available it would be public.
However, if it is held in a private business (restaurant vs. public library) the owner of the property has the right to refuse entry.
State law on wiretapping (electronic recording) applies.
Tim |
|
|
|
|
MaryA1
Posts:0
|
| 03/18/2010 3:08 PM |
|
Tim,
Sorry but I don't agree with your logic re: private vs public meeting. An HOA is a private corp. All meetings of the assn are private, unless they have formally been opened up to the public, no matter where the meeting is held. The A/C of my assn holds their monthly meeting at Starbucks (not in a private room). The meeting is private, not public. All the other patrons at Starbucks are not free to pull up a chair and sit in on the meeting!
Private = for members and invited guests
Public = anyone can attend
Neither has anything to do with where the meeting is held. |
|
|
|
|
TimB4
(Virginia)
Posts:3229
|
| 03/18/2010 3:11 PM |
|
Posted By RogerB on 03/18/2010 9:07 AM
Tim, I am not aware of the GA law you referenced. But, I disagree with your implication that anyone at an HOA meeting has a legal right to deny taping. HOA meetings are not public; they are private meetings which are not open to the public. The meetings are only open to members, members legally authorized representatives, and invited guests. Those persons may be provided an opportunity to have the floor to speak but they have no individual authority to deny anything.
The Policies and Procedures (P&Ps) on recording are established by the association, in compliance with higher level rules. This determines recording procedures. The guidelines I use on such P&Ps or Rules- Is the rule reasonable and is it created in good faith? Roger, It is because they are private, or have an expectation of privacy, that the wiretapping laws apply. I've provided links to both the law and two different sites that interpret those laws. Just as with any other State law, the Association may add restrictions or make policy where the law is silent. However, they do not have authority to ignore the law. The Association might approve an in-ground pool but per county ordinances the lot may be too small. If they still choose to install the pool, the owner would have issues in a legal defense saying "but I got permission to do it from my HOA" An HOA could certainly establish a policy to say no electronic recording unless State law says otherwise (as in VA). They could also make a policy allowing audio, video or both (video does not imply audio) and even state where the devices can be located. Just like approving the pool in my example, if the Board allows recording the person (at least in GA) still needs to get additional approval before proceeding. Other States, like VA, only require that notice be given of the recording prior to the meeting. Then if the anyone chooses to attend they have given permission to be video tapped. How this might impact a meeting (quorum, decorum, etc.) is a guess for me. In reality, the issue isn't the actual recording process but what is done with the recording after the meeting. This thread alone mentioned that, if done by the Association, the recordings are part of the official record. Someone also provided you-tube links to various meetings. If your State allows electronic recording of the meetings or not, there are potential issues that won't come to light until people see what is done with the recording.This is what the Association must consider. For Fran or anyone in GA, I've offered my opinion and provided links to the laws that I used to base my opinion on. I also provided additional links that provide interpretation of the the same law. I never said recording of the meeting wasn't allowed. I said that, per GA law, permission must be obtained from the participants first. Good discussion. Tim |
|
|
|
|
TimB4
(Virginia)
Posts:3229
|
| 03/18/2010 3:32 PM |
|
Posted By MaryA1 on 03/18/2010 3:08 PM
Tim,
Sorry but I don't agree with your logic re: private vs public meeting. An HOA is a private corp. All meetings of the assn are private, unless they have formally been opened up to the public, no matter where the meeting is held. The A/C of my assn holds their monthly meeting at Starbucks (not in a private room). The meeting is private, not public. All the other patrons at Starbucks are not free to pull up a chair and sit in on the meeting!
Private = for members and invited guests
Public = anyone can attend
Neither has anything to do with where the meeting is held.
Mary,
I went back and looked and I'm not sure where I gave that opinion. However, let me clarify:
Yes meetings of the Association are generally considered private. There is an expectation of priviacy at these meetings. That is unless they are held in a public place that is not closed off from public view (having a meeting in the park vs. renting a room in the county library).
Since you are holding your meetings in Starbucks general area (not in a private room at Starbucks), there is not an expectation of privacy as anyone entering Starbucks can overhear the conversation. They might not be invited to pull up a chair but they can hear what is happening (assuming that they are even interested). In general, A private meeting in a public place that is not shielded by public view waives the expectation of privacy.
If your meeting was held in the general dining room of a Starbucks in GA, and the restaurant was still open to the public for service, electronic recording could occur providing Starbucks (being a private business) allows it.
I would even suspect that video (perhaps audio as well) of your meeting in AZ might have been captured by Starbucks surveillance system.
Hope this (and my other responses) help clarify my earlier statements.
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
MaryA1
Posts:0
|
| 03/19/2010 8:23 AM |
|
Tim,
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I stand by my opinion that HOA meetings are private and that does NOT depend upon where the meeting takes place. Even the A/C meeting at Starbucks is private. The Chair does not stand up and loudly make announcements. The committee and any assn members present sit around a table and quietly discuss the business at hand. In fact only the member whose application is being discussed sits at the table. Other members who are present wait to be called to the table so they don't even hear the discussion of other members' applications. I attended several of these meetings as a homeowner with an application and I know they were very private. Sure, anyone can "try" to eavesdrop but that alone does not make it a public meeting.
Of course that's just my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Thx for the interesting dialogue. I always find it interesting to hear others' points of view. |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
General Legal Notice: The content of forum messages are from the posting member and have not been reviewed nor endorsed by HOATalk.com. Messages posted by HOATalk or other members are for informational purposes only, are not legal or professional advice and do not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. HOATalk is not a licensed attorney, CPA, tax advisor, financial advisor or any other licensed professional. HOATalk accepts ads from sponsors but does not verify sponsor qualifications nor endorse/guarantee any sponsor's product or service.
HindmanSanchez Legal Notice: (For messages posted by HindmanSanchez) This message has been prepared by HindmanSanchez for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Members of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send us confidential information unless you speak with one of our attorneys and get authorization to send that information to us. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in our firm. Our attorneys are licensed to practice law in the state of Colorado only.
Legal Notice For Messages Posted by Sponsoring Attorneys: This message has been prepared by the sponsoring attorney for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Readers of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send any sponsoring attorney confidential information unless you speak with the sponsoring attorney or an attorney from the sponsoring attorney’s firm and get authorization to send that information to them. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in the firm of the sponsoring attorney. Sponsoring attorneys that post messages here are licensed to practice law in a specific state or states as indicated in their message signature or sponsor’s profile page. (NOTE: A ‘sponsoring attorney’ is an attorney that is a HOATalk.com official sponsor and is identified as such in the posted message or on our sponsor page.)
|
|