Get 2 months of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Get 2 months of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.
Subject: owner's husband is upset because he can't view security camera footage.
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Author Messages
BonnieG1
(Nebraska)

Posts:1181


12/24/2019 11:35 AM  
This year the owners voted to install security cameras. An owner's husband(who is not on the deed) put a bid in to the Board to use his equipment which the Board rejected for good reason. I think it was about 4 to 6 weeks ago that this couple had some snow tires stolen from the garage space. One of the Board members looked at the security footage, determined that the thief was a visitor of an owner. The couple who did have the tires stolen did call the police and the police did come to take a report. Also the Board member who viewed the security footage gave a thumb drive copy to the police. This is not satisfying this man.

He just came to my door about an hour ago and wanted to know who would be on the ballot at the annual meeting. I did tell him that no one had been officially nominated yet. I explained that the police were given the thumb drive, but he wants to be able to go see the footage himself and go back weeks prior to the time his tires were stolen. His reasoning is this person has probably been here before and we need to see what else she may have taken.

I personally think he is just upset because the Board did not take his bid for cameras.

Any help on how we can handle this will be appreciated. I think he just wants to talk to whomever is nominated to see if they will "help him". His reasoning is that the cameras belong to everyone so he should get to view the footage. He was wanting to view the footage even before the tires were stolen.

Although I am not on the Board I am on good terms with 4 Board Members. The rogue Board member I am certain does not like me. This rogue Board member was the one that suggested the Board "help" the man whose tires were stolen. But now has told the man who had the tires stolen that he would not help him.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:1877


12/24/2019 12:02 PM  
As you are not a Board member, you have no relationship to any of this. You are simply a property owner.

Stay out of it.
AugustinD


Posts:2411


12/24/2019 12:02 PM  
Posted By BonnieG1 on 12/24/2019 11:35 AM
His reasoning is that the cameras belong to everyone so he should get to view the footage. He was wanting to view the footage even before the tires were stolen.


From Nebraska's Condominium Act, https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=76-876:
"76-876. Association records.
The association shall keep financial records sufficiently detailed to enable the association to comply with section 76-884. All financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any unit owner and his or her authorized agents.

As needed, see also http://www.ncsl.org/documents/environ/NEcondo.pdf .

Your condo's governing documents probably say similar.

If this gentleman is effectively a member of the condo association under the rules of marriage in Nebraska, this gentleman has a legal right to see this footage. (At the moment, I do not think he is a condo member.) No one should be fighting him on this.

Alternatively the husband can just ask his wife to make the request.

Notice that the Nebraska Condominium Act says nothing about denying records to a member if this member has a motive or purpose attributed to him (by sheer speculation and gossip) that someone else does not like.
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:16632


12/24/2019 12:37 PM  
Posted By BonnieG1 on 12/24/2019 11:35 AM

He just came to my door about an hour ago and wanted to know who would be on the ballot at the annual meeting. I did tell him that no one had been officially nominated yet.




You say your not on the board. However, it appears you may be (at least) active with the board.

As others have said, stay out of it.
Defer to board members.
If need be, defer to Association attorney.
MarkM19
(Texas)

Posts:506


12/24/2019 12:42 PM  
Bonnie,
When the cameras were installed the board should have also put in place Rules around how the cameras and the video is reviewed. This should include Who can view the Footage, How long the video footage is retained and what steps are needed before video is turned over to anyone.

In my last HOA we would only save the video till the system over rights the video based on our hard drive which was 2 to 3 weeks. The video is not kept for months. If the homeowner wants to view they would need to file a Police Report and have Police request the footage.

I can see so many misuses or abuses of this footage. What if a Husband or Wife thinks the spouse is cheating and wants to review this footage because they are paranoid or maybe they will catch the other person. Suddenly the HOA is involved in a divorce. What if someone wants to know when the gardener was at their home or a maid. Those are not crimes and the cameras are not there for this type of surveillance.

Rules need to be put in place and followed.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:6817


12/24/2019 12:44 PM  
In CA statues there's quite a list of Association records that owners may review. And another of records they may not review. Video recordings aren't on either list, which makes me wonder if they are, in fact "other records" as defined in NE's Condo Act.

Whether or not this man may review the tapes, Bonnie, you really should have referred him to the Board for a decision. He can write to them requesting access.
BonnieG1
(Nebraska)

Posts:1181


12/24/2019 2:37 PM  
This man came to my door. I told him that I am not on the Board. I would be very glad to stay out of it. Our Current President has told me suggestions I make are helpful. And there are some great responses posted here.

When I first e-mailed our current President with ideas, I was concerned that what I thought as being helpful could be more of a problem. When I was on the Board some people who thought they were "helping" the Board were a problem to the Board. Our current president assured me that information I gave was a help especially since I had read our documents.

I am thinking that if this man ever comes to my door again I will not even answer the door. Believe me I wish I could "stay out of it". I told him one time I don't even want to talk to him about this problem. That is probably what I should have done this time. But hindsight is better than foresight.

He is not the only person who has come to me with problems since I resigned from the Board due to ovarian cancer diagnosis. It is in remission now. I will usually tell them they need to let the Board know. But they vent to me anyway. I remind people who vent to me that I am not on the Board and have no authority.

One off site owner even e-mailed me to call her about the problem with her unit. I left a message on her machine reminding her that I am not on the Board anymore.



GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:1877


12/24/2019 2:55 PM  
Augustin,

I understand the language of the Nebraska statute.

Regardless, if I were the board President, I would push to ensure no one views surveillance footage except law enforcement - and, if law enforcement asks for assistance in identification of people or things, from members.

If pushed into a lawsuit circumstance, I would attempt to sidestep the issue entirely.

My contention, unless shown specifically otherwise, is that security surveillance material is not a record available to the community for examination.
BonnieG1
(Nebraska)

Posts:1181


12/24/2019 3:29 PM  
He has asked the Board.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:1877


12/24/2019 3:41 PM  
Let us know what happens, please!
BonnieG1
(Nebraska)

Posts:1181


12/24/2019 3:43 PM  
He told me earlier that his wife had told him to stay "out of it"
AugustinD


Posts:2411


12/24/2019 7:32 PM  
George, for the interested reader (done with reading the phone book for the day), Nebraska had a 2018 appeals court decision that said "other records" means "other records" without limitation. A Nebraska condo board passed a resolution restricting a member's right to view records. The member took the condo to court and won this issue on appeal. See https://law.justia.com/cases/nebraska/court-of-appeals/2018/a-17-682.html . Of course, like you posted, this will have little-to-no-bearing on how boards actually conduct themselves. It's a legitimate strategy for a board to just refuse to comport with the law on records until someone drags the HOA to court.

How do I know it is legitimate? Because when the HOA loses in court on a records request, the courts do not make HOAs pay the opposition's attorney's fees.

More importantly at this point, the OP appears to want suggestions on how to get along with neighbors.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:1877


12/24/2019 7:43 PM  
Surveillance video, I believe, is not an association record.

Be interesting to hear if this gets to court in Nebraska.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


12/25/2019 6:12 AM  
Posted By BonnieG1 on 12/24/2019 2:37 PM
This man came to my door.

This, in and of itself, is a problem. Makes no difference if you are on the BOD or not.

Your house is not an HOA office. You don't keep business hours. It's your home. If you need a policy, it's the one that says your home is your own private sanctuary. No one should come knocking at your door, especially when they may be angry at something going on in the community. If it's an emergency, they should call 911. Otherwise leave you alone.

On the issue of "other business records," I think of it this way - If I had paper documents, and those documents included private information about one person, I would only share the portion that actually is business information and I would redact the personal information. Redaction is common when it comes to business records for valid reasons. Just because the medium is different (video vs paper) does not mean that privacy issues should be treated differently.

Sharing with police when there's a potential criminal act makes sense. Policy statement to community makes sense. Sharing information for non-HOA business reasons makes no sense.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
KellyM3
(North Carolina)

Posts:1452


12/25/2019 7:53 AM  
Every property owner has partially funded the surveillance system so I'm torn on this issue (but it is interesting).

If the camera system is easily accessible for the property owner to view his own property, and there's been a confirmed theft, I don't see the burden in screening the archive of that particular camera because I don't believe a general HOA board member has any greater "right" to see the footage. The only exception would be if archival review meant large time investments to convert files for thumb drive use, etc. After all, the property owner has been victimized and not the HOA.

HOA boards take on this duty when they launch surveillance programs over their communities. Unless absolutely necessary to NOT collaborate, I think HOA boards should partner w/ owners.

This property owner should expect communication and openness.

BonnieG1
(Nebraska)

Posts:1181


12/25/2019 8:13 AM  
The cameras are not easily accessible for the property owner to view his own property. Also we are an apartment style condominium with a shared garage on the first fl. He is renting a space from and unit owner who does not have a vehicle so the place from where the tires were stolen was not his property. Also garage spaces are listed as limited common areas.

The archival review he is requesting does mean a large time investments to convert files for thumb drive use, etc. He is not requesting this because of another theft. He just wants to see when the person who stole his tires was in the building before and did she steal anything prior to stealing his tires. To my knowledge the only theft that has been reported (I still attend as many Board meetings as I can attend as an interested owner) is the theft of his tires.

I am thinking that the Board should suggest that he get the video of the theft of his tires from the police.

It is also my opinion that the underlying reason this man's request for such time consuming activity is that the Board rejected his bid for camera equipment.

I think he should have listened to his wife (I think they were here tires) and stayed out of it. When I told him he should have listened to his wife, his response was basically she is not doing what I want to do.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:1877


12/25/2019 8:16 AM  
This is a law enforcement matter, with Board assistance.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


12/25/2019 8:37 AM  
Posted By KellyM3 on 12/25/2019 7:53 AM
Every property owner has partially funded the surveillance system so I'm torn on this issue (but it is interesting).

But not everyone is a fiduciary. Fiduciaries have an obligation to put the interests of the community above their own. I doubt that the person who wanted to see the video was interested in anything more than his own interests. Non-fiduciaries should not have open access IMO.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
AugustinD


Posts:2411


12/25/2019 8:40 AM  
Just exploring here, as the OP (not a director) ponders all.

Posted By BonnieG1 on 12/25/2019 8:13 AM
He is renting a space from [a] unit owner who does not have a vehicle so the place from where the tires were stolen was not his property.
Are you saying that a person who rents space has no legal rights to the space? So if you were renting and a burglar robbed you of diamond jewelry, you would not be in a lawful position to pursue a remedy?

Posted By BonnieG1 on 12/25/2019 8:13 AM
It is also my opinion that the underlying reason this man's request for such time consuming activity is that the Board rejected his bid for camera equipment.
Can you show me where in the Nebraska condominium statute it says that, "If the record requester's underlying reason for the record request is not to the Board's liking, then the Board may refuse to provide the record"?
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:1877


12/25/2019 9:56 AM  
Thanks, as always, Augustin.

First question is easy - I think you intended it to be.

Second question sort of twists the point to generalize all information as "records." I think everyone understands records - as it relates to HOAs, but even here there are some areas where there are differences, eg, bids and some business content and some legal records. My contention on this - and, it is just a contention, unless it goes to court - is that surveillance footage in an HOA/COA is not a "record" in the historic intent. It is there to specifically, and usually forensically, assist law enforcement. I contend :-) the information obtain is not a record in this classic sense.

Continuing - if I were the president of this Board, I would attempt to immediately work with the Board to develop a process - and vote on this process at the next Board meeting - to show a specific flow of the process whereby law enforcement, at their request, reviews the surveillance records, probably with the assistance of those that are responsible for the cameras and storage (this COULD be a Board member, or a member of the security staff, etc). If law enforcement needs more assistance from members of the community, they can, by their normal process of investigation, interview those individuals and use the surveillance material per their normal process.

Bonnie may just be a nice person. In my neighborhood - I would welcome an owner asking me a question in person. I would not welcome them if they did this repetitively as an ankle biter/pest, nor would I welcome it if they were aggressive in any way. There are two things at work: 1. being neighborly, and 2. being approachable as a member of the Board.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:9053


12/25/2019 10:20 AM  
Posted By GeorgeS21 on 12/25/2019 9:56 AM
Thanks, as always, Augustin.

First question is easy - I think you intended it to be.

Second question sort of twists the point to generalize all information as "records." I think everyone understands records - as it relates to HOAs, but even here there are some areas where there are differences, eg, bids and some business content and some legal records. My contention on this - and, it is just a contention, unless it goes to court - is that surveillance footage in an HOA/COA is not a "record" in the historic intent. It is there to specifically, and usually forensically, assist law enforcement. I contend :-) the information obtain is not a record in this classic sense.

Continuing - if I were the president of this Board, I would attempt to immediately work with the Board to develop a process - and vote on this process at the next Board meeting - to show a specific flow of the process whereby law enforcement, at their request, reviews the surveillance records, probably with the assistance of those that are responsible for the cameras and storage (this COULD be a Board member, or a member of the security staff, etc). If law enforcement needs more assistance from members of the community, they can, by their normal process of investigation, interview those individuals and use the surveillance material per their normal process.

Bonnie may just be a nice person. In my neighborhood - I would welcome an owner asking me a question in person. I would not welcome them if they did this repetitively as an ankle biter/pest, nor would I welcome it if they were aggressive in any way. There are two things at work: 1. being neighborly, and 2. being approachable as a member of the Board.




Good advice.
AugustinD


Posts:2411


12/25/2019 11:09 AM  
Posted By GeorgeS21 on 12/25/2019 9:56 AM
I think everyone understands records - as it relates to HOAs, but even here there are some areas where there are differences, eg, bids and some business content and some legal records. My contention on this - and, it is just a contention, unless it goes to court - is that surveillance footage in an HOA/COA is not a "record" in the historic intent. It is there to specifically, and usually forensically, assist law enforcement. I contend :-) the information obtain is not a record in this classic sense.


Recreating on the Xmas holiday --

George, I agree with your examples of HOA records that are not open to members in any state. The laws on certain types of "privileged" communications, like attorney-client privilege or proprietary privilege, appear to frequently trump the statutes on HOA record inspection by members. Also an individual's right to privacy often trumps the HOA record inspection statutes.

Let's suppose the film footage of at least the time-of-theft was retained on a memory stick or computer. I too wondered whether the film footage may not be a "record of the association" as the phrase is used in the Nebraska condo statute. Perhaps, as I think you may be saying, it may be reasonable to focus on the modifier "of the association." A 'record // of // the association' is a record that represents board or association action in some way, such as financials, receipts for services ordered, minutes of non-executive session meetings and the like.

For the sake of argument, suppose this gentleman is a member of the HOA. He files suit, demanding (1) the footage at the time of the theft and/or a copy of what the police were given on a thumb drive; (2) the prior weeks' footage, without specifying exact days; and (3) his attorney's fees. Suppose the HOA's attorney argued what George argued (film footage of a parking garage is not a record intended by the Nebraska Condo Act). The HOA's attorney also argues that there are privacy concerns (as others here at hoatalk mentioned). The member's attorney rebuts that there are no privacy concerns for the time-of-theft footage in particular. The member's attorney says that there are other HOA records that a member should be able to see that do not reflect acts of the Board or HOA, such as the member list or architectural plans submitted by members for approval. (Kerry pointed out that the California HOA statute delineates records that may be inspected. The California statute's list includes architectural plans submitted by members for approval and member lists.)

Suppose I am the trial judge. I am one of those judges who hates how backed up my court is with bullsh-t. Still I do not like my decisions being overturned. I want to be seen as fair by as many people as possible. Else justice in this country is dead. (I have watched a few judges in the last ten years. In civil court, I think they are pretty serious about trying to get things as right as possible.) First, I am not going to make a sweeping ruling that tries to address future disputes over records. I think as a judge I would be concerned that this gentleman had his snow tires stolen on condo property. I think it is not just a police matter. The HOA member might want to keep this from happening again and thinks the footage may reveal things he can do to stop it in the future. (The member's attorney has made these arguments.) The HOA member has partly paid for the film footage. Given how sweeping the Nebraska condo statute is on records, and given that a serious crime has been perpetrated, I think I'd rule that the HOA must turn over a copy of the thumb drive to the member. If it is not hard to get a copy of the time-of-theft footage, to me this seems completely fair, reasonable and consistent with the statute.

Second, regarding the member's request for--WTH does he want? (The judge thinks to herself in private.) Weeks and weeks of footage? The member's attorney contends that the member wants to check for other crimes. The HOA's attorney has rebutted that the court should not endorse vigilante action. This HOA member merely wants to be Charles Bronson in "Death Wish," the well-paid HOA attorney roars. The HOA says it either does not have this old footage anyway, or it would be very expensive to retrieve this. It would be very expensive to save every moment of 24/7 footage. Lastly, the court is not supposed to rule before a dispute has even arisen, and there is not really a dispute over the several weeks of footage preceding the theft. Ruling for the member on (2) appears to place a huge burden on the HOA. Ruling on (2) is for the HOA. The judge also cautions the member about making requests for footage in the future that unfairly burden the HOA.

Then the two sides' attorneys take everyone out for an expensive lunch.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:1877


12/25/2019 11:23 AM  
Interesting ...

"...I think it is not just a police matter. The HOA member might want to keep this from happening again and thinks the footage may reveal things he can do to stop it in the future. (The member's attorney has made these arguments.) The HOA member has partly paid for the film footage. Given how sweeping the Nebraska condo statute is on records, and given that a serious crime has been perpetrated, I think I'd rule that the HOA must turn over a copy of the thumb drive to the member. If it is not hard to get a copy of the time-of-theft footage, to me this seems completely fair, reasonable and consistent with the statute."
- I contend it is a law enforcement matter - and, clearly it is an ownership matter. If law enforcement wants to turn over evidence of a crime or precursor footage, then that is up to them. How could a corporation turn over evidence if the police don't? I can't imagine a judge thinking it reasonable to turn over investigation materials to a member of a community, even if the wronged member.

Process component might be, in criminal cases like this, to turn over the material to law enforcement, then immediately erase the material from the main hard drive. This ensures law enforcement as the organization to go to.
SueW6
(Michigan)

Posts:643


12/25/2019 11:57 AM  
Once the police got involved and this became a police investigation, the HOA should stay out of it and defer all questions to the investigating officer.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:1877


12/25/2019 12:16 PM  
I think Augustin is approaching this from a case law perspective.

I'm approaching it from a Board perspective, only, and as a result could end up losing in court ... BUT, once law enforcement is involved, then the Board should have very little to say, except when necessary to provide contact information, and a nod to the folks who maintain the surveillance system.
BonnieG1
(Nebraska)

Posts:1181


12/25/2019 3:34 PM  
This man has repeatedly complained to me about the cameras. Before his tires were stolen he would tell me "It is ashamed the Board did not go with digital meaning his cameras. We were usually in the laundry room when he told me this.

We have a zigsaw puzzle on the third floor next to his unit that some of our residents work on. I get my exercise using nordic poles to walk to the puzzle sit down a while and work on the puzzle. He has told me as I was working on the puzzle that it is ashamed the Board didn't go with digital.

He placed a note in every residents box complaining about not being able to see footage for weeks prior to his tires being stolen. And wanted people to call the Board member who reviews the footage to insist that she take her time to review weeks of footage.

He was coming home one day while I was at the puzzle and told me that he knew I did now agree with what he did. I told him at that time that I did not even want to talk to him about it.

In my opinion this man is making a pest of himself. I would have no problem with him seeing the footage of the theft but as some have stated here, he should get that from the police.

This man has man a pest of himself on other issues. I just won't go into all the ways this man has man a pest of himself. His wife is working and he has not worked for some time although he is not 65 yet.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:1877


12/25/2019 4:01 PM  
If no crime has been committed, the Board should also NOT be reviewing surveillance footage.

The recorded material should be retained for X time, and if no crimes reported, deleted.

Surveillance material is not for entertainment, or just in case, review.
BonnieG1
(Nebraska)

Posts:1181


12/25/2019 5:02 PM  
I agree with you to a certain extent. I just found out that the springs have been broken on our West garage door and someone put a not saying the door was out of order call door company Thursday and 321. I don't know if 321 is a unit number or not if it is no one who lives in this unit is on the Board and should have contacted a Board member. The camera footage will at least let us know what happened and who put the note on the door.

Also a while back my sister was missing a package and a Board member reviewed the footage to see if it had been stolen.

Believe me no one on the Board has the time to just sit and review footage just for the fun of reviewing the footage.

I did tell our President about our broken garage door. As I was talking to her I suggested that the pest of a man get in touch with the police to review the footage of when his tires were stolen. She told me she thought that he had already been able to review the footage.

BonnieG1
(Nebraska)

Posts:1181


12/25/2019 5:04 PM  
Basically that is what happens. The footage is retained for X time (I forget how long) and then deleted if no crimes are reported. What this man is wanting is a "just in case" review" and no one is going to do that for him.
BonnieG1
(Nebraska)

Posts:1181


12/25/2019 5:11 PM  
The President just told me a short time ago that she thinks this man has already seen the footage of when his tires were stolen.
AugustinD


Posts:2411


12/29/2019 5:37 PM  
Posted By GeorgeS21 on 12/25/2019 12:16 PM
I think Augustin is approaching this from a case law perspective.
It was based partly on the case law and partly on my uncertainty that security camera film footage is a "record of the association" in the same way Minutes, financial statements, awarded contracts and so on are. I came down on the side of what I felt was reasonable, fair and not likely to be appealed. One thing is for sure: A non-specific, sweeping request for records of xyz is time and again not considered a legitimate records request. The courts have required members/shareholders to be specific, or else.
CathyA3
(Ohio)

Posts:667


12/30/2019 5:55 AM  
Posted By GeorgeS21 on 12/24/2019 7:43 PM
Surveillance video, I believe, is not an association record.

Be interesting to hear if this gets to court in Nebraska.




Why would it not be? Serious question, not trying to start an argument.

I can understand that it may not be one of those records that must be given to owners if they ask for it. But if the HOA pays for the equipment and it was put up for a specific reason (increased safety, etc.), I don't understand why any footage would not belong to the HOA.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:1877


12/30/2019 6:40 AM  
IMO, because it is not:
- a recording of an official meeting
- a written record of an official meeting
- a business record
- a legal record

Setting aside the connotation in the intelligence community, I consider surveillance footage to be a forensic tool for enforcement of law, policy or regulation.

Thinking about the effect if it were a record of HOAs, means that everyone would own their share if it was property, or have legal access to review ... they would then be participating in codified stalking of their neighbors, or trying to be connected to law enforcement.

Categorizing it is difficult, but I would never allow owners the ability to review surveillance materials. I would be very careful, even, of any ability by board members - frankly not sure how to limit, except a R&R or Bylaw change, and there would no one sure fits all solution.

The point in this thread is simple - owners or husbands of owners do not review, then decide to go further back for clues ... this is investigation and it is done by law enforcement with required and requested (process) assistance from law enforcement. Even in those cases, I would consider NDAs for board or security personnel.
CathyA3
(Ohio)

Posts:667


12/30/2019 7:24 AM  
Posted By GeorgeS21 on 12/30/2019 6:40 AM
IMO, because it is not:
- a recording of an official meeting
- a written record of an official meeting
- a business record
- a legal record

Setting aside the connotation in the intelligence community, I consider surveillance footage to be a forensic tool for enforcement of law, policy or regulation.

Thinking about the effect if it were a record of HOAs, means that everyone would own their share if it was property, or have legal access to review ... they would then be participating in codified stalking of their neighbors, or trying to be connected to law enforcement.

Categorizing it is difficult, but I would never allow owners the ability to review surveillance materials. I would be very careful, even, of any ability by board members - frankly not sure how to limit, except a R&R or Bylaw change, and there would no one sure fits all solution.

The point in this thread is simple - owners or husbands of owners do not review, then decide to go further back for clues ... this is investigation and it is done by law enforcement with required and requested (process) assistance from law enforcement. Even in those cases, I would consider NDAs for board or security personnel.




Makes sense, and I agree with your last paragraph. I thought about classifying the footage as a confidential record, but I'm even concerned about board members viewing it - too many board members are uninformed or irresponsible, and the potential for misuse is high.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:1877


12/30/2019 8:32 AM  
No kidding ...

The only difference between a board member and an owner in many states, is the owner puts their name in the process ... almost auto elevation.

Much grief can come from elected, however accidentally done, officials without them having sufficient education, knowledge or good intent.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:1877


12/30/2019 11:43 AM  
Sorry - should be “auto election,” not “auto elevation.”
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > owner's husband is upset because he can't view security camera footage.



Get 2 months of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!



News Articles Provided by: Community Associations Network
News, articles and blogs about condos/HOA's

Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.







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.)

Copyright HOA Talk.com, A Service of Community123 LLC ( Homeowners Association Discussions )   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement