Opps the Back Peddling Board Member.

Started by IreneC • 22 replies • 1456 views

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

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

IreneC (North Carolina)
Posts: 111

Posted:

One of our issues in our building is the fact that over the last few years have had misc birds house around complex. Mostly pigeon and some others like doves ect.

Our last meeting minutes reflect a board member recomending looking at poison food, ,and removing all birds nests in the garage. He said "I will take car of it".

Our minutes went out after all ok'd them and omg.. It is AGAINST FEDERAL LAW IN CA to remove nesting especially if occupied by babies.. in regards to doves. I had a homeowner email me a link and sure enough.. it is. I forwarded this to the board and let them be aware we need advisement on this.

The board member who ok'd the minutes states that he didn't say he would remove the nests although they are gone now and he ok'd the minutes.

Is he the one that will have issues with legal action if it happens?

BradP (Kansas)
Posts: 2,640

Posted:

Sounds like a news story in your future...better hope PETA or one of the other animal rights organizations doesn't get ahold of this, especially where it talks about looking at poison.

Unless the board okayed him removing and/or poisoning then he should be the only one legally in trouble. Although the fact that no one on the board objected in the minutes could cause some PR issues if it leaks out.

IreneC (North Carolina)
Posts: 111

Posted:

You are so right. I know this looks bad! I myself know there are other methods to deter birds including the use of barn owl statues.. and making sure that HO's are putting out bird feeders! We live in a area that really doesn't need this.. there is plenty elsewhere for our feathered friends to eat!

BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820

Posted:

it is against federal law in all states (ie, the federal aspect) to remove ACTIVE nests of migratory and native birds. You cannot damage the nests if there are eggs or birds in it.

However, pigeons, starlings and what we tend to call the common house sparrow are not native bird species, and thus, are not protected by the act. they are considered feral/pest species, invasive, and the feds don't care what you do with those nests.

Just make sure you know the difference in the birds and nests.

IreneC (North Carolina)
Posts: 111

Posted:

I appreciate your response. My fellow board member did remove the nest accidently.. but now states he didn't say he would do it. Why be so untruthful as we all know, approved the minutes where it's documented.. and we were ignorant to the matter as well.

BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820

Posted:

if it was a pigeon nest, he's fine.
if it was a dove's nest, he may or may not be "in trouble": If it was active, he committed a crime. if it was not, then he didn't.

Of course, if he did committ a crime, then it's only a problem for him if someone has evidence of it (or he provides evidence of it).

KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665

Posted:

Irene,

Before getting too upset, it all depends on the varieties of birds. You mentioned pigeons, and the common "feral pigeon" and the "rock dove" are NOT protected by the migratory birds act. Nor are the the house sparrow or the grackle.

To be sure, you can not just declare war on birds nests without knowing what birds you are disturbing. But a call to th your "game and fish" department will put you on the right track to knowing what you can (and can't) get rid of easily. The thing is to take the whole things a little slower. You have to watch for authorities on all levels. And you have to be aware that the local DAs office might look into "animal cruelty" charges even if there is no protection for the nuisance.

If you can legally, your best bet is to live trap the animal. Then quietly kill the pest well away from the public. In your board minutes simply state "live trapping and removal." If you release a pest in another area, you simply pass it to another person. But some people will come out of the wood work to defend nearly anything.

IreneC (North Carolina)
Posts: 111

Posted:

I don't think I approve of this advice. Kill off site.

We are under my suggestion looking into natural deterants and there are PLENTY of them available. However you veiw this, I know they are pest, but we have live white doves in our garage that are under protection. I will not allow a trap and release idea as suggestion. NO offense on my end nor is it meant when I say that this is not the backwoods, and taking something offsite to kill it quietly does not sit very kindly with my conscience!

GloriaM (North Carolina)
Posts: 829

Posted:

Irene:

If the Mintues were approved by the board then the board is obligated to make certain the Minutes are correct. Chimney Sweep Birds are also protected by law. We had a HO who had them in her fireplace and chimney and she wanted them out. They are protected so she had to wait until they flew the coup, sort of speak.

BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820

Posted:

Just an FYI, kirk and others who may read this, the grackle (all three species) are indeed protected by the migratory bird act. However, under a special section of the code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 21.43), grackles may be controlled under limited circumstances, as when property damage, human health or safety become an issue. Just being a nuisance doesn't count, so, if you are going to take out a grackle, be sure the read the federal law and do it correctly, and have your I's dotted and T's crossed so you comply with the law.

BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By IreneC on 06/12/2008 1:55 PM
I don't think I approve of this advice. Kill off site. NO offense on my end nor is it meant when I say that this is not the backwoods, and taking something offsite to kill it quietly does not sit very kindly with my conscience!

I don't know Irene, this idea seemed to work for our President and Congress. Isn't that the entire reason we are fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan right now? And why we keep prisoners in ships and foreign countries, off US Soil?

GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By GloriaM on 06/12/2008 3:16 PM
Irene:

If the Mintues were approved by the board then the board is obligated to make certain the Minutes are correct. Chimney Sweep Birds are also protected by law. We had a HO who had them in her fireplace and chimney and she wanted them out. They are protected so she had to wait until they flew the coup, sort of speak.

Unlike Congress whose members can alter the Congressional Record at will removing whole sections of any idiotic statements they might have said and replacing them with stirring oratories.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By BrianB on 06/12/2008 3:52 PM

I don't know Irene, this idea seemed to work for our President and Congress. Isn't that the entire reason we are fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan right now? And why we keep prisoners in ships and foreign countries, off US Soil?

BrianB, don't MAKE me love you. . .

BrianB (California)
Posts: 2,820

Posted:

don't worry michele, i will say something stupid again soon, and you can hate me.

IreneC (North Carolina)
Posts: 111

Posted:

Out of all the birdie discussion I still would love some feed back on the back peddler who is well telling us something different now. I think I should proceed with caution with this one. he is a back peddler.

GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By IreneC on 06/12/2008 6:54 PM
Out of all the birdie discussion I still would love some feed back on the back peddler who is well telling us something different now. I think I should proceed with caution with this one. he is a back peddler.

Irene the time and place for him to make any objections was before the minutes were approved, I assume he did it without raising any objections. He can make a motion to amend the minutes but the amendment would have to state what was being changed; so he's pretty well stuck with the comments in the meeting either way.

P.S. If you don't want the question to go off in new and exciting ways limit the extraneous information when you post. I.E. We had a Board member who volunteered to take care of a pest problem in our garages; the minutes reflect him saying he would use poison bait. The pests are now gone however doing so may have violated the law.

The problem is the minutes, which he approved clearly indicate him saying he would take care of it. He now denies saying this and wants the minutes changed. Can he do this? OR Is he the one that will have issues with legal action if it happens?

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Irene, again, please don't take offense, but there is no way we can validate any of your perceptions or analysis of your fellow board members, including this one, because, quite frankly, we don't have the benefit of being the fly on the wall that sees and hears all that is going down. We only have your version or interpretation of what was said or done. I'm not saying you are necessarily inaccurate or fibbing or embellishing, it's just everyone has different filters through which they process their environment. We're not there to do that with you and do not have the other board members' interpretations of events, either.

We don't know what inflections he's using when he's saying things. We don't know what his motivations are or why he would appear to be a back peddler.

I would say, as a general rule of thumb, be respectful of your fellow board members and simply deal with their actions or statements in as professional and unbiased a manner as possible, even when you have real issues with the way they say or handle things.

Give all the benefit of the doubt, but reserve some "benefit" for the "doubt." Until such time as you have confirmation that is unequivocal, try to be fair minded. Your experience and gut will lead you on most assessments.

It's always a good idea to keep communication up front and be as honest and frank as one can possibly be.

Some people just aren't that open. It doesn't mean they are sneaky or have an agenda, they just may communicate differently.

Sometimes, too, we must look at our own motivations and filters. Does this guy annoy me in some way? Do I have a particular dislike for him or his positions? Might those emotional filters color the way I "hear" what he says or "read" his words on the page?

SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202

Posted:

I can't believe that a comment/opinion/side conversation made by a board member is in the minutes!! And Approved!

Irene, make sure your minutes ONLY reflect the ACTIONS of the Board. Motions and votes. Reports are attached to the minutes, no re-written. Opinions, side comments, gonna-dos and other conversations are NOT supposed to be in minutes. (A little side comment cost our HOA $12,000 one year)

By "approving" his comment, the entire Board is now responsible for the action that resulted. Minutes are the legal record of the organization.

GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491

Posted:

Susan this doesn't seem like a side comment to me. A problem existed, a BOD member volunteered to "take care of it". No different than if he volunteered to post notices for the annual meeting or other innocuous but necessary task. In this case he volunteered to do something that may have violated the law and if the authorities get involved IMO then everyone on the BOD that told him to go ahead will be on the hook. Ignorance of the law is not a viable defense in most cases.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions

KirkW1 (Texas)
Posts: 1,665

Posted:

The devil is always in the details. If the minutes simply stated board member X said he would take care of the birds, then there is some liability. Now if board member X as stopped before commencing an activity that bothers the birds and now wants out, then the next meeting simply note that board member X will not take care of the issue because of legal concerns on how to "git rid of" the birds.

You should not make detailed comments and/or records of a debate. As previously stated, make a record of actions. And if one member is the lead person to carry forth the action that should be noted. If things don't work out, you simply notate that in the next meetings minutes.

Deciding to remove a bird's nest is not a federal crime. Actually doing so may be a federal crime. If the action was to remove but not done, make a note of that.

I would suggest you try and figure out what is the concern of the board member. I am sure he doesn't want to be portrayed as a bird hater. Nor does he want to have records showing that he was committing a crime. But if you note in the next meeting that no action was taken because of concern about legality all is covered. You could even mention concern for little birdies.

It is not unusual at all for a person to start to do something and then back out for one reason or another.

IreneC (North Carolina)
Posts: 111

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MicheleD on 06/12/2008 7:33 PM
Irene, again, please don't take offense, but there is no way we can validate any of your perceptions or analysis of your fellow board members, including this one, because, quite frankly, we don't have the benefit of being the fly on the wall that sees and hears all that is going down. We only have your version or interpretation of what was said or done. I'm not saying you are necessarily inaccurate or fibbing or embellishing, it's just everyone has different filters through which they process their environment. We're not there to do that with you and do not have the other board members' interpretations of events, either.

We don't know what inflections he's using when he's saying things. We don't know what his motivations are or why he would appear to be a back peddler.

I would say, as a general rule of thumb, be respectful of your fellow board members and simply deal with their actions or statements in as professional and unbiased a manner as possible, even when you have real issues with the way they say or handle things.

Give all the benefit of the doubt, but reserve some "benefit" for the "doubt." Until such time as you have confirmation that is unequivocal, try to be fair minded. Your experience and gut will lead you on most assessments.

It's always a good idea to keep communication up front and be as honest and frank as one can possibly be.

Some people just aren't that open. It doesn't mean they are sneaky or have an agenda, they just may communicate differently.

Sometimes, too, we must look at our own motivations and filters. Does this guy annoy me in some way? Do I have a particular dislike for him or his positions? Might those emotional filters color the way I "hear" what he says or "read" his words on the page?

So sorry if I got caught in the details. My main intent was to ask about the back peddler no going back to say he didn't say what he did. He did and we as a board did not know that doves were protected. But in fairness his retraction concerned me, becaus I did hear what he said.

I am not trying to paint a picture of my board. We have a few who conduct themselves in a business like manner and can work around this. I wasn't looking for your validations on this guy. I was asking what happens with this potentially. I am sorry if my post wasn't clear enough, or simply lingo'd enough to your liking.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Irene, I was trying to be respectful and not trying to cause any insult or give you the impression your post wasn't to my "liking," but to be fair, completely fair, you often add extraneous and highly subjective information regarding people or situations when you are looking for some sort of reply from us.

For example, you continue to refer to the individual as a "back peddler," and, I'm sorry, but that is pejorative and "poisons the well," so to speak, when we are asked to try to evaluate and address what may or may not have happened. We already have a negative image of this man painted for us.

Truly, this is not the first instance where similar negative connotations or derogatory adjectives were used to describe another board member or another as you try to fill us in on the background of one issue or another.

Seriously, I can't stress this enough, I'm not trying to be insulting or chastising, but words matter.

Instead of referring to the man as The Backpeddler, it would have been just as easy to call him Board Member Joe, then explain without embellishment or decoration exactly what transpired.

We may well come to the conclusion at the end of the day that he DID back-peddle, at least in this one instance, but that doesn't qualify us to refer to him continually as The Backpeddler.

I'm just saying, I'm not trying to be mean, just trying to keep the dialog relevant.

IreneC (North Carolina)
Posts: 111

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MicheleD on 06/13/2008 1:23 PM
Irene, I was trying to be respectful and not trying to cause any insult or give you the impression your post wasn't to my "liking," but to be fair, completely fair, you often add extraneous and highly subjective information regarding people or situations when you are looking for some sort of reply from us.

For example, you continue to refer to the individual as a "back peddler," and, I'm sorry, but that is pejorative and "poisons the well," so to speak, when we are asked to try to evaluate and address what may or may not have happened. We already have a negative image of this man painted for us.

Truly, this is not the first instance where similar negative connotations or derogatory adjectives were used to describe another board member or another as you try to fill us in on the background of one issue or another.

Seriously, I can't stress this enough, I'm not trying to be insulting or chastising, but words matter.

Instead of referring to the man as The Backpeddler, it would have been just as easy to call him Board Member Joe, then explain without embellishment or decoration exactly what transpired.

We may well come to the conclusion at the end of the day that he DID back-peddle, at least in this one instance, but that doesn't qualify us to refer to him continually as The Backpeddler.

I'm just saying, I'm not trying to be mean, just trying to keep the dialog relevant.

THANKS MICHELE.. YOU CAN ALWAYS PASS THOSE POSTERS YOU DON'T CARE FOR NOW CAN'T YOU. THANK YOU AGAIN.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

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

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

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here