Log into the board/member exchange

Gosh, it would be nice to be able to use technology to attend the member exchange tomorrow.

I have a service provider who says they will be here between 08:00 and 14:00, so I am stuck. I didn't do this scheduling, this is the final step in a 25 week process and I want it finished.

This 25 week project has kept me from attending quite a few things this year...if only we operated in the 21st century and offered online attendance.

 

Yes, it would be great to have some sort of recording to stream live or just watch at a later time. The meeting will include proposing 11 motions to be voted on at the end of the month. Nothing earthshaking in these motions, but the more interesting ones are usually disclosed after the Board Exchange and before the monthly BOD Meeting.

Hope your project is completed soon!

 

So here is the change in the resolutions that gives cause for pause: This one paragraph has been struck from several Preambles to board policies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors (“Board” or “Directors”)
of the Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc. (“RCSC” or “Corporation”) in an effort to maintain and carry
out its fiduciary responsibility to its Members, adopts the
following Board Policy (“BP” or “Policies”)
on May 29, 2008.

 

BP...Translation? They are no longer taking any responsibility for howhat our money is spent?

 

Boards by their nature are bound by a "fiduciary responsibility." The absence of the paragraph doesn't relieve themselves of the obligation, it merely removes it from being front and center to anyone reading the documents.

I think that matters in a self-governed community.

I've written often and emphatically about the dismantling of the "safeguards" in our by-laws and board policies (articles of incorporation are a whole different animal). Here's the point everyone should be able to grasp: Boards that wrote them in the past included language and provisions for a reason; simple enough eh? Over the past 10 years, the language and provisions that have been removed or changed were done for a reason as well.

The ultimate question is; was it done for the good of the community, or for the good of the organization and the 9 board members enacting the change? And here's where this is so significant; the language removed is straight up, so let me reprint it: "in an effort to maintain and carry out its fiduciary responsibility to its Members." This is very clear, it's not for the good of the organization, but for the good of the members.

 

Hey C, good to hear from you. The meeting was anti-climatic as usual. I got on my soapbox about removing the language referenced above. The general manager pointed out she wrote the language shortly after getting here and that was true. The decision to remove it was in their words to make it conform with state statute (no idea if that is true or not).

As i stated at the meeting, my bigger concern comes down to a simple question: Are our elected board members there to serve the community or to serve the corporation? As you know C, when board members are sworn in, the oath of office is directed to the RCSC. Yet if you read Article 1 (first three articles) it appears clear to me the RCSC is there to serve the community.

Rick Hoffer responded to my question that it is a "symbiotic" relationship. I think that term is spot on, the problem has been when the board takes action that benefit the board and diminishes the role of the community, it lessons the duality of that relationship.

Finally, your point C on recording every meeting and storing it online is one we argued years back and without the votes, it died like many of our efforts. Seems to me, just another in a long line of questions to ask potential board members at the coming candidate forums.

 

I just thought this was interesting, so thought I would share.

HOA Board’s Fiduciary Duties Under Corporate Law
Full article:
Fiduciary Duties of HOA Board Members | Nolo.com

The fiduciary duties of HOA Board members mainly arise from state corporate law. Most HOAs are nonprofit corporations, typically formed by filing articles of incorporation in the state where the development is located. Recognizing that a corporation’s board members serve in a position of trust, every state’s corporation law imposes a fiduciary duty on the corporation’s board of directors, requiring them to act in the best interest of the corporation.

Subject to some limitations, this fiduciary duty applies to HOAs even though they are typically nonprofit corporations, and even though HOA board members are usually volunteers.

A Board member’s fiduciary duties involve three basic components: the duty of care, the duty of loyalty and the duty to act within the scope of its authority.

The Duty of Care
To meet the duty of care, an HOA Board member must make informed decisions, which might require a bit of research before you act or vote on an HOA matter.

The Duty of Loyalty
The duty of loyalty requires that HOA Board members act fairly, in good faith, in the interest of, and for the benefit of, the HOA as a whole, rather than make decisions based on any personal interest or gain. HOA Board members should also avoid acting where there is a conflict of interest.

The Duty to Act Within the Scope of Authority
This duty requires the HOA Board to perform the duties it’s obligated to carry out, but prohibits the Board from making decisions or acting on matters without the authority to do so. The authority of an HOA comes from its obligations under state laws, as well as the authority granted to it in the development’s governing documents.

 

It could be live streamed but could just be videoed and posted on a youtube or vimeo channel for a start. Anyone can do it. Easy and cheap.

Is there a written rule against doing it?

 

Then I guess my question was does the board have the right to say it cannot be recorded? Is that written somewhere now as a by-law?

 

This is kind of the meat of the whole debate Bruce. HOA's are fall under Title 33 (in AZ) and have a set criteria of what and how to act. The most obvious being open meetings. Your post states board members owe thier loyalty to the HOA, which is in fact the owners of the properties with no organization buffer in between. Every action the HOA takes must be approved at an open meeting and with a quorum present.

Hence the difference, Sun City elects officers to "represent" us. Once seated, they are sworn in with an oath of office to the organization...which all begs the question; who/what is the organization? In my humble opinion, that is answered in the first three articles of the Articles of Incorporation.

As a footnote on recording meetings, the RCSC now does it for candidate forums, so why not for RCSC meetings?

Did you say Sun City West records their meetings, and do they stream them and make them available for residents to watch at a later date?

 

It is Sun City Grand that streams/records their meetings. They have their own AV Club, Studio and Broadcasting network.

I'm sure they would be happy to give a tour of their operations to see how it could be duplicated in Sun City.

 

All well and good, but, in the waiting area of the Board Office there is a framed statement to the effect...."It should be known that anyone on RCSC properties may be photographed without permission. Permission to be photographed and then published is automatic when on RCSC property."

I really can't remember the exact wording but it does show that privacy issues and information only go one way.....

 

There are so many "pros" for having meetings streamed live, and/or broadcast where video attendees have the ability to participate in the

What are the cons?

 

Same as if there were open work sessions; people would know what's going on. :glee: