Audio recordings

[Trenz Puca]

At a recent HOA board meeting, a member of the board was asked to turn off the recording device but declined the President's request and continued to record. The HOA is in a state where single consent is legal, and, at a recent General Membership Special Meeting, a non-member attorney who was present, suggested to the entire membership that it was a good idea to record all meetings. 

 

Over the last several months, everyone has been aware that this person has recorded the meetings.  Each month this person seems to be the only one to request corrections to the minutes for such changes as “(member) voted no" when in fact, the (member) did not cast a vote at all because the meeting was hurried along to the next item. 

 

 

Does that board member have a legal right to audio record?

[Edgar Guest]

Does that board member have a legal right to audio record?

 

You might want to ask another attorney. As far as RONR is concerned, the assembly (the members present) and the association gets to decide who can do what at a meeting. So the short answer would be "no".

 

My guess would be that the "single consent" law is not applicable. And the fact that it might be a good idea to record all meetings doesn't give anyone the right to do so.

 

Edited to add: I just noticed that you're in Louisiana so all bets are off. But stay tuned for input from our resident Cajun.

[Richard Brown]

This cajun is of the opinion that the poster is asking for a legal opinion which is something that is beyond the scope of this forum.  This cajun "ain't going there". 

 

From a parliamentary standpoint, I agree with Mr. Guest that this appears to be the sort of thing that the board or the organization itself should decide by adopting a policy regarding recording meetings.    This is especially so in light of the fact that a member has raised an objection to the practice.   

 

It is not unusual for the secretary to record meetings to help with producing the minutes, but this situation is different.    In either case, the board or the organization can adopt a policy regarding recording meetings.

[Gary Novosielski]

Over the last several months, everyone has been aware that this person has recorded the meetings.  Each month this person seems to be the only one to request corrections to the minutes for such changes as “(member) voted no" when in fact, the (member) did not cast a vote at all because the meeting was hurried along to the next item. 

 

Unless the vote was by roll call, nobody's individual vote would normally be included in the minutes at all.  And it's certainly wrong for the minutes to contain incorrect information.

 

I presume that these "incorrections" are not actually being made to the minutes, presuming further that a majority does not agree to their inclusion.

[DanielEHayes]

I think the original poster said they have already had an opinion from a licensed practicing attorney in Louisiana(Making some assumptions the attorney is from Louisiana since the attorney spoke up at their meeting) that answered the question they are currently asking of this forum. My suggestion if they don't like the answer that attorney provided is to seek another opinion from an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana as that question is out of the scope of the forum .  If the OP has some other question related to parliamentary procedure then I would suggest they ask that. For the sake of discussion, might I ask, are the "recording" member's corrections being utilized or is someone objecting to the corrections? You don't have to go with the corrections the "recording" member is proposing. While it's unusual for corrections to be handled by that other than unanimous consent it doesn't have to be handled that way if someone does object. See RONR(11th ed.). pp. 354-5 for the procedures on how to correct the minutes.

I think the board needs to ask itself if the problem is the recording, which according to the original poster, an attorney told them that they thought it was a good idea for some reason or is the problem what this one particular board member is doing with the recordings that she is making. Will making a restriction within the organization stop this member from simply writing notes and attempting to make the same sort of corrections? I suggest using the procedures laid out on the pages I mentioned before regarding approving the minutes instead of going out of your way to make rules restricting something that may not actually restrict the behavior you are attempting to curb.

[Trenz Puca]

 

You might want to ask another attorney. As far as RONR is concerned, the assembly (the members present) and the association gets to decide who can do what at a meeting. So the short answer would be "no".

 

My guess would be that the "single consent" law is not applicable. And the fact that it might be a good idea to record all meetings doesn't give anyone the right to do so.

 

Edited to add: I just noticed that you're in Louisiana so all bets are off. But stay tuned for input from our resident Cajun.

 

The attorney that stated the board should be recording meetings was brought in as a "consultant" representing the group of homeowners who, some now on the board, are objecting to the recording of minutes. That attorney was to have provided pro bono services to assist in updating the bylaws. The attorney has withdrawn their offer of service after it was learned the that a prior President, a volunteer, was removed from the board "without cause." 

The request to stop audio recording the minutes was made by the President during a session where he stated "before the meeting begins I want to pull away from the meeting."   There was no motion made to discontinue audio recording. Only an exchange between the person making the recordings and the President.

[Dan Honemann]

The attorney that stated the board should be recording meetings was brought in as a "consultant" representing the group of homeowners who, some now on the board, are objecting to the recording of minutes. That attorney was to have provided pro bono services to assist in updating the bylaws. The attorney has withdrawn their offer of service after it was learned the that a prior President, a volunteer, was removed from the board "without cause." 

The request to stop audio recording the minutes was made by the President during a session where he stated "before the meeting begins I want to pull away from the meeting."   There was no motion made to discontinue audio recording. Only an exchange between the person making the recordings and the President.

 

To the extent that any of this makes any sense at all, it is irrelevant.

 

RONR neither prohibits nor mandates recording of what transpires at a meeting.