Creating a community website is no LOL matter
Question: I manage an association that does not have a website. A new board member has constructed a mock-up site that she has offered to build at no cost to the association and sent it to all directors and me to review. It includes a chat room for discussions.
My concern is that this may encourage owners, residents and board directors to hold conversations with one another and bypass the regular channels of communication with the board and management, causing confusion.
Should the board create a community website? Will a website disclaimer protect the association, directors and owners from a lawsuit? Is it OK that there will be no charge for the website? Won’t this exclude members who don’t have a computer? Will that create a problem?
Answer: Only the owners and the association board can decide whether to create a website. But your concerns are not unfounded. Even with a disclaimer, there are no guarantees of protection from a lawsuit or a release from liability for damages.
An association-sponsored website does not replace requirements for meeting notices and agendas for regular board meetings, nor does it replace the open forum for conducting the association’s business and allowing titleholders to speak. The board will still have to hold meetings, discuss association transactions, vote on its decisions and allocate time for any homeowner who wishes to speak in accordance with the Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act, Civil Code Section 1363.05.
The approved methods for document delivery are located in Civil Code Section 1350.7. It could be argued that meeting over the Internet, whether it be the association’s Web page or chat room, constitutes a meeting as defined under Civil Code Section 1363.05(j). Such a meeting may be in violation of the Open Meeting Act, and the actions taken at that meeting likely would be declared void if challenged in court.
Under Civil Code Section 1350.7(b)(3), boards are permitted to deliver documents via e-mail only if the recipient has agreed to that method of delivery. Methods of providing titleholders with association meeting notices, agendas, decisions and other matters would not be changed by instituting an association community website. The board should not create such a website using association funds without a vote of all titleholders and a plan and budget.
Whether someone creates or maintains the site for free is irrelevant. The gratis situation will not last forever, and the association will have created an environment where owners have come to rely on the site. The association assumes responsibility for monitoring the site’s activity, its upkeep, its content and its maintenance. The charges would be borne by all the titleholders, whether they used the site or not.
Another issue to consider is the safeguarding of users. Even with registration, there’s no guarantee that a participating owner will not be singled out or banned from access or suffer other consequences pertaining to information obtained from accessing or using the site. Nothing would prohibit one member from taking information or statements of another and making them public, via e-mail or another type of publication.
Certainly, that a website would in effect ostracize those owners without computers could create another burden for the association or even additional liability.
Even if the present board wants to take on yet another responsibility, the board that follows may not. Regardless of disclaimers to the contrary, the association will be responsible for the content and any damages that might result.
Until the titleholders in the association agree to fund and assume the liability for such a website, the current methods of doing business and providing notice appear to be less complicated, more reliable and cost-effective.
Send questions to P.O. Box 11843, Marina del Rey, CA 90295 or by e-mail to noexit@mindspring.com.
