My father has a saying that has stuck with me for all of my adult life: "There's a big difference between being busy and being productive." I mention this because it pops into my head frequently when I see the communications from the new board and try to decipher their priorities from their words and actions. As I mentioned in my last post, there is no question that the new board is putting significant time and effort into this project. But more than two months in, it's fair to ask, “are they just busy, or are they being productive?” We still have no comprehensive plan, budget, or timeline. It’s hard to argue the new project will be completed more quickly at this point, and we don’t have any way to determine if the new project will be significantly less expensive as promised.

In fact, the board seems to be treating this project like a checklist, trying to complete some of the quicker and easier tasks just to cross them off the list. This is one of the fears I expressed at the first public meeting — taking a piecemeal approach to show activity, essentially bypassing the planning and budgeting process that's so important to any project of this scale.

A month has passed since the board's previous meeting. During that stretch, homeowners have been getting a regular run of weekly email updates. They give the appearance of progress — a note here about fountain lighting, a detail there about multiple bids— but none of them amount to the one thing promised from the beginning: a full plan that includes a line-by-line cost comparison with the wall and entryway project the prior board approved.

That comparison still does not exist. What does exist is a single slide deck, presented once at one meeting, that outlined some cost figures. It was not easily legible in person or on Zoom. The board has said more than once that it would distribute that deck, or at least portions of it, to the neighborhood, but it has not done so.

Instead of meetings the past four weeks, the board has indicated future decision-making will frequently be done through online surveys. Surveys can serve a useful purpose; they are a fast way to gauge the room. But they do not replace a properly noticed board meeting with public comment. The board drafts the questions, the board sets the limited answer choices, and homeowners can only choose from the options the board chose to provide. A survey leaves no opportunity to ask a follow-up, challenge an assumption, or hear other homeowners react in the moment. That is the value of an open meeting, and no survey can duplicate it, however sincere the effort. It's like buying a home in a builder-owned community where you get to choose from five floor plans and three options for bathroom tile and calling that a custom home.

I've been reluctant to discuss legalities, acknowledging that I am not a lawyer, but I do think there's a difference between citing specific plain-language legal sections/subsections and making broader interpretations based on multiple disparate sections of statutes and governing documents. I think it's fair to call out potential violations of plain-language statute, citing the specific text in Florida law or our governing documents. I will refrain from cobbling together a bunch of unrelated sections and drawing my own layperson conclusions.

Florida Statute 720.303(2) is explicit: a board meeting takes place whenever a quorum of directors comes together to conduct association business, and board members "may not cast a vote on an association matter via e-mail." In the case of a five member board like ours, three directors equals quorum-level input. If more than two directors are discussing, deliberating, or aligning on a decision, that business must be done at a properly noticed public meeting. It also  guarantees the right for homeowners to speak on any or all items under consideration. So the statute requires HOA business involving more than two of our directors to be done in a properly noticed public meeting allowing for public comment on any and all items under consideration.  Here is the text I'm referencing:

720.303(2) BOARD MEETINGS.—
(a) Members of the board of administration may use e-mail as a means of communication but may not cast a vote on an association matter via e-mail. A meeting of the board of directors of an association occurs whenever a quorum of the board gathers to conduct association business. Meetings of the board must be open to all members, except for meetings between the board and its attorney with respect to proposed or pending litigation where the contents of the discussion would otherwise be governed by the attorney-client privilege…

(b) Members have the right to attend all meetings of the board. The right to attend such meetings includes the right to speak at such meetings with reference to all designated items. The association may adopt written reasonable rules expanding the right of members to speak and governing the frequency, duration, and other manner of member statements, which rules must be consistent with this paragraph and may include a sign-up sheet for members wishing to speak...

Last week's survey, followed by the results email, brings exactly this concern into focus. If board business, including anything that effectively functioned as a decision, was made or settled through anything but a properly noticed meeting where homeowners could speak, it's likely a violation of the statute. The call box survey and results need to be discussed in a public meeting. The board cannot conduct business or vote to move forward any other way.

At the last meeting, we were informed that the community representative firm, MEEK, had been previously fired. Presumably that was board business not conducted at a properly noticed meeting. I’ve also been told secondhand that our new board may be failing to hold properly noticed meetings to agree to the cancellation terms or negotiated settlements of other contracts tied to the previous project.

I'm not claiming that the board is willfully disregarding statute. It’s most likely trying to act expeditiously, especially to move on from the project they campaigned to stop. Hopefully they will work with our HOA attorney to determine if any violations occurred and take corrective actions, but it is important to note that this board ran a recall process that accused the previous board of not following Florida statutes and governing documents, and they may already be doing just that.

Carrying the original seven campaign promises forward from my post last month, here's a look at each campaign promise again:

Pause the assessment
Still the one clear promise kept. Although the board is hinting that thousands of additional wall reserve dollars per household will likely be needed to complete the project.

Review the wall plan and the alternative proposal
Still incomplete. We saw some rough preliminary numbers on the foam-only replacement in the still-to-be-distributed slide deck, but no numbers or comparisons at all from the foam/concrete hybrid option. The email update on July 24 stated the board was awaiting proposals, but nearly four weeks later we are still just waiting.

Clear, objective cost/benefit/risk information with timelines
Still missing. One slide deck exists for the foam only option; it hasn't been shared. No timeline for the project has been discussed.

Open town halls, weekly meetings
Weekly email updates are all we get. It's now been a month since any board meeting at all.

A clear feedback mechanism ensuring all viewpoints are heard and considered
Closed-ended surveys have shown up in its place, but as covered above, they can't replace open discussion at a meeting and should not be the sole rationale for board decisions.

Present clear options with designs to the community
Still not delivered. The board showed a couple of individual images, but no real designs. It's been over a month since the pivot to a foam/concrete hybrid solution was mentioned, with no design elements or further detail provided by the board for the new approach.

Seek broad homeowner consensus before committing to a path
The pivot to a possible foam/concrete hybrid path after community discussion at multiple meetings is a step in the right direction. However, the board is still sticking to its unfounded claim, which contradicts our own HOA attorney's opinion, insisting on a ⅔ supermajority vote to make design decisions that cross some imaginary line of their own creation. We're still waiting for the specific plain-language citation that backs this up.

Four weeks ago, the picture was a new board that was not living up to most of its campaign promises, but showing signs of potential compromise. Nine weeks in, progress towards its main campaign promises is still slow and it may be conducting business in ways inconsistent with Florida law – exactly what they accused the former board of doing.

Email updates and community surveys are helpful tools, but they do not take the place of actual community meetings with open discussion.

We were all told this new project would happen more quickly and be significantly less expensive than the previously approved project. We were promised a comprehensive plan with a line-by-line comparison of costs. We were promised open meetings and community input before choosing any path forward. We were promised clear design options and a project timeline. Nine weeks in, we're still waiting.