Tag: political free speech

In Kosor the NV appellate court upholds HOAs as public forums

In January of this year I posted the Nevada Supreme Court’s opinion on HOAs as public forums and the president as a limited-purpose public figure (NV supreme court upholds HOAs as public forums).  Last month on an appeal (Olympia v. Kosor, No. A-17-765257-C (Nev. Ct. App. 2021) from the remand, to  let the trial court hear the case on above issues, the appellate Court upheld the supreme courts findings and opinion.

The tremendous constitutional question of free political speech on issues of HOA governance was upheld. Finally! In doing so, the Court also held, citing several cases that [note 1],

  • [the HOA]  “is a quasi-government entity ‘paralleling in almost every case the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal government.’”
  • the Nevada Supreme Court has found the [the HOA] Board to be in the nature of a quasi-government entity largely paralleling the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal entity and its meetings similar in function to a governmental body.
  • homeowners’ associations open meetings are public forums as such associations play ’a critical role in making and enforcing rules affecting the daily lives of [community] residents.’”  
  • “the HOA meetings at which Kosor made certain of the statements at issue were ‘public forums’ … because the meetings were ‘open to all interested parties, and … a place where members could communicate their ideas. Further, the…meetings served a function similar to that of a governmental body.”
  • In deciding this Motion, this Court also concludes Plaintiffs at least constitute limited-purpose public figures.
  • The test for determining whether someone is a limited public figure includes examining whether a person’s role in a matter of public concern is voluntary and prominent.” [as is the case with HOA boards and presidents]
  • the issues Defendant raised involve efforts to encourage homeowner participation in and oversight of the governance of Southern Highlands, “an inherently political question of vital importance to each individual and to the community as a whole.”

. . . .

Your HOA cannot stop your free speech if you argue Kosor! Just be careful about making harsh, accusatory statements that violate elements of defamation that will  defeat your free speech.

NOTE 1. Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 205, 214 (2000); Cohen v. Kite Hill Cmty. Ass’n, 191 Cal. Rptr. 209, 214 (1983); Pegasus v. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 57 P.3d 82, 91 (2002).

The writing is on the wall for HOA reforms

Although the Arizona Supreme Court has not yet decided to hear Tarter v. Bend (CV 21-0049), my 44 page Pro Se amicus curiae brief is a matter of public record, regardless.  The case about a defamation suit by the HOA president, also an attorney and a limited-purpose public figure, raised constitutional issues of public speech with respect to questions of HOA governance. 

Selected excerpts follow.

As with the issue in Dombey (Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc) . . . failing to present the question of Tarter’s status as a possible public figure denied the jury from considering the issues of protected free speech on public issues.

Kosor (NV) was sued on the basis of his criticism  and distribution of a pamphlet and letter at a board meeting seeking a seat on the board of directors.

“Because we conclude that each of Kosor’s statements was “made in direct connection with an issue of public interest in a place open to the public or in a public forum,” we reverse the district court’s decision to the contrary and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The impetus behind this view can be laid to the heavy lobbying of state legislators, judges, the public and the media by the Community Associations Institute (CAI). From its 2016 white paper,

“Most legislators do not thoroughly understand common-interest communities or who their patchwork legislation is actually protecting. . . . Legislative responses to individual constituents contribute to community associations being perceived as over-restrictive micro-governments focused on covenant enforcement.”

In response to my Arizona Supreme Court pro se amicus brief in Gelb v. DFBLS (CV-10-0371-PR) CAI attorney Jason Smith wrote,

“It is clear from the that the amicus curiae [referring to me] simply wants to impose constitutional protections on members in homeowners associations. The law has never supported that proposition.”

[I called to the Court’s attention a question of a SLAPP lawsuit against Brendt.]  The issue of an HOA SLAPP lawsuit against a member is in the interest of general public and of statewide importance, and also of national concern, the impact on community associations is certainly substantial. This Court should, sua sponte, consider Tarter’s legal action as a HOA politically motivated strategic lawsuit  against member participation.

I urge the Court to apply the long overdue correction  of  Plessy v. Ferguson by Brown v. Bd of Education to the long overdue and needed corrections to the unconstitutional HOA legal scheme.  As with Brown, America’s culture and environment has changed dramatically from 1964’s Homes Association Handbook and the formation in 1973 of Community Associations Institute (CAI) to deal with rising HOA problems and constitutional concerns after only 9 years. 

How legislative Rules committees abort democratic HOA reform bills

In the interest of public education on the functioning of state legislatures, this paper presents information on the rules governing state legislatures — using Arizona as a representative example — that affect passing bills into law.  I focus on the Rules committee’s powers to obstruct the voice of the people, and how it can prevent — kill — HOA reform bills by the actions of the political party leaders.

The powers of the Rules committee are undemocratic and authoritarian  in nature designed to thwart, apparently, the folly of the voice of the people.  We see the same undemocratic, authoritarian powers granted to HOA boards to an even greater extent,  The national lobbying group’s promotion of the “business judgment rule,” and acceptance by the courts, is a prime example.[1]

Exhibit 1 details the Rules powers that can prevent HOA reform bills, and any other bill not liked by the powers that be, from a hearing and vote by the full chamber — by the people’s representatives. As I wrote earlier[2], Arizona’s HB 2052, a bill that has in reality been killed in the Rules committee after unanimous approval by the House and Senate government committees, is a prime example of this misuse of authority.

The Senate Fact Sheet “intro” paragraph misrepresents the content of the bill:

“Expands statutory restrictions on condominium unit owners’ association and planned community association (HOA) regulation of political signs to include signs related to certain community activity. Prohibits an HOA from prohibiting door-to-door community activity”.

Of the 8 listed “Provisions,” 2 are technical, 2 relate to political signs, and 4 — given a short sentence in the “intro” —  expand on HOA restrictions and prohibition’s protecting free political speech and expression, in the HOA public forum,[3] as curtained in my earlier “Senate Protects” posting.[4]

. . . .

The Arizona Legislature, and each and every state legislature, is  not a sovereign that can do no wrong, but has duties and obligations sworn to under oath “to establish justice . . . and secure the blessings of liberty” for the people of its state. It cannot demand respect but must earn it through good deeds.  Passing HB 2052 into law would be a sign of good faith that would earn the respect of the people.

Exhibit 1.  Arizona Legislative Council publications

“In the Senate, bills are usually not “held” in the Rules Committee for partisan or political purposes; bills which go into the Rules Committee are almost always reported out. In the House, the Chairman of the Rules Committee can “hold” (read “kill”) a bill simply by not giving it a hearing. (p. 52).

“The options of the committee chairman are a) Hear the bill and vote on it, b) Hear the bill but take no action, c) Assign the bill to subcommittee, d) Not hear the bill.  (p. 39-40).”

“The Role of the Rules Committee,”  State Senator Randall Gnant, From Idea to Bill to Law (2000). (As of April 2021).

“Each measure is assigned to the Rules Committee of the house through which it is progressing . . . . The Rules Committees assess the constitutionality of the proposed legislation. Unless they are withdrawn or discharged, all bills must pass the Rules Committee before they are heard on the floor. (p.41-42).

“An Active Calendar of the Committee of the Whole (so called in both houses) consisting of bills the Speaker or President selects for consideration by the respective Committee of the Whole (COW).

“A calendar consisting of all bills and other measures that have been reported from the committees. In the House this is called the “House Calendar.”  In the Senate it is called the “Calendar of the Committee of the Whole.” These calendars are simply a list of bills and other measures that are ready for further action by the full chamber.” (p.42-43).

Arizona Legislative Manual 2003 Edition, Arizona Legislative Council (2003). (As of April 2021).

Notes

[1] See, Reorienting the HOA board: business judgment rule (2020).

[2] See, AZ Senate protects HOA misconduct rejecting HB 2052; Arizona HB 2052 restores homeowner constitutional speech protections.

[3] See court holdings: Calif. holds HOA elections as protected free speech public elections (2019); NV supreme court upholds HOAs as public forums (2021).

[4] Supra n. 2, AZ Senate Protects.

Why isn’t your HOA board supporting AZ HB 2052?

HB 2052 is a big step forward for HOA homeowners in AZ as it restores lost constitutional rights. Why then, isn’t your board supporting this important bill that is unquestionably in the best interests of the members?  If you read your CC&Rs, almost all but not everyone contain a statement of intent and purpose directed toward the members, you will find wording similar to: “shall inure [take effect] to the benefit of the member and be mutually beneficial.” 

Upholding constitutional protections provided by the US Constitution would seem to fit a board’s obligation. However,

“The political and social changes in our society brought about by the adoption and acceptance of the HOA legal scheme has created a new America of authoritarian, private governments known as HOAs. They function as independent principalities.  The values, beliefs, principles, ethics, and morality of today’s America would shock the Founding Fathers.”[1] 

HB 2052 follows in the footsteps of California’s SB 323 and several court opinions upholding HOAs as public forums that provide for protective free public speech on HOA governing matters.[2]  

AZ Senate Rules committee must place  HB 2052 on the COW agenda. This important bill extends constitutional protections to HOA members.  It is awaiting a hearing by the Senate Rules Committee; time is running out! It was not heard on the 15th and today, the 17th. Bills have been killed by being held by Rules, which is a mandatory committee for all bills.

The public in general does not understand the functioning of their state legislature when it comes to its lawmaking powers under our democracy.  Our Declaration of Independence, our ‘social contract’ between the government and the people,  states quite clearly

“That to secure these rights [‘among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness] governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

However, in many ways your legislature operates as the sovereign that can do no wrong. Take, for instance, the question of passing laws that are of questioned constitutionality.  Long standing legal doctrine holds that all laws passed by Congress or your state legislature are presumed constitutional.  This doctrine makes the primary function of legislative Rules Committees for checking constitutionality, among a minor formality issue, perfunctory and meaningless.

With the assistance of the Rules attorneys, the committees review the proposed legislation’s consistency with the United States and Arizona Constitutions and Arizona and federal law”[3]

In all my 20+ years I cannot recall any HOA bill being found unconstitutional by a Rules committee, even for one in 2013— by the same sponsor of HB 2052 — that was challenged in court and found unconstitutional.[4]

Members should be urging their boards to speak out.  Members would be protected and enjoy such constitutional freedoms to openly discuss issues of public HOA governance with their fellow members if  HB 2052  becomes law.  Make it a law – write the rules Committee and demand passing on the bill for a debate and a final vote by all Senators.

References

[1] George K. Staropoli, HOA Common Sense: rejecting private government, StarMan Press, 2013.

[2] See Substantive HOA member rights advances in Arizona.

[3] As an example, from the Arizona Legislative Manual.

[4] See AZ Attorney General admits SB 1454 HOA to be invalid and without effect.

CA’s SB 407 is another law providing constitutional rights

I was reminded of  my oversight in not mentioning California’s SB 407 (law in 2018) when referring to California’s constitutional rights legislation.[1]  SB 407 dealt directly with free speech issues while SB 323 dealt with extensions to fair elections.

Thanks to Marjorie Murray, President of the very active homeowner rights organization, Center for California Homeowner Association Law (CCHAL).[2] CCHAL has long fought CAI-CLAC, the voice of the collective CAI legislative action committees in California. (CAI-CLAC opposed SB 407).

CAI-CLAC is very slick in presenting a positive face to naïve homeowners and those seeking info on HOAs in California, known as CIDs. The title of its CAI Government Affairs Blog email release of March 2, 2021 reads, “Grassroots Advocacy Initiatives Are More Essential Than Ever.”  But many readers may miss the important appeal as stated in the email:

“Each year, CAI advocacy leaders engage with and encourage members across the country to connect with their elected officials and advocate on behalf of the 73.9 million Americans currently living in community associations.”.

This is a misrepresentation and a misleading assertion that CAI speaks for all persons living in an HOA in California. NOT SO!  (See HOA homeowner membership in CAI is a mere 36%).  As I’ve repeatedly urged others to do, such statements must be challenged and rebutted.

Notes

[1] See Substantive HOA member rights advances in Arizona.

[2] Murray commented: The California legislation that re-affirmed the First Amendment rights of association owners was SB407, sponsored by the Center for California Homeowner Association Law and carried by Senator Bob Wieckowski. 

Now law, it affirms the rights of homeowners to assemble peacefully, to communicate freely with their neighbors on matters of mutual concern, and to invite others onto the association campus.  It was signed into law in 2018.  CCHAL organized a public forum on the bill after it became law and videotaped the forum. Here’s the link to the text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB407;