Introduction to California’s AB 648:

In a move reflecting the evolving landscape of community governance, California’s Assembly Bill No. 648, signed into law on September 22, 2023, brings substantial changes to the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act. This legislation introduces amendments to Section 4090 of the Civil Code and adds Section 4926, aiming to enhance the accessibility and efficiency of common interest development meetings through the use of teleconferencing technologies.

The Shift Towards Virtual Meetings:

The legislative changes recognize the increasing significance of virtual communication tools in modern society. With the advent of technology, Assembly Bill No. 648 acknowledges that board meetings and association gatherings held virtually through teleconference platforms offer greater access to all members of the association. The bill asserts that these virtual interactions improve and enhance the ability of homeowner members to participate and contribute to matters affecting their community.

Legislative Findings:

The preamble of the bill outlines several key legislative findings that emphasize the positive impact of virtual meetings on community engagement. Firstly, it highlights that board meetings held virtually enable greater access for all members of the association, irrespective of their physical location. This inclusivity aligns with the evolving nature of work and communication in a digital era.

Secondly, the bill emphasizes that virtual homeowner association meetings contribute to the improvement and enhancement of homeowner members’ ability to participate and comment on business-related matters. The flexibility of virtual meetings facilitates increased participation, allowing members to engage with their community’s affairs in a manner that suits their schedules and preferences.

Lastly, the bill underscores the importance of continuing virtual meetings in a manner that ensures every member and director has equal access, consistent with notice and accessibility requirements. This commitment to equality ensures that virtual meetings do not create disparities in participation between members attending in person and those joining remotely.

Amendments to Section 4090 of the Civil Code:

Section 4090 of the Civil Code undergoes significant modifications under the new legislation. The definition of a “board meeting” is expanded to include both physical congregations and teleconferences. The amendments explicitly state that a teleconference meeting must be conducted in a manner that protects the rights of association members and complies with the requirements of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act.

Crucially, the notice for teleconference meetings must identify at least one physical location to allow members to attend. This requirement ensures that the inclusivity of virtual meetings does not come at the expense of transparency, and members retain the option to participate in person if they so choose.

Addition of Section 4926:

Section 4926 is introduced to the Civil Code, providing a framework for entirely virtual board meetings or meetings of the members. This section outlines specific conditions that must be satisfied for a meeting to be conducted entirely by teleconference:

1. The meeting notice must include clear technical instructions on how to participate in the teleconference.

2. The notice must provide contact information for technical assistance before and during the meeting.

3. Members have the option to request individual delivery of meeting notices.

4. Every director and member must have the same ability to participate as they would in an in-person meeting.

5. Any vote of the directors must be conducted by a roll call vote.

6. Participants have the option to join the meeting by telephone.

It is important to note that these provisions do not apply to meetings where ballots are counted and tabulated, preserving the integrity of the voting process.

Conclusion:

Assembly Bill No. 648 represents a significant step forward in adapting community governance to the realities of a digital age. By embracing the potential of teleconferencing technologies, California aims to make common interest development meetings more accessible, inclusive, and efficient. This legislative change reflects a commitment to ensuring that advancements in technology benefit community members, facilitating their active participation in shaping the future of their shared spaces. As other jurisdictions consider similar adaptations, California’s example sets a precedent for harnessing technology to strengthen community bonds and governance structures.

See the entire bill.

Pros and Cons

the introduction of virtual common interest development meetings through Assembly Bill No. 648 comes with both pros and cons. Let’s explore some of the advantages and potential drawbacks associated with this legislative change:

Pros:

1. Enhanced Accessibility:

Pro: Virtual meetings allow members to participate from any location, promoting inclusivity and overcoming geographical barriers.

Pro: Members who might face physical challenges or live at a distance can now engage more easily in community affairs.

2. Flexibility and Convenience:

Pro: Homeowners can join meetings at their convenience, fostering increased participation.

Pro: Virtual meetings accommodate diverse schedules, making it easier for working individuals to be involved in community decision-making.

3. Cost and Time Savings:

Pro: Eliminating the need for physical presence reduces travel time and associated costs for both members and directors.

Pro: Virtual meetings can be more efficient, potentially reducing the overall duration of meetings.

4. Adaptation to Modern Communication:

Pro: Recognizes the prevalence of technology in modern communication, aligning community governance with contemporary practices.

Pro: Appeals to tech-savvy residents and accommodates those who prefer digital interactions.

5. Emergency Preparedness:

Pro: The bill includes provisions for situations where in-person meetings are unsafe or impossible due to emergencies, ensuring continuity in governance.

Cons:

1. Digital Divide:

Con: Not all community members may have access to reliable internet or technology, potentially excluding certain demographics.

Con: Technological disparities may create a divide between those comfortable with virtual platforms and those less familiar or equipped.

2. Reduced Personal Interaction:

Con: Virtual meetings lack the personal touch and social interaction that comes with in-person gatherings.

Con: Building community relationships may be more challenging in a virtual environment.

3. Technical Challenges:

Con: Technical issues such as poor internet connection or hardware problems may disrupt the flow of meetings.

Con: Some members may find it challenging to navigate virtual platforms, leading to frustration and disengagement.

4. Privacy Concerns:

Con: Virtual meetings may raise concerns about the privacy and security of discussions, especially when sensitive matters are being addressed.

Con: Members may be hesitant to discuss certain issues virtually due to privacy considerations.

5. Impact on the Democratic Process:

Con: There is potential for reduced transparency if not all members can easily access or participate in virtual meetings.

Con: The effectiveness of virtual voting methods may be questioned, especially in situations where ballots are counted and tabulated.

In conclusion, while virtual common interest development meetings bring about numerous advantages in terms of accessibility and efficiency, there are challenges related to technological barriers and the potential loss of personal interaction. Striking a balance that addresses these concerns is crucial for ensuring that the benefits of technological advancements in governance are maximized without compromising the essential aspects of community engagement and cohesion.