In Arizona, homeowners’ associations are governed by a law that promotes transparency and resident participation. The statute, A.R.S. § 33-1804, is part of the state’s Planned Community Act and requires associations to conduct open meetings with only a few narrow exceptions.
Subsection (A) of the law sets forth the general rule: all meetings of an association and its board must be open to all members, who are entitled to attend and speak. The law overrides any contrary provisions in an association’s governing documents. It allows members to audio or video record open portions of meetings, subject to reasonable restrictions, unless the association records the meeting itself and provides unedited copies.
The statute provides limited exceptions allowing a meeting to be closed only to discuss privileged legal advice, litigation, personal information about members or employees, employee job performance or complaints, or member disciplinary appeals. Under subsection (C), before entering a closed session, the board must specify which statutory exception authorizes it to do so.
Subsection (B) requires all meetings to be held in Arizona after notice to members of the date, time, place, and agenda. Failure to receive actual notice does not invalidate actions taken at a meeting. Members must be allowed to speak before the board votes on an agenda item.
The law’s policy is stated expressly in subsection (F): meetings should be conducted openly, with notice and agendas to inform members of matters to be discussed or decided and opportunity for members to speak before votes are taken. The law must be interpreted in favor of openness.
Boards that fail to follow the law risk serious repercussions. In a 2016 case, McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc., the Arizona Court of Appeals ordered an association to permit an improperly excluded director to attend executive sessions, stressing that the law is meant to ensure “the participation of all board members in managing the affairs of a corporation.”
However, in a 2018 decision, Mesaland Water Co. v. El-Kareh, the Court of Appeals held that a “technical violation having no demonstrated prejudicial effect” does not nullify all business conducted at a meeting. There, a homeowner could not get an association’s lawsuit dismissed for lack of proper meeting notice when he had actual advance knowledge that legal action was being considered.
The law does not mandate that association elections be held in person at a meeting. A 2013 appeals court case, Tober v. Civano 1: Neighborhood Ass’n, Inc., clarified that the open meeting law just requires meetings to be open to members, not that elections occur at open meetings.
In conclusion, Arizona’s planned community open meeting law provides strong transparency protections for homeowners, while recognizing exceptions for confidential matters and aiming not to overly impede association operations through technical violations. Associations that skirt the law, though, may face serious consequences.