In May 2022, my law partner, Harmony Taylor, and I presented a program at the Community Associations Institute (CAI) Annual Conference on running better, more legal virtual meetings for community associations. By that point, most boards and managers had already experienced electronic meetings out of necessity. What remained unsettled was not whether meetings could be held online, but whether they were being conducted in a way that was legal, defensible, and effective.
The questions we heard were consistent. Can we meet virtually at all? Does it matter whether the meeting is for the board, the members, or a committee? What authority allows it? What rules should apply? And how do we avoid a meeting that feels efficient in the moment but becomes vulnerable if later challenged?
This article is a written version of that presentation. It focuses less on technology vendors and more on what actually determines whether an electronic meeting works: legal authority, preparation, structure, and fairness.
What Do We Mean by an “Electronic Meeting”?
The phrase electronic meeting is used loosely and often without definition. Phones, video platforms, chat rooms, email chains, and written ballots are all electronic in some sense. Not all of them are meetings.
For purposes of this discussion, an electronic meeting is a real-time gathering where participants can communicate simultaneously and be heard by one another. Business conducted solely in writing, such as email voting, text messages, or chat threads, is not a meeting.
Boards have met electronically for years. One director calls in by phone. Several directors participate remotely. Everyone can hear each other. That model has long been accepted.
Membership meetings are different. They are rooted in the town-meeting model, where owners gather in one place, see each other, debate issues, and vote. That model has been under pressure for decades, well before the pandemic. Associations are larger, owners are more geographically dispersed, and many communities have thousands, even tens of thousands, of members. In many associations, a significant percentage of owners are not physically present at all.
As a result, associations have already shifted away from strictly in-person membership meetings. Written ballots, written consents, and written agreements have been used for years. Those approaches solve some problems but create others. They eliminate discussion and reduce decisions to isolated reactions.
Electronic meetings fall between those extremes. They allow discussion, but only if they are structured correctly.
In practice, electronic meetings usually fall into two categories: audio meetings, where participants hear one another, and video meetings, where participants can see and hear each other.
Before Deciding to Meet Virtually, Step Back
Before turning to statutes or procedural rules, boards should pause and ask whether meeting electronically makes sense for the specific situation.
Political Considerations
In most circumstances, boards have the authority to decide when and how to meet, assuming the law allows it. That decision is not neutral. Some owners strongly prefer in-person meetings. Others strongly prefer virtual meetings. The format alone can influence participation, trust, and outcomes.
There are situations where an in-person meeting is simply more effective. A membership vote on a major special assessment tied to visible building deterioration is a common example. Seeing the condition of the property in person can change how owners evaluate the proposal.
Boards should recognize that choosing a meeting format can shape the result. That does not mean boards should avoid electronic meetings, but it does mean the decision should be deliberate and defensible.
Administrative Considerations
Boards should also consider whether the membership can realistically participate in the chosen format. Assumptions about age or technical ability are often wrong.
Accessibility, language barriers, and accommodation needs matter. If the chosen platform effectively excludes part of the membership, the meeting may comply with technology but fail in governance.
Can We Legally Meet Electronically?
The answer is not always yes.
There will always be a vendor willing to host a meeting online. That does not mean the meeting is legally valid. To justify that decisions made through an electronic meeting are proper and binding, there should be written authority somewhere supporting the meeting format.
That authority typically comes from three places, in this order:
- statute
- governing documents
- parliamentary authority
Statutory Authority
Boards have traditionally been given more flexibility to meet electronically than the general membership, largely because boards are smaller and more manageable.
Membership meetings are treated more cautiously. Temporary pandemic-era authorizations have largely expired. Associations must ensure that electronic meetings comply with current state law, not emergency measures that no longer apply.
Governing Documents
In the absence of clear statutory language, associations often rely on their governing documents for authority. This is where drafting matters.
For example, bylaws stating that an annual meeting “shall be held in April at the clubhouse” may, in some states, be interpreted as prohibiting virtual meetings. Ambiguous language invites disputes.
When authority is unclear, amending the documents to remove uncertainty is often preferable to litigating the validity of a virtual meeting after the fact.
Parliamentary Authority
Many associations use Robert’s Rules of Order as their parliamentary authority. While the newest edition, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th Edition), includes discussion of electronic meetings, it does not automatically authorize them. In general, express authorization in the bylaws is required unless state law provides otherwise.
Committees are treated differently. In some circumstances, committees may meet electronically or act by unanimous written agreement when meeting is impractical.
If You Meet Virtually, Set the Rules in Advance
One of the most consistent problems with electronic meetings is improvisation. Boards decide to meet virtually and then attempt to make procedural decisions live, under pressure.
The solution is straightforward: decide the rules in advance and communicate them clearly in the meeting notice.
Key areas that should be addressed include:
Access and Participation
Owners should know how to log in, what technology is required, and what to do if they experience technical difficulties.
Agenda Specificity
Electronic meetings benefit from more detailed agendas. Vague notices create confusion and distrust when owners are not physically present.
Muting, Recognition, and Speaking Limits
Participants should be muted upon entry, but there must be a clear method for requesting recognition and speaking. Speaking limits should be reasonable and consistently applied.
Motions and Seconds
Procedures that work smoothly in person often break down online. Many associations modify or eliminate the requirement for seconds in electronic meetings to avoid unnecessary delay.
Connectivity Issues
Individual connectivity problems should not invalidate the meeting or require a vote to be retaken. One person’s technical difficulty cannot require repeating the entire meeting.
Cameras, Verification, and Attendance
Electronic meetings raise questions about confirming who is present and entitled to participate. Associations should consider whether cameras are required, how identity is verified, and whether attendance is limited to members only.
Recording
If the meeting will be recorded, that should be disclosed. If it will not be recorded, that should be stated clearly.
Hybrid Meetings
Hybrid meetings, where some participants are physically present and others participate electronically, are often more difficult to manage than either all-in-person or all-virtual meetings.
The core issue is fairness. Hybrid formats can easily result in 2 meetings happening at once, with unequal participation and influence.
In many cases, the cleanest approach is to treat everyone as an electronic participant and apply the same rules and voting procedures to all, including those physically present.
How Electronic Meetings Differ from In-Person Meetings
Electronic meetings are not simply in-person meetings conducted on a screen. They change meeting dynamics in meaningful ways.
Technology failures are more disruptive. Meetings take longer. Engagement is harder to maintain. Voting behavior changes. Informal discussion and compromise are more difficult. Community-building is reduced.
Understanding these differences helps boards decide which meetings are appropriate for a virtual format and which are better held in person.
Practical Tips That Improve Virtual Meetings
Experience shows that a few practices make a significant difference.
Using a dedicated administrator prevents the chair from being overwhelmed. Allowing extra time reduces frustration. Muting participants on entry prevents chaos. Conducting formal votes instead of relying on silence increases confidence in outcomes. Limiting chat use avoids shadow debates that undermine transparency.
Meeting notices and minutes should clearly reflect that the meeting was conducted electronically and describe how participation and voting occurred. That documentation matters if decisions are later questioned.
Conclusion
Electronic meetings are not going away. Technology will continue to evolve, but the fundamentals remain the same.
Running better, more legal virtual meetings requires clear legal authority, advance planning, fair and workable rules, and careful documentation. When those elements are in place, electronic meetings can be efficient, defensible, and effective. When they are not, they become a source of conflict and risk.
That is the difference between simply meeting online and conducting association business in a way that is legally sound.
Jim Slaughter is an attorney and professional parliamentarian who regularly advises homeowner and condominium associations on meeting procedure and governance. He is the past President of the College of Community Association Lawyers and the past President of the NC Chapter of the Community Associations Institute. He is the author of four books on parliamentary procedure, including Robert’s Rules of Order Fast Track: The Brief and Easy Guide to Parliamentary Procedure for the Modern Meeting and Notes and Comments on Robert’s Rules, Fifth Edition.
Harmony Taylor is a partner with Law Firm Carolinas who regularly represents homeowner and condominium associations on governance, compliance, and litigation matters. She advises boards on director and member meetings and represents associations in state courts and Fair Housing and other discrimination proceedings. Harmony is a Fellow of the College of Community Association Lawyers and an active leader within the Community Associations Institute, including service on the North Carolina Chapter’s Legislative Action Committee and the College’s Board of Governors.