Across California, millions of homeowners pay monthly dues to associations that function as de facto local governments — yet operate with far less accountability than the cities and counties they often resemble. I know this firsthand. My wife and I live in a high-rise condominium in downtown San Diego, and our homeowners association collects substantial monthly assessments in exchange for concierge service, building maintenance, landscaping and round-the-clock engineering support.
What we don’t get is a clear picture of how decisions are made.
Our HOA board conducts nearly all of its business behind closed doors. Communication with residents comes mostly through emails and polished “town hall” presentations rather than open board meetings. Each year, we receive a budget with a higher assessment attached, but little explanation of how the numbers were calculated or why certain contracts were approved.
This isn’t unique to my building. It’s business as usual under California’s Davis-Stirling Act, the law that governs homeowners associations statewide. The statute sets remarkably low transparency standards — so low that if our HOA board is involved in a lawsuit, whether suing or being sued, it has no legal duty to tell homeowners about it.
HOA board members often point out that they are unpaid volunteers running a nonprofit organization. That’s true. But it’s also true that these associations increasingly function as a layer of local government, delivering services that cities and counties either can’t or won’t provide. That dual reality means it’s long past time for state lawmakers to require real openness in how these boards operate.
California came close to making that change this year. Assembly Bill 1184, introduced by Assemblymember Joe Patterson, a Rocklin Republican, would have significantly expanded what HOA boards must disclose to members, including information about litigation discussed in private sessions. The bill stalled on the final day of the legislative session.
Lawmakers should revive it next year — and push the reforms even further.
On paper, the Davis-Stirling Act was modeled after the Brown Act, California’s open-meetings law for cities and counties. It restricts closed-session discussions to narrow categories such as pending litigation, personnel matters and contract negotiations. In practice, though, enforcement is almost nonexistent, largely because homeowners are reluctant to sue the very association they belong to and fund.
As a result, many HOA boards interpret these exceptions broadly, often citing “contract formation” to justify discussing almost anything behind closed doors, since associations typically outsource nearly every function to outside vendors. Boards also face no requirement to proactively inform members about ongoing lawsuits.
Homeowners technically have the right to request contracts and other association records, but associations are only obligated to produce them upon individual request — not make them broadly available. I recently discovered that our property manager had quietly been sharing contract details only with residents who specifically asked, rather than posting them on the building’s resident portal. It took pressure from multiple homeowners before management agreed to post the documents for everyone to see.
In effect, the Davis-Stirling Act shields HOA boards from the very people they are supposed to serve — the dues-paying members whose money funds every decision the board makes. That dynamic undermines the law’s original intent and leaves ordinary residents in the dark about how their investment is being managed.
It’s time for California lawmakers to recognize homeowners associations for what they truly are: a form of local governance that should be held to the same transparency standards as city councils and county boards. If Assemblymember Patterson reintroduces AB 1184 next year, the Legislature should pass it without hesitation.
Original source: CalMatters
