LCC Board Meeting Recap — January 20, 2026

The January Board of Directors meeting covered a wide range of operational, governance, and committee matters. Several decisions made during the meeting affect how compliance actions begin, how and when members can participate during meetings, and how committee work will be scheduled and noticed going forward.

Board meetings can be challenging spaces to navigate, especially for neighbors who attend infrequently but still want to understand how decisions affecting their homes, costs, and shared spaces are being made.

Our goal here is to explain what was decided, what members raised, and how these structures function in practice.

Motions passed at this meeting

The board voted to approve the following motions:

• Approval of October meeting minutes

• Approval of the agenda

• Discontinuation of the physical PO Box in favor of the clerk email address

• Establishment of a standardized community comment format (15 minutes at the beginning of meetings, with an optional comment period at the end if time allows)

• Adoption of committee procedures, including a 14-day minimum notice requirement and open committee meetings

• Transfer of initial compliance drive-through determinations to VIS for a three-month trial, with review by a three-member board committee

• Adoption of the Governance/Bylaws Committee charter

• Ratification of decisions made prior to January 1, 2026 (Zoom account acquisition, board officers, and collections policy)

• Authorization of VIS to proceed with recommendations regarding delinquent accounts

• Treasurer designated as checking account signatory (with President or Vice President as backup)

• Advertising the open board vacancy in the newsletter and deferring appointment decision to February

• Motion to enter executive session and subsequent return to open session

• Motion to adjourn

Additional topics which had been approved were tabled to the next board meeting.

Community input format: continuity requested

What members asked for

During community comment, a member asked that the meeting format used last year continue: allowing members to ask questions and provide input agenda item by agenda item, as topics came up during the meeting.

This was not a request for a new or expanded participation model. It was a request to retain an existing practice that allowed:

• clarification when new or incomplete information surfaced during discussion

• questions tied directly to the item under consideration

• participation without requiring members to anticipate every issue in advance

Members noted that this approach helped prevent misunderstandings and allowed the board to hear relevant information while decisions were actively being discussed. 

Having the opportunity to join discussion determines whether occasional attendees can meaningfully participate without prior relationships or inside knowledge.

Board Considerations

Members of the board argued that:

• Comment by item privileges members who are able to be present at meetings over those who are not

• Removing community comment will allow the board to work more efficiently

• Some board directors find chat distracting

Community comment was not reopened during this discussion; however, a member flagged that Stephanie (from VIS) had offered that meetings can have comment during discussion as a valid format. It was unclear whether this was required, and Stephanie clarified when she was called upon.

In the chat, at least 3 community members stated that they would prefer the format Stephanie had described.

What the board decided

Instead, the board adopted a different structure for member participation:

• a 15-minute open comment period at the beginning of the meeting, with chat enabled

• an optional comment period at the end of the meeting if time allows

• written comments must be submitted by 5:00 pm the day of the meeting

Zoom chat would be open during community comment periods, but not during the meeting as it might distract board members.

During comment periods, board members listen but do not engage in discussion. After the opening comment period, agenda items proceed without member input unless the board chooses to reopen comment at the end.

Why this matters 

In volunteer-run organizations, feedback loops like these are a primary way boards avoid preventable error and member disengagement. For members who attend infrequently, these structures determine how easy it is to catch up, ask questions, and avoid surprises.

This structure affects:

• When clarification can occur Questions cannot be asked at the moment a specific agenda item is being discussed, even if new information arises during the meeting.

• Who can realistically participate The format privileges members who already have context before the meeting or who are able to communicate informally with board directors outside of meetings. Members who do not have established relationships with directors, or who have experienced difficulty getting responses by email, have fewer practical ways to ask questions or resolve confusion.

• How feedback loops function Input is structurally separated from deliberation, limiting the board’s ability to incorporate member information in real time. Further, the members never have direct discussion with board directors.

By closing the chat, the board also prevents members from being able to talk and explain to each other. 

Member-to-member communication

During the meeting, an issue was raised regarding members continuing to communicate with one another outside of formal meeting comment periods. A board director objected to the sharing of a link intended to allow members to continue discussion together.

To be clear: providing a neutral space for members to communicate with one another is not a substitute for board decision-making, nor does it represent the board’s position. It is a way for members to compare notes, ask questions, and reduce confusion — particularly when in-meeting discussion is limited.

Friends of Ken Lake will continue to provide a shared Google document that allows members to communicate with one another without requiring additional sign-in or special access. This is intended to support transparency, inclusion, and equal access to information, especially for members who have had difficulty communicating through other channels.

Be part of the conversation.

Compliance process: VIS courtesy notice trial

What the board voted to do

The board approved a three-month trial in which VIS will make the initial compliance drive-through determinations — the first decision about whether a courtesy notice should be issued.

Under the motion:

• VIS conducts inspections and makes the initial determination

• a three-member board committee reviews decisions during the trial period

• the committee members named were Fred, Louise, and Mike

Member concerns raised

When members were allowed to speak after the meeting and after the vote, several practical concerns were raised:

• whether shifting initial discretion to VIS could increase the number of courtesy notices issued, not because conditions changed, but because interpretation or thresholds changed

• the cost implications of generating a higher volume of notices, including management fees associated with courtesy notices.

• how interpretation and judgment would be applied by VIS without clear, published guidance, and how members could meaningfully oversee or evaluate decisions during the trial

These comments focused on predictability, cost control, and transparency rather than on enforcement itself. Board members were able to clarify some concerns, and acknowledge the validity of others, once the discussion was engaged.

Why this matters 

Compliance processes affect people’s sense of fairness and safety in their own homes, which is why clarity and oversight matter even when outcomes are unchanged.

This change affects:

• Where discretion happens first Initial judgment moves from a volunteer committee to the management company, with board review occurring after notices are generated rather than before.

• How quickly notices may be issued Fewer internal steps between inspection and outreach can shorten timelines, potentially increasing both the pace and volume of notices.

• What records members can reasonably access The board reiterated that minutes — not discussions, including electronic discussions — are treated as the official record. When early review occurs informally or outside recorded meetings, this limits what members can later examine to understand how decisions were made.

These mechanics shape how predictable, reviewable, and accountable the compliance process is during the trial period, independent of outcome. 

Committee meeting rules and notice requirements

What the board adopted

The board adopted committee procedures described as VIS recommendations, including:

• a minimum 14-day notice for committee meetings

• use of placeholder schedules published in advance (meetings may be canceled with 24 hours notice)

• meetings may be in person, virtual, or hybrid, with a Zoom option available

• committee meetings are open to all members

These procedures were presented as VIS recommendations and referenced a PowerPoint that was not shared with members.

Ratification of actions taken between meetings

One motion approved at this meeting formally ratified actions taken by the board between noticed meetings prior to January 1, 2026. These actions included the acquisition of a Zoom account for board and committee use, the designation of board officers, and adoption of a collections policy proposed by VIS.

Earlier in the meeting, during community comment, one member asked how decisions made between meetings are documented and how members can review them. VIS had explained that actions taken between meetings are reflected in the minutes of the next board meeting rather than documented through separate contemporaneous records, and the board confirmed that this was their understanding.

For members trying to follow decisions in good faith, this distinction affects how easy it is to reconstruct what happened and why.

Recordkeeping Requirements (RCW 64.90.495) 

Under RCW 64.90.495, an association must keep a record of all actions taken by the board without a meeting in its official records. Those records must be maintained alongside minutes and made available to members on request.

This means that if a board takes action outside of a formal meeting (for example via unanimous written consent or another mechanism permitted by the governing documents), that action must be recorded as part of the association’s records — not just mentioned later in board minutes. 

In practice, this means that when decisions occur between meetings, members should be able to review a contemporaneous record of what was decided, even if the board later confirms those actions by vote.

Looking ahead

Based on the decisions made at this meeting, members may want to watch for:

• how the compliance trial is reported and whether summary data is shared

• whether the board revises decisions via beginning-of- and  end-of-meeting comment periods

• call for board directors in a newsletter

Across nonprofit and volunteer-run governance literature, systems function best when processes are predictable, feedback is timely, and participation does not depend on informal access or personal relationships. The decisions outlined above can be evaluated against those baseline conditions, independent of intent or outcome.

We will continue to track how these structures operate and whether they support predictable, accessible, and well-functioning governance for the Ken Lake community.

At their core, these practices are about trust — helping neighbors feel informed, respected, and able to participate without needing special access or insider knowledge.