Your Right to Participate Is Not the Board's to Give.

friendsofkenlake
4 days ago
5 min read

or to take away. The president oversteps.

At a recent planning meeting, the board president issued a formal warning to two members — including your bylaws committee chair — that they could be permanently banned from board meetings for disruptive conduct.

One of those members was not present at the meeting where the warning was issued.

What Washington State Requires

As of January 1, 2026, all Washington community associations — including Lakemoor Community Club — are bound by the open meeting standards of RCW 64.90.445. This is not a future deadline. It is current law.

Here is what it says, in plain language:

At every board meeting, the board must provide a reasonable opportunity for members to comment on any matter affecting the community or the association. That opportunity must include at least 15 minutes at the beginning of each meeting for members to comment on agenda items before the board votes. The minimum time per member is 90 seconds.

The board may set reasonable time limits. It may not eliminate the right.

Members are also entitled to attend all board and committee meetings. The law requires that these meetings be open to unit owners. That is not a courtesy. It is a statutory right.

What the Law Says About Removal

The law does permit a board to remove a member from a meeting. Here is the exact standard, from RCW 64.90.445(2)(a):

The board may expel or prohibit attendance by any person who, after warning by the chair of the meeting, disrupts the meeting.

Three conditions must all be met:

First, a warning must be issued by the chair before any removal.

Second, the conduct must actually disrupt the meeting — meaning it prevents the meeting from functioning. Not that it makes board members uncomfortable. Not that it challenges a decision the board has already made. Not that it asks questions the board would prefer not to answer.

Third, the removal applies to that meeting. The statute does not authorize permanent bans, prospective bans, or ongoing restrictions on a member's right to attend future meetings. A ban that extends beyond a single meeting — issued before any future conduct has occurred — has no basis in Washington law.

What Disruption Is Not

The law does not define disruption precisely, which means the standard must be applied reasonably and consistently. In HOA legal practice, disruption means conduct that prevents the meeting from proceeding — shouting over speakers, refusing to yield after a warning, physically interfering with the meeting's function.

Here is what disruption is not:

Holding a sign to a camera with questions written on it. This is silent visual communication. It does not raise volume. It does not prevent anyone from speaking. It does not stop the meeting from proceeding. It is the functional equivalent of a raised hand with a bit more information.
Member communication in the chat. The law does not authorize the board to permit some member communication while prohibiting other member communication based on its content.

That is not meeting management. That is selective censorship of participation.

Speaking when provoked. When a committee chair raises her hand to ask questions about her committee's work at a special meeting called specifically to address that work, in her capacity as committee chair, and is told she will not be heard, and holds up written questions silently, and is chastised for that — and only then unmutes to speak — that sequence is not disruption. That is cause and effect. The board created the conditions. The member responded to them.

Disagreeing with the board. Challenging a decision. Asking questions the board finds inconvenient.

None of these constitute disruption under any reasonable or legal standard. A board that cannot distinguish between disagreement and disruption is not applying the law.

It is using the disruption standard as a tool to silence opposition.

The Test Case: Applying the Standard to Specific Conduct

The board president cited specific incidents as the basis for the warning issued at the planning meeting. Let's apply the legal standard to each one.

Incident one: A member announced at the April 2 special meeting that he would pursue a bylaws process independently if the board refused to engage with the committee's work. He made this statement after being recognized and called on by the board president himself.

Speaking when recognized by the chair is not disruption. It is the meeting functioning exactly as it should. The board president called on this member. The member spoke. That is the process working correctly.

Incident two: After the April 2 meeting was adjourned, the same member said that accusing a woman of wanting control is sexist as a response to an after-meeting comment by the president.

A meeting that has been adjourned is no longer in session. Conduct after adjournment cannot constitute disruption of a meeting that no longer exists. There is no meeting to disrupt.

The warning itself: The warning was issued at the planning meeting. This member was not present at the planning meeting.

The law requires a warning by the chair of the meeting where the conduct occurs. A warning issued at a meeting a member did not attend, for conduct at a different meeting, for future conduct that has not yet occurred, does not satisfy the statutory requirement. Under any reading of RCW 64.90.445, this member has not legally received a warning.

Putting it together: the board president issued a permanent ban threat to a member who was not in the room, for speaking when called upon, and for speaking after the meeting ended.

There is no version of the disruption standard — legal, procedural, or common sense — under which any of that qualifies.

Which means the board is not applying a legal standard. They are applying a personal one. And personal standards are not what the law authorizes.

Why a Prohibiting Members Is Not an Option

The warning issued at the planning meeting referenced the possibility of members being prohibited from board meetings.

That is not a power the board has.

A prohibition on a member's attendance at board meetings would extinguish a statutory right that Washington law guarantees at every meeting. It would mean that a dues-paying member of this association — with full membership rights, financial obligations, and a stake in every decision this board makes — could be permanently excluded from the meetings where those decisions are made.

The law does not allow this.

A board president's frustration with a member's participation does not override Washington state statute. A pattern of disagreement between a member and the board does not meet the legal standard for disruption. Personal feelings about a member's conduct do not constitute grounds for removing a member's statutory right to attend and comment.

If the board believes a member has been genuinely disruptive at a specific meeting, and is preventing the meeting from continuing, the remedy is removal from that meeting, after a warning, for that conduct. That is the full extent of the authority the law provides.

What Should Happen

The board needs to formally withdraw the threat of a prohibition — for both members named. There is no statutory basis for this threat, and its application violates member rights which are legally required.

We are asking the board to establish a written, documented definition of disruptive conduct that complies with RCW 64.90.445 and to make that definition available to all members so that everyone has clear notice of the standard being applied equally.

We are asking the board to recognize that participation in governance is not a privilege the board grants. It is a right Washington state law guarantees.