Is the Board being transparent?
I want to follow up on the recent board decision regarding additional legal counsel so the community has a clear picture of what happened.
The meeting agenda listed “Discussion of Budget Neutral Additional Legal Representation.” I asked in advance for more detail since nothing was included in the board packet and was told it was just a discussion item.
At the meeting, the board then made and approved a motion to retain a second attorney. The stated purpose—shared during the meeting—was to assist with updating our bylaws and covenants in preparation for WUCIOA implementation.
While that may be a valid objective, the concern is with how this was handled:
The agenda did not indicate that a decision would be made
No supporting information was provided to members in advance
The explanation for the decision was only given at the time of the vote
“Budget neutral” was stated, but without detail on how costs will be managed
Decisions involving legal work and governing document changes have long-term impact on the entire community. Members should have the opportunity to review and understand the rationale before a vote takes place—not at the moment it’s approved.
I’ve asked the board to clarify the process, scope, and financial details, and whether this will be fully reflected in the meeting minutes. I’ll share any response I receive.
If others are interested, I encourage you to review the minutes once available and ask questions. Transparency and clear notice are essential for informed participation.
I submitted a records request to better understand the Board’s decision to bring on additional legal counsel for updating our governing documents. Instead of receiving documents, I received explanatory responses. I’m sharing both here so the community has more context:
Engagement agreement/contract for additional legal counsel
Board response: No agreement has been executed. Reviewing and will prepare for approval.
Written scope of work for that engagement
Board response: Assistance in updating governing documents under the Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (WUCIOA) in coordination with Spark Management and current attorneys. Additional counsel may also provide general legal advice.
Board resolution approving the engagement
Board response: See May’s Board of Directors meeting minutes once published.
Documents describing billing structure or cost allocation
Board response: No agreement has been entered into. “Budget neutral” refers to staying within the 2026 budget for WUCIOA updates.
The Board believes this approach will save money and help meet the 2028 deadline.
Based on these responses, it appears that no formal engagement agreement, defined scope of work, or billing structure has been finalized yet. At the same time, the Board has indicated that additional counsel has been approved or is being used in some capacity. That raises a basic governance question about whether key details—scope, cost, and terms—should be clearly established before moving forward.
So far, no figures have been shared showing how this approach will reduce costs or "budget neutral" . We already know the Board has agreed to pay $3,600 to Spark Management for bylaw and rules review and guidance, and attorney fees would be in addition to that, plus the costof the covenants. For comparison, the past Board obtained a quote of $10,000 from a law firm to fully draft updated bylaws and covenants.
To be clear, updating our documents for WUCIOA compliance is important. The goal should be to ensure the process is transparent, well-defined, and financially sound for the community. If additional documentation (draft agreements, proposals, estimates, or meeting materials) exists, it would be helpful for those to be shared so homeowners can better understand the plan and the expected costs.