Summary- The shift to virtual-only HOA board meetings in Nevada—initially allowed as a public health necessity during COVID-19—has evolved into a de facto norm for many associations. While virtual meetings offer convenience, especially for board members and management, their continued exclusive use raises fair governance concerns for homeowner associations under NRS 116 and principles of democratic participation, procedural transparency, and equitable access.
Introduction- NRS 116.3103 imposes a duty on the executive board to act in all instances on behalf of the association as fiduciaries and act on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that their actions are in the best interest of the association. Nevada courts have found HOAs are a quasi-governmental entity. Public bodies are required to make meetings accessible, and physical options are often retained to prevent digital disenfranchisement and the underlying principle of public accountability is relevant. Nonetheless, a bill that would subject HOAs to Nevada’s Open Meeting Law (NRS 241) did not pass the 2011 legislative session. Therefore, the definitions contained therein do not apply.
As a result, I do not see any law or opinion that expressly states that an association’s board meeting cannot be conducted solely by virtual mean. But should that be your association’s policy, simply because it is not outlawed?
Legal and Policy Implications
NRS 116.31083 meetings must:
Open to all owners (with exceptions for executive sessions),
Reasonably noticed and accessible, and
Held with intent to foster participation and transparency
Due process- If critical issues (budget, elections, violations) are handled exclusively in virtual meetings, the lack of meaningful access or participation may raise due process questions, especially for:
Non-English speakers,
Elderly residents,
Residents with disabilities or limited digital access
Lead to reduced Owner Participation and Oversight?
Access barriers: Owners without reliable internet, technological literacy, or appropriate devices may be effectively excluded from participation.
Loss of informal engagement: In-person meetings foster spontaneous questions, sidebar discussions, and informal observation that virtual formats restrict.
Muted dissent: Owners may be discouraged from raising issues or challenging board decisions in a tightly controlled virtual format.
Transparency and Procedural Integrity?
Virtual meetings allow for easy muting or ignoring of dissenting members.
Selective visibility (screen control, chat management) that may silence uncomfortable questions.
Practical considerations
Technological Issues- Likely the most common problems faced has to do with the technology itself. Even though many platforms have upgraded their systems, you will still run into some technological challenges, especially when you have a large number of participants. Some platforms simply can’t take the sheer volume of traffic. In fact, they may even malfunction when you reach a certain number. Additionally, not everyone has the same Internet quality, so some members may experience delays, lags, and even drops.
Distractions- Gatherings and retaining everyone’s attention is simpler in-person. Virtually, though, people have more distractions available. Members might try to multitask or just keep themselves busy with less important things. They might surf the web, browse social media, or do other tasks that don’t even require the Internet. That means you don’t really have their full, undivided attention.
A Different Feel- It is my opinion, virtual meetings just don’t offer the same feel as physical meetings. It is also significantly harder to build relationships, strike a rapport, and establish a sense of community if you’re just seeing everyone online. This is because you can’t really socialize to the same extent through a screen as you would in-person. In fact, most of the social interactions take place outside of the meeting itself, such as during breaks, before meetings, and after meetings.
Best Practices and Reform Proposals
Hybrid Model Encouragement
Require HOAs to offer both in-person and virtual access (hybrid meetings), accommodating a wider range of owner needs.
This mirrors practices adopted by public bodies post-COVID (e.g., city councils, school boards).
Codify NRS 116 to permit hybrid formats where technologically feasible
Encourage associations to review and amend bylaws to ensure virtual meeting procedures reflect community preferences and procedural fairness.
Conclusion
While virtual meetings have modernized HOA governance and offered logistical efficiencies, exclusive reliance on them—without owner consultation or safeguards—raises fundamental concerns of fairness, accessibility, and procedural legitimacy. Associations must balance efficiency with democratic engagement. Nevada regulators and lawmakers should consider aligning NRS 116 with modern best practices by promoting hybrid accessibility models that preserve transparency and owner participation.
