Surveillance cameras allowed in common areas
Q. The board of our association is looking into security cameras for each of our buildings that would record common areas for later review in the event of vandalism, or complaints of rules violations. Are there any legal considerations we need to take into account with posting such cameras?
A. Initially, these cameras should be referred to as "surveillance cameras" rather than as "security cameras." Importantly, the cameras need to be maintained in operating condition, as their presence will give owners a sense of "security" and could give rise to liability of the association if they are not functioning.
In general, videotaping of the common areas, where a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, is permitted. The cameras should not capture activity in individual units.
The board should have a policy in place regarding who has access to the video, under what circumstances and for what purposes can they be viewed, and as to how long the video will be preserved.
The video should be preserved for a longer, but reasonable, period of time if a written request to preserve it is made to the board and the person making the request pays the association's expenses, if any, in connection with the preservation of such video.
Q. A board member of our condominium intends to sell his unit and is moving, so he will be a nonresident owner. The association's condominium declaration requires that each member of the board be one of the unit owners and to reside on the property. I believe this means that as soon as a board member moves out of their unit, he is no longer eligible to serve as a board member and his seat becomes vacant, whether he has submitted a letter of resignation or not. Please confirm.
A. In my view, a board member residency requirement in a condominium declaration violates two provisions of the Condominium Property Act ("Act"); Section 18(a) (1) that says that "all board members shall be elected at large" and Section 18(b) (2) that states that "the association shall have one class of membership."
The residency requirement would, in my opinion, violate Section 18(a) (1) of the Act because it does not permit board members to be elected at large, but rather limits the pool of candidates to residents. The residency requirement, in my view, would also violate Section 18(b)(2) of the Act because it would create two classes of owners - resident owners who could be elected to the board and nonresident owners who could not be elected to the board. That said, there is no reported Illinois case law on the issue; however, I am comfortable with my interpretation of the Act.
• David M. Bendoff is an attorney with Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit in the Chicago suburbs. Send questions for the column to him at CondoTalk@ksnlaw.com. The firm provides legal service to condominium, townhouse, homeowner associations and housing cooperatives. This column is not a substitute for consultation with legal counsel.