NEWS

Washington’s HOA Records Law—and Why Email Access Matters for Fair Elections in Surfside

In July 2023, Washington State enacted House Bill 1043, formally titled:
“An act relating to association records in common interest communities; and amending RCW 64.32.170, RCW 64.34.372, RCW 64.38.045, and RCW 64.90.495.”

This law did more than update record-keeping requirements—it fundamentally changed how homeowners can communicate, organize, and participate in elections within their communities.

For Surfside, where elections and member outreach have already been points of contention, this change is especially significant.

Some may ask why I’m writing this. It will become apparent in a future article.

What the Law Requires

Under RCW 64.38.045, HOAs must now:

  • Maintain a list of member contact information, including email addresses
  • Provide that list to members upon request
  • Remove only those contacts that are explicitly marked as “unlisted” by the member

This means:

👉 Email access is the default—not the exception

Why Email Access Is Critical for Elections

In today’s world, email is not just a convenience—it is the primary method of communication.

For HOA elections, email access determines whether candidates and members can:

  • Share campaign messages and positions
  • Respond to misinformation or criticism
  • Notify members about meetings, ballots, and deadlines
  • Encourage voter participation
  • Reach part-time residents who are not physically present in Surfside

Without access to email lists, communication becomes controlled and uneven.

The Real Impact in Surfside

In Surfside, many residents:

  • Do not live there full-time
  • Do not regularly attend meetings
  • Depend on digital communication to stay informed

If only the HOA board—or select groups—control communication channels, it creates:

  • An imbalance of power
  • Limited visibility for independent candidates
  • Reduced voter engagement

In effect, restricting email access can influence election outcomes by limiting who gets heard.

What Happened in Surfside

In Surfside, the issue is not theoretical—it is documented.

  • A formal request for the HOA member email list was made
  • The request was denied by the Surfside HOA and its president
  • This denial occurred during an active election period, when communication with members was critical

The consequences are significant:

👉 Elections and member motions took place without equal access to communication tools
👉 Outcomes may have been different if members had been fully informed or reached

Following the denial, additional actions raised further concerns:

  • The president publicly suggested that email lists could be sold if released, framing disclosure as a risk rather than a legal requirement
  • A separate incident was described as a “security breach,” where:
    • An office worker provided the email list via USB
    • The USB was returned by the member when requested unused
    • The employee was suspended and later terminated
  • Releasing the email list was considered a security breach as published in the weekender

This characterization implies wrongdoing, despite the fact that:

  • The passing of Bill 443 by law requires the email list to be shared (with opt-out protections)
  • The list itself is not inherently confidential if members have not requested to be unlisted

The result is a chilling effect:

👉 Employees are discouraged from complying with the law
👉 Members are discouraged from requesting access
👉 Leadership reinforces control over communication

The Dispute Over “Unlisted” Emails

A key issue raised by HOA leadership is the interpretation of this clause:

“Unlisted telephone number or electronic address”

Some argue that “unlisted” applies only to phone numbers. However:

  • Grammatically, “unlisted” modifies both “telephone number” and “electronic address”
  • Contextually, both phone numbers and emails can be unlisted
  • Legally, the statute’s purpose is to enable communication, not restrict it

Legislative Intent Is Clear

I sought clarification directly from Joel McEntire, a co-sponsor of the bill. He sent a response.

He confirmed:

  • HOAs are required to provide member email lists
  • Only those members who opt out (unlisted) can be excluded

This clarification was:

  • Provided in writing
  • Reiterated in a direct phone call to HOA leadership

At that point, there is no ambiguity.

👉 The law requires disclosure of emails—unless a member chooses privacy.

Elections Depend on Open Communication

The purpose of Bill 1043 is not administrative—it is democratic.

Elections in HOAs rely on:

  • Equal access to voters
  • Open exchange of ideas
  • Transparency in communication

When email access is denied:

  • Candidates cannot effectively reach voters
  • Members receive limited or filtered information
  • Elections risk becoming one-sided or influenced by restricted communication

In contrast, when email access is provided:

  • All candidates can communicate fairly
  • Members can hear multiple perspectives
  • Participation increases
  • Trust in the process improves

Surfside: A Question of Fairness

The timeline is clear:

  • Email list requested
  • Denied by HOA leadership
  • Clarified by the bill’s author
  • Still withheld

At the same time:

  • Elections proceeded
  • Motions were voted on
  • Communication remained restricted

👉 This raises a fundamental question:
Were Surfside elections conducted with equal access to voters—or under controlled communication conditions?

Why Compliance Matters

Failure to follow RCW 64.38.045 may result in:

  • Legal challenges
  • Court-ordered disclosure
  • Financial liability for the association
  • Loss of trust among members

But beyond legal risk, the greater issue is this:

👉 Without open communication, there is no true democracy in HOA governance

Safe use of email lists

Modern email practices—used in professional environments in corporations and standard across marketing and communications—allow messages to be sent individually or through managed campaigns, where:


Emails are sent one-to-one or via blind distribution systems


Recipients do not see the full list


The master list remains protected and controlled. Election buddy is such a system where individual members receive ballots but it’s secure and no emails are disclosed

If you disclosed the entire list  emails in a mass emailing that would be considered a security breach.

Conclusion

Washington’s Bill 1043 was designed to ensure that HOA communities operate with transparency, fairness, and open communication.

In Surfside, email access is not a minor administrative issue—it is the foundation of fair elections.

The denial of that access—followed by elections, enforcement actions, and narratives of “security breaches”—raises serious concerns about governance, compliance, and fairness.

The law is clear.
The intent is clear.
The importance of communication is undeniable.

The only remaining question is whether Surfside will uphold both the law—and the principles of fair representation it was meant to protect.