Do AI Notetakers Count Toward Quorum at Condominium Meetings?

AI Notetakers, Virtual Meetings, and the Future of Association Governance

Quick Answer: An AI notetaker should generally be treated as a transcription or recording tool, not as owner attendance, a proxy, or a voting representative. If the actual owner is not present and no valid proxy has been submitted, the AI notetaker likely should not count toward quorum.

Short Read: Below is the practical answer for boards and managers.

Full Analysis: A deeper discussion follows below for associations that want to understand the legal, procedural, and future governance issues. Click Here to Read the Full Analysis.

Do AI Notetakers Count Toward Quorum at Condominium Meetings?

Virtual meetings are now common for condominium associations, homeowners associations, and commercial condominium boards. They make it easier for owners and board members to participate, especially when schedules, travel, or business obligations make in-person meetings difficult.

But a new issue is starting to appear:

AI notetakers and transcription bots are joining virtual meetings.

Sometimes these tools are used by owners or board members who are personally present. In that case, the AI tool is usually just helping capture notes or summarize the discussion. But what happens when the AI notetaker appears in the meeting and the actual owner is not present?

That raises an important question for association boards:

Does an AI notetaker count as attendance for quorum purposes?

Why This Matters

Quorum determines whether association business can be conducted. Voting rights are tied to actual owners, board members, or valid proxy holders. If quorum is not properly established, actions taken at the meeting may later be challenged.

That can affect elections, budgets, assessments, rule changes, contract approvals, and other association decisions.

Most governing documents were written before AI tools existed. They usually refer to owners being present in person, participating electronically, or appearing by proxy. They generally do not address whether an AI tool can appear on behalf of an owner.

Why an AI Notetaker Likely Does Not Count

Under the current framework, an AI notetaker should generally be treated as a tool, not as an owner or proxy.

An AI notetaker may be able to record, transcribe, or summarize a meeting. But it typically cannot vote, make motions, object, consent to action, ask questions in a legally meaningful way, or prove that the owner is actually present.

It is also not usually listed as an eligible proxy holder under condominium or association bylaws. A proxy generally requires an owner to authorize another person or legally recognized representative to act on their behalf.

For that reason, if the owner is present and using AI as a note-taking tool, that is one issue. But if only the AI notetaker appears and the owner is absent, the safer position is that the owner has not personally attended and has not appeared through a valid proxy.

The Bigger Issue: AI Agents Are Coming

Today’s AI notetakers are mostly passive. They listen, transcribe, and summarize.

The next phase will likely be AI agents that are more interactive. An owner may eventually try to instruct an AI agent to attend a meeting, ask questions, and vote based on preset instructions.

For example, an owner might tell an AI agent:

Vote yes on routine maintenance items, vote no on any special assessment above $25,000, and ask for clarification on any contract longer than one year.

That raises a much bigger governance question:

Is the AI merely assisting the owner, or is it acting as the owner’s representative?

That distinction matters. Association meetings often require judgment, discussion, and the ability to respond as facts change during the meeting. Current governing documents and laws were generally not drafted with automated representatives in mind.

Practical Steps for Boards

Boards and managers should not ignore this issue. Recommended steps include:

• Conduct a roll call at the beginning of virtual meetings.

• Confirm that actual owners, board members, or authorized human proxies are present.

• Do not count standalone AI notetakers toward quorum.

• Require disclosure of AI tools in attendance.

• Prohibit unauthorized recording or transcription during executive session.

• Review bylaws, proxy forms, and meeting procedures with association counsel.

• Consider adopting an AI attendance and recording policy. Click Here for Sample Language.

  
  

A simple policy might state that AI notetakers and transcription tools may be used only as supplemental tools, and do not count for quorum, voting, or proxy purposes unless expressly allowed by the governing documents and applicable law.

Final Thought

AI attendance is no longer hypothetical. It is already appearing in virtual association meetings, and more advanced AI agents are likely to follow.

Associations should address this issue before it becomes part of a quorum dispute, contested vote, or confidentiality concern. The best approach is practical, not reactionary: allow technology where appropriate, but preserve legal accountability.

At JFI Real Estate Management, we understand that association management is not just about collecting assessments and coordinating vendors. It is also about helping boards navigate the practical governance issues that affect how decisions are made.

If your condominium or commercial association is looking for a management partner that brings hands-on oversight, clear communication, and forward-thinking guidance, JFI Real Estate Management is ready to help.

Full Analysis: AI Notetakers, Virtual Meetings, and the Future of Association Governance

A New Issue Showing Up in Virtual Board Meetings

Virtual board meetings have become standard for many condominium associations, homeowners associations, and commercial condominium boards. What was once handled in a conference room or building lobby is now routinely conducted through Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, or similar virtual platforms.

That shift has made meetings more accessible. Owners can join from their office, home, vehicle, or while traveling. Board members can conduct business without the scheduling challenges that often come with in-person meetings. For many associations, virtual meetings have become not only convenient, but expected.

But a new issue is beginning to appear.

AI notetakers, transcription bots, and automated meeting assistants are now joining virtual meetings. In some cases, these tools are used by owners or board members to help summarize the discussion. In other cases, the AI tool may appear in the meeting even when the actual owner is not visibly or audibly present.

That creates a practical governance question:

If an owner does not personally attend a virtual meeting, but their AI notetaker does, has the owner actually attended?

For condominium and association boards, this is not just a technology question. It directly affects meeting procedure. Does the AI notetaker count as attendance? Does it count toward quorum? Can it represent the owner? Can it vote? Can it participate in discussion? Can it satisfy the requirements of the governing documents?

These are questions that boards, managers, and owners are beginning to ask in real time.

Why This Matters

Quorum determines whether association business can be conducted. If quorum is not present, the board or membership may be limited in what it can do, depending on the governing documents and applicable law.

Voting rights are also tied to actual owners or valid proxy holders. In most association settings, a vote must be cast by the owner, a board member, or another person who has been properly authorized to act on that owner’s behalf.

That matters because board and association actions can be challenged if quorum was not properly established. Meetings, elections, budgets, assessments, rule changes, and other association decisions all depend on proper meeting procedure.

AI tools introduce uncertainty because most governing documents were drafted before this technology existed. Many bylaws contemplate attendance in person, attendance by proxy, and in some cases participation by electronic means. They generally do not contemplate an automated AI tool appearing in a virtual meeting on behalf of an owner.

So this issue is not theoretical. It can affect whether a meeting is valid, whether quorum was properly established, and whether association action may later be questioned.

The Current Framework: Presence, Proxies, and Voting

Traditionally, condominium and association governing documents recognize a few basic ways for owners to participate in meetings.

An owner may attend in person. An owner may attend electronically if virtual or telephonic participation is permitted. An owner may also be represented by a valid proxy if the governing documents and applicable law allow proxy voting.

That framework has generally worked well because each form of participation still connects back to a legally recognized person.

A person attending in the room can participate, speak, vote, object, and be counted. A person attending by phone or video conference can usually do the same. A proxy holder, when properly appointed, can act within the authority granted by the owner.

The proxy concept is especially important. A proxy generally requires an owner to authorize another person or legally recognized representative to act on the owner’s behalf. In many condominium bylaws, proxy provisions identify who may serve in that role, such as another unit owner, a management agent, an attorney, a mortgagee, or a lessee. The specific language varies by association, but the underlying concept is the same: someone with legal authority must be able to act for the owner.

For example, many condominium bylaws require the presence “in person or by proxy” of owners representing a certain percentage of the total votes in order to establish quorum. In one set of commercial condominium bylaws reviewed by JFI Real Estate Management, quorum required owners representing at least 25% of the total votes to be present in person or by proxy, and the proxy section identified categories of individuals or parties who may be appointed as proxy holders.

That traditional structure raises the central issue with AI notetakers: an AI tool may be present in the virtual meeting room, but it is not necessarily an owner, a board member, or a valid proxy holder. It may be a useful tool for transcription or note-taking, but that does not automatically make it a legally recognized participant for purposes of quorum, voting, or association action.

Under the current framework, the key distinction is this:

Technology may assist an owner, but assistance is not the same as legal attendance or representation.

Why an AI Notetaker Likely Does Not Count Toward Quorum

At least under the current framework, an AI notetaker should generally be treated as a tool, not as an owner or proxy.

An AI notetaker may be useful for recording, transcribing, or summarizing a meeting. However, that does not necessarily make it a legally recognized participant. It is not the owner. It is not a board member. It is not a human proxy holder. It is not independently capable of exercising the owner’s legal rights.

This distinction matters because quorum is not simply about whether a name or device appears in a virtual meeting room. Quorum is about whether the required number of owners, votes, directors, or authorized representatives are actually present for purposes of conducting association business.

An AI notetaker, by itself, generally cannot:

• vote;

• make motions;

• second motions;

• object to action;

• consent to action;

• ask questions in a legally meaningful way;

• change positions based on discussion;

• verify the owner’s intent;

• or prove that the owner is actually present.

It is also unlikely to fall within the traditional categories of an eligible proxy holder. In many condominium bylaws, proxy provisions identify a person or legally recognized party who may act on behalf of the owner, such as another unit owner, management agent, attorney, mortgagee, or lessee. An AI transcription tool does not neatly fit within that structure.

For that reason, boards should be careful not to treat the mere presence of an AI notetaker as owner attendance. If the actual owner is present on the call, the AI tool may simply be assisting that owner. But if the owner is absent and only the AI notetaker appears, the safer position is that the owner has not personally attended and has not appeared through a valid proxy.

In practical terms, an AI notetaker should be treated like a recording or transcription device, not as attendance for quorum, voting, or proxy purposes.

The Bigger Issue: AI Agents Are Coming Next

The current issue involves AI notetakers, which are mostly passive. They listen, transcribe, summarize, and organize meeting notes.

But the next step is not difficult to imagine.

As AI tools become more sophisticated, owners may begin using AI agents that do more than take notes. These tools may be capable of attending meetings, summarizing discussion in real time, asking questions, responding within pre-set guidelines, and even attempting to vote based on instructions given by the owner.

For example, an owner could theoretically instruct an AI agent:

• vote yes on routine maintenance items;

• vote no on any special assessment above $25,000;

• ask for clarification on any contract longer than one year;

• oppose any increase in regular assessments above a certain percentage;

• abstain from any matter not included in the meeting packet;

• or follow specific voting instructions based on the agenda.

This is the natural evolution from passive AI notetakers to active AI representatives.

That creates a much larger governance question:

Is the AI merely assisting the owner, or is it acting as the owner’s representative?

That distinction is critical.

If the owner is present and using AI as a support tool, the issue may be manageable. The owner remains the legally accountable participant. The owner can speak, vote, object, clarify intent, and correct the AI if necessary.

But if the owner is absent and the AI agent is attempting to participate on the owner’s behalf, the issue becomes much more complicated. At that point, the AI tool is no longer just helping the owner. It may be attempting to function as a proxy, representative, or digital agent.

Most association governing documents were not drafted with this possibility in mind. They were written for human attendance, human proxies, and human decision-making. That leaves boards and managers with an important question to address before the issue becomes common:

Where is the line between technology that assists participation and technology that replaces participation?

The Legal and Practical Problems with AI Agents

AI agents raise several practical and legal issues that condominium and association boards should begin thinking about now.

Authority

The first issue is authority.

How does the association know the owner authorized the AI agent to attend? Was the authorization written? Was it signed? Was it limited to note-taking, or did it include authority to vote? Is the AI agent equivalent to a proxy? Can an AI agent legally hold proxy authority at all?

These are not easy questions. Current governing documents and statutes generally contemplate owners, directors, officers, management agents, attorneys, lessees, mortgagees, and other legally recognized persons or entities. They do not usually contemplate autonomous software acting as a meeting participant.

Maryland’s Condominium Act recognizes voting by proxy and states that proxies are generally effective for a maximum of 180 days unless granted to a lessee or mortgagee. The Act also discusses quorum in terms of persons present in person or by proxy. It does not appear to directly address whether an AI agent can serve as a proxy holder or count toward quorum.

That means boards should not assume that an AI agent has authority to act for an owner unless the governing documents, applicable law, and association counsel clearly support that conclusion.

Identity Verification

The second issue is identity verification.

If an AI agent appears in a virtual meeting, how does the association know it belongs to the owner? Was it actually sent by the owner? Was it authorized for that meeting? Was it connected to the correct unit? Was it spoofed, hacked, or misconfigured?

This is already difficult enough with human attendees in virtual meetings. It becomes even more complicated when the “attendee” is a software tool.

Associations may need to consider procedures such as:

• requiring owners to appear personally for roll call;

• requiring written disclosure of AI tools;

• requiring written authorization before any electronic representative is permitted;

• confirming the owner’s identity before counting attendance;

• and limiting AI tools to note-taking unless otherwise approved.

Without reliable identity verification, an association could face uncertainty over whether the person or tool in the meeting actually represents the owner.

Voting Reliability

The third issue is voting reliability.

What happens if the AI agent votes incorrectly? What if the owner’s instructions were misunderstood? What if the AI misreads the agenda, summarizes the discussion incorrectly, or applies the wrong voting rule?

AI tools are improving quickly, but they are not perfect. They can misunderstand context, misinterpret instructions, or generate inaccurate responses. In a governance setting, that creates risk.

If an AI agent votes “yes” when the owner intended to vote “no,” who is responsible for that vote? The owner? The software provider? The association? The manager who counted the vote?

Until those issues are clearly resolved, boards should be cautious about accepting AI-generated participation as legally effective voting.

Deliberation

The fourth issue is deliberation.

Association meetings are not always simple yes-or-no exercises. Many decisions require discussion, judgment, context, and flexibility. Owners may change their position based on information presented during the meeting. A board may revise a proposal. A contractor may answer questions. A budget item may be clarified. A motion may be amended.

That creates a serious question:

Can an AI agent deliberate in a legally meaningful way?

If an owner gives instructions before the meeting, those instructions may not account for what actually happens during the meeting. The discussion may change the issue. The facts may change. The motion may change. The financial impact may change.

A human participant can adjust. An AI agent may be limited to pre-set instructions, or worse, may attempt to infer the owner’s intent without clear authority.

That is a major reason why boards should distinguish between AI-assisted attendance and AI-substituted attendance.

Confidentiality

The fifth issue is confidentiality.

AI tools may record, transcribe, summarize, store, or transmit meeting content. In open meetings, transparency is important and should generally be encouraged. However, not every part of association governance is appropriate for unrestricted recording or third-party processing.

Executive sessions may involve:

• collections;

• legal issues;

• pending disputes;

• contract negotiations;

• owner violations;

• personnel matters;

• privacy concerns;

• or other sensitive association business.

Maryland law specifically recognizes that condominium boards may meet in closed session for certain purposes, including personnel matters, privacy or reputation issues, consultation with legal counsel, and other sensitive matters.

Associations should therefore consider where meeting data is going when AI tools are used. Is the content being stored? Is it being uploaded to a third-party platform? Who has access to it? Can it be deleted? Could it later be discoverable in litigation?

Those questions are especially important during executive session.

Recommended Best Practices for Boards and Managers

Boards and managers do not need to overreact to AI tools, but they should not ignore them either. The best approach is to establish clear procedures before there is a dispute.

Recommended best practices include:

• conduct a roll call at the beginning of each virtual meeting;

• confirm that each actual owner, board member, or authorized human proxy is present;

• do not count standalone AI notetakers toward quorum;

• require attendees to disclose AI notetakers, transcription tools, or automated meeting assistants;

• distinguish between an owner using AI while present and an AI tool appearing without the owner;

• prohibit unauthorized recording or transcription during executive session;

• adopt an AI attendance, recording, and transcription policy;

• review bylaws, meeting rules, and proxy forms with association counsel;

• clarify whether AI tools are permitted, restricted, or prohibited;

• and update proxy forms to address electronic participation and AI tools.

This is particularly important because the technology is changing quickly. A few years ago, most virtual meetings did not include AI notetakers. Now, they are increasingly common. The next step will likely be interactive AI agents.

Associations that address the issue early will be in a better position than those that wait until after a contested vote, failed quorum, disputed election, or confidential executive session issue.

Sample Policy Language

Associations may want to consider adopting a policy addressing AI tools in meetings. Any policy should be reviewed by association counsel and tailored to the association’s governing documents and applicable law.

Sample language could include:

AI notetakers, transcription tools, automated meeting assistants, and similar technologies may be permitted as supplemental tools only. Such tools do not constitute attendance for quorum, voting, or proxy purposes unless expressly permitted by the governing documents and applicable law. The Board may restrict or prohibit the use of AI tools during executive session or other confidential portions of a meeting.

Associations that want to address future AI agents more directly may also consider language such as:

No automated or artificial intelligence agent may vote, make motions, object, consent, or otherwise act on behalf of a unit owner unless expressly authorized by the governing documents, applicable law, and procedures adopted by the Association. The Association may require written authorization, identity verification, and legal review before recognizing any non-human or automated representative for meeting participation, quorum, voting, or proxy purposes.

The goal is not to ban useful technology unnecessarily. The goal is to make clear that legal rights belong to owners and authorized representatives, not to software tools unless the law and governing documents clearly allow otherwise.

Maryland Condominium Context

Maryland condominium associations operate under their governing documents and the Maryland Condominium Act. Many governing documents allow attendance in person or by proxy, and virtual meetings have become common in association governance.

Maryland law also allows meeting notices to be sent by electronic transmission if statutory requirements are met, and it recognizes quorum and proxy concepts for council of unit owners meetings.

However, AI participation remains largely unaddressed. The law and most governing documents do not appear to directly answer whether an AI notetaker or AI agent can be treated as owner attendance, a proxy holder, or a legally valid voting participant.

That is the key point. The issue is not whether technology can assist owners. The issue is whether the law and governing documents recognize that technology as a legally valid participant.

Until that question is answered more clearly, boards should avoid assuming that AI attendance equals owner attendance. The safer approach is to require actual owner participation or a valid human proxy unless the governing documents, applicable statute, or legal counsel provide otherwise.

Boards Should Address This Before It Becomes a Dispute

AI attendance is no longer hypothetical. AI notetakers are already appearing in virtual association meetings, and more advanced AI agents are likely to follow.

Boards should address this issue now, before it becomes part of a quorum dispute, contested vote, challenged election, or confidentiality concern.

Clear procedures protect everyone involved: the board, the owners, the manager, and the validity of association action. The best approach is practical, not reactionary. Associations can allow technology where appropriate while still preserving legal accountability.

As AI becomes more capable, association governance will need to distinguish between tools that assist owners and representatives that legally act for them. Boards that address that distinction early will be better positioned to avoid confusion, disputes, and procedural challenges.

At JFI Real Estate Management, we understand that association management is not just about collecting assessments and coordinating vendors. It is also about helping boards navigate the practical governance issues that affect how decisions are made.

AI participation in virtual meetings is one example of how association governance is continuing to evolve. Boards that address these issues early will be better positioned to avoid confusion, disputes, and procedural challenges.

If your condominium or commercial association is looking for a management partner that brings hands-on oversight, clear communication, and forward-thinking guidance, JFI Real Estate Management is ready to help.