▶'OMISSION': Regarding the topic, the lack of multiple definitions in the DSL* (as noted above) doesn't preclude or eliminate such reference elsewhere in the California Civil Code, as in Civil Code §5800 - §5810where you will find the word 'omission' mentioned nine (9) times. In fact, to better understand the application of ''omission' as that term relates to board duties, you probably need to do a thorough SEARCH of the term on multiple state law and HOA sites.
The ALTACITIES SEARCH LINK may assist this task. Legal case law also needs to be reviewed and that, again, must be done on a case-by-case basis. That's why volunteer HOA boards are so dependent upon evaluation of possible 'errors and omissions' by their own legal counsel. Also, this reality partially explains why a simple search for HOA ATTORNEY will produce some 798,000 results, as in this example.
Stands to reason that in every area of HOA management and control there will be omissions from time to time. What might those omissions include (partial list):
1) Failure to enforce CC&Rs on a uniform basis as these apply both to homeowners and to other affected parties (i.e., a neighboring golf course located with the confines of the HOA property)
2) Failure to change CC&Rs or governing documents entirely during a transition of leadership (i.e., when the property developer transfers title of the development to the nonprofit HOA)
3) Failure to hold prescribed meetings of advisory committees (like Rules & Regulations) on the schedule as outlined in the committee charter
4) Failure to notify homeowners of a pending special or emergency assessment without open forums to explain the case
5) Failure to limit Board Executive Sessions, resulting in discussion and votes on topics outside of the Davis-Stirling Law guidelines for private session topics
Of course, even when homeowners discover omissions by the board or management, there are significant hurdles and restraints to seek remedy, mediation, and resolution. Lack of HOA governance transparency and openness means to effect accountability, if not due-diligence, generally cited as the common impediments for homeowners who wish to right the ship of state.
Regarding transparency, at least, it is worthwhile to consider the following opinion:
"Invasion of Privacy: ... example is when a director takes private information from executive session and leaks it to the membership in the name of 'transparency' because members have a 'right' to know. Actually, they don't." ~ www.davis-stirling.com
The HOA legal counsel that offers this opinion about the lack of a homeowner right to transparency is, of course, giving an opinion. And actually, the attorney is probably right. This is a private government and, as such, we have to ask how many private enterprises practice or effect true transparency in their affairs, most of all, their top-level management?
However, we know that the Davis-Stirling Law in California specifies a list of 6 items that are permitted to be covered in private, closed Executive Session. So, the correct conclusion would be that matters not on this LIST would be reserved for general, open meetings, where transparency is necessary.
Therefore, transparency is qualified and specified, but it is not prohibited.