I've watched this thread for days - sometimes amused, sometimes intrigued - but watched nonetheless and now feel like I want to contribute/comment.
I'll do so in three separate areas:
1). Posting "tone" of the major participants (because it DOES affect both the content and the perception by others).
2). Addressing the two major metaphors (definition = "implied comparison") of an HOA to other organizations(because it DOES affect the underlying philosophy that forum participants use when expressing their individual viewpoints).
3). My specific opinion(s) regarding the original precept of this "Informational Voting Rights" issue (which by the way appears to be - from the ultimate multi-person descriptions - to be somewhat of a misnomer).
POSTING TONE:
I would agree that Sam's posting tone is provocative and can, by some, be viewed as deliberately inflammatory. Jon, who normally delivers calm, orderly posts, does seem susceptible to having his buttons pushed by Sam's tone. Tim has demonstrated an extraordinary posture of calm, objective, "truth-seeking" posts that seem (to me at least) to frustrate Sam in that he (Sam) can't seem to get a rise from Tim. Ah .. .. .. just the interplay of various communication styles
.
HOA METAPHORS:
Many seem to assume that an HOA metaphorically resembles a governmental entity. The BOD are elected officials using "tax" money (HOA Dues) to fund the operation of an entity that "governs" the populace (Homeowners). But while there are elements of similarity, it's NOT a perfect analogy - either philosophically or logistically. Unlike the governmental model, almost all HOAs are actually business corporations. Thus the other metaphor is the corporation where the shareholders (homeowners) are people who made a conscious decision to vest themselves (both finanacially and legally) in this corporation - having the opportunity ahead of time to fully research, understand, and decide whether or not they would choose to accept the terms (e.g. governing documents) that accompanied their free will decision. With that free will, they voluntarily entered into a legally binding contract with that corporate entity and should expect no less than to be held accountable to the terms of that contract.
My personal opinion is that neither model is perfect - an HOA is really a mixture of both - but it seems that many posters' opinions originate within the strictly held viewpoint of one model or the other. I would suggest you open your mind to the possibility that your strict metaphor isn't entirely true.
INFORMATIONAL VOTING RIGHTS:
The overall concept here seems to hinge on two fundamental precepts - first that organizational operational transparency is a good thing, and secondly that the organization would benefit from the broader input of opinions of those affected by the decisions than from just those who are charged with making the decisions. In a real life situation are these precepts accurate?
It's truly hard to argue with the first assumption. With VERY few exceptions (usually only those subjects that in and of themselves have been judged to be legitimate reasons for BOD Exectuve Sessions) transparency of all HOA issues is a good thing.
As for the second precept, on the surface it sounds perfectly logical and well-meaning, but here the devil TRULY is in the details - both philosophical and practical. The idea that for most (Sam are you really advocating "ALL") decisions that the BOD is asked to make, they will do a better job (better being defined as more closely aligned to the wishes of the majority of the homeowners) if the populace can weigh in on the decision, seems logical on first blush. But is it? From a practical viewpoint, some decisions just don't warrant that level of effort. The decision on whether or not the HOA should purchase one box vs. six boxes of paperclips just doesn't matter enough to create a system (technological or otherwise) to have all homeowners render their opinion on it. The outcome return on the effort investment just isn't worth it. The ROI test fails.
But much more important to address is the assumption (and this assumption seems intrinsic to Sam's idea) that providing a system allowing "real time" homeowner feedback on questions facing the HOA will provide the decision making BOD an accurate representation of the majority opinion of the owners. I think this assumption is seriously flawed. Instead, it is much more likely to render a collective opinion of a subset of the homeowners who feel compelled to closely examine day-to-day operation of the HOA. Please do not misinterpret what I'm saying - I AM NOT saying that close examination of HOA operation is a bad thing - I'm only saying that it likely doesn't represent the broader view of greater numbers of homeowners. So it's very likely that the qualitative results you get from a system that solicits/allows/provides for homeowner opinion on most HOA issues doesn't accurately reflect the overall opinion of the homeowners at large. In scientific research, we call this phenomenon "selection bias" - a situation where you artificially influence the results by inadvertently "selecting" the research participants.
Ah yes, there are those of you who will argue that the homeowners who don't choose to participate in this constant, on-going opportunity have abdicated their "rights" to those of you who will. But I would suggest that's simply not true. There are those homeowners who willfully choose to place their trust and their "just as important vote" as yours to the officers they elect on an annual basis - they don't find the need, they don't have the desire to second guess every decision their elected officer make. AND their votes count just as much as those who want daily operational oversight/input.
So, the Informational Voting Rights "system" while it certainly could be useful, must be interpreted by the Board very carefully. And Sam's assertion that Boards that "violate" the wishes of the results that such a system generates will "get their due" in the next election may or may not really be either true or justified. The simple fact is that this system will provide informational results from only the subset that chooses to use it - which may or may not accurately reflect the populace affected by the decisions being made.
To conclude - let's be very practical here:
1). I'm a technology advocate.
2). I'm an informed decision advocate.
3). I believe generally that more information is better.
4). The system doesn't seem terribly difficult to implement, so why not?
5). The information gathered may well enlighten decision makers to points of view they may not have previously considered.
6). At the end of the day, the decision makers should take all inputs they can reasonably acquire and couple them with their own good sense (hopefully this trait was the basis upon which they achieved their decision making status) to reach the best decision they can.
7). Only hindsight is 20-20 vision - so ultimate judgement is based on a retrospective assessment. The real question is whether or not this Informational Voting Rights system holds the promise of prospectively narrowing the gap to what is ultimately found to be true. My opinion (just mine) is that it will - but only marginally.