Quorum Questiom... Robert's Rules

Per Roberts rules… Is a quorum established by Homeowners present or by lots represented at the meeting.

For example… If you need 50% to establish a quorum in a HOA of 200 homes, you would need 100 people at the meeting, right?

Let’s say you have 50 couples attended the meeting, both husband and wife are on the deed, would that be enough to establish a quorum? Or is the couple counted as one toward the quorum, becuase they both reside on one lot?

Sorry, I know this is confusing.

In our hoa, each home gets one vote.

A valid proxy or the presence of at least one owner counts toward a quorum.

We need 25% to establsih a quorun and have about 500 homes, so proxies plus attendees (who did not send in a proxy) must equal 125.

So, if just one person shows up with proxies from 125 homes we have a quorum.

Glen thank you on the refresher on FL 720.

I was trying to use round numbers to not confuse myself.

My community has 325 lots, and we need 30 to get a quorom.

I am just trying to find out if two people from that lot show up at the meeting, both on the deed, would those two people count towards a quorum. Or would it be considered one twoards the quorum.

The reason I ask is because our HOA always has a hard time getting enought people to show up at the annual meeting to elect the BOD. We have two small kids at home, I would have to hire a babysitter for the meeting and if my husband does not NEED to go to count toward the quorum, he will stay home.

I am not taking about votes.

Again, just to get a quorum.

My husband and I would get one vote between us.

However, would we both be counted to get a quorum?

LMAO...

Gezzzzz thats too bad...

We just got a puppy for that very reason.

Thank you so much.

Hi Lynne:

Apparently from looking at your State site at this time there is no South Carolina Homeowner’s Association Act. One was proposed and before the legislature … it states at the bottom … This act takes effect January 1, 2012. It can be found here:
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/cgi-bin/query.exe?first=DOC&querytext=quorum&category=Legislation&session=119&c6201064&result_pos=10&keyval=1190218

At this time … follow what your HOA documents state.

In California, a standard boiler plate set of Bylaws requires a majority of the voting power to be present in person or by proxy in order to establish quorum. The Davis-Stirling Act of 2006 also allows the ballots to count toward quorum IF quorum was required by the Bylaws.

51% is not a high figure, as it take a quorum of 51% in our Association in order to vote on raising assessments beyond 20% annually.

Quorum . Except as otherwise stated in these By-laws 'or' in the Declaration, the presence in person or by alternate of the Voting Members representing 51% of the total vote of the Association shall constitute a quorum at all meetings of the association."

I just re-read it again. It seems clear enough to mean 51% of the entire
homeowners association members...with 230 h/o x 51% = 117.

Thanks for all your help - good to know about roberts rules online! I will check it out and save it for the future.

Hi Heather - We have a rather unusual circumstance. In a clear reading of 720.306 Meetings of members; voting and election procedures; amendments.-- (a) ... 30% is all that is required to create a quorum. There is no "otherwise provided" in our documents. Our small group has always worked on a basis of majority and most of us would like to continue to do so.

Our new president & board are proposing among many other changes to our Bylaws the adoption of the new 30% guideline. We want to know if the language that follows:

b) Unless otherwise provided in the governing documents or required by law, and other than those matters set forth in paragraph (c), any governing document of an association may be amended by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the voting interests of the association.

... permits us to vote to require a greater percentage for a quorum and higher threshold assuming we can achieve 2/3rd's support?

Your other postings seemed right on point, related to FL law and were quite frankly clear and succinct. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Thank you for your encouraging and prompt initial response. We will be attending the annual HOA meeting this Wednesday. Any insight or help you can provide is greatly appreciated. Due to the time constraints Issue 3 (cumulative voting) noted below would require the member who wishes to serve on the board to give 24 hour notice if cumulative voting were to remain in effect. Should he give notice of his intention to rum despite the fact that the proposed Bylaws would eliminate cumulative voting?

The issue in brief is that a majority ruled HOA of 26 homes has by circumstance fallen into the hands of a group of 4 that are essentially not answerable to the rest of the mostly ambivalent, non-participatory members. Is there a way to restore the democratic majority rule?

I have been a member in good standing since 1997 and am not specifically aware of the facts and details that preceded my membership. Nonetheless I have provided you with the information including that which preceded me to the best of my knowledge. I was at one point an officer of the association. I happily resigned when others stepped forward to participate last year

Below is the language you asked we provide. I apologize for its length but wanted to present as accurate a lay persons’ picture as possible.

BYLAWS (excerpts)
Article 111 – Meetings of Members

(Original Language)Section 4 – Quorum – The presence at the meeting, in person or by proxy, of members entitled to cast a majority of votes of each class of the membership shall constitute a quorum for authorization of any action except as may otherwise be provided in the Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation or these bylaws. If a quorum is not present in any meeting, the members entitled to vote thereat shall have power to adjourn the meeting from time to time, without notice other than announcement at the meeting, until a quorum is present.

(Proposed Language) Quorum – The presence at the meeting, in person or by proxy, of 30% of the total voting interests shall constitute a quorum and decisions that require a vote of the members must be made by the concurrence of at least a majority of the voting interests, in person or by proxy, at a meeting at which a quorum has been attained. (The rest of the language continues as is.)

Issue 1: There are only 24 eligible houses each with one vote. According to the proposed language a quorum can be attained by as few as 8 votes and or proxies and a majority therefore attained by as few as 4 votes or proxies. We have operated since 1990/1992 by a majority being required for any previous amendments or changes.

Article 1V – Board of Directors Term of Office; First Election – Removal

(Proposed Language) Section 1 Number: The affairs of the association shall be managed by a board of at least 3 directors and not more than 5, as such number of directors in excess of 3 is established from time to time by resolution of the board of directors for election to the board by the members at the next election of directors. Directors shall be a member or a spouse of a member.

Issue 2: Since two of the current officers are a living in a single entitled entity (husband and wife) at minimum there should be some constructive wording limiting one vote per voting entity or household. Also the language simply permits the 3 person board to limit any additional board members by their not proposing a resolution to increase the number. The solution would be for the members to nominate and elect up to the 2 permitted additional members (total 5) without the permission of the board. Is there a better or other solution?

Article V – Board of Directors - Nomination and Election

Section 2 proposes a specific change to not allow cumulative voting.

(Original Language) Election to the board of directors shall be by secret written ballot. At such election the members or their proxies may cast, in respect to each vacancy, as many votes as they are entitled to exercise under the provisions of the declaration. Persons receiving the largest number of votes shall be elected. Cumulative voting is permitted provided that any member who intends to cumulate votes must give written notice of such intention to the secretary of the Association on or before the day preceding the election at which such member intends to cumulate votes.

(Proposed Language) Election to the board of directors shall be by secret written ballot. At such election the members or their proxies may cast, in respect to each vacancy, as many votes as they are entitled to exercise. Persons receiving the largest number of votes shall be elected. Cumulative voting is not permitted.

Issue 3: Section 2 proposes a specific change to not allow cumulative voting. It appears as thought the officers wish to elect themselves to the board without the prospect of any other voting interest. Am I correct in assuming that a) cumulative voting is still in effect prior to the proposed changes and b) there is sufficient support for one of the non-officer homeowners by approximately 5 to perhaps 7 voting interests? If their full weight and support were offered on a cumulative voting basis is my assumption correct at the likely outcome would be electing that person to the board regardless of the limitations to the contrary?

Article VIII – Officers and Their Duties

Section 1 Enumeration of Officers. The Officers of the association shall be a president and vice president, who shall at all times be members of the board of directors…

Issue 4: There is no language indicating any further requirement for who may sit on the board. Is there any reason that a non-officer may not be a board member other than the officers simply voting for themselves via blind proxies and their own votes?

Deed Restriction (excerpts)

Section 25: Homeowners Association and Assessments - …Each lot shall be entitled to one vote and to Homeowners Association meetings in conformity with the Articles and Bylaws of the Homeowners Association.

Section 27: Variances and Amendments – This Declaration of Restrictions may be amended at any time upon the approval of members of the Homeowners Association holding at least a majority of the voting rights relating to the property and upon the recordation in the Public Records of Sarasota County of any amendatory instrument certifying that such approval has been attained, executed by the president and secretary of the Homeowners Association’…

Section 28: Covenants – These covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them for a period of 30 years from the date these covenants are recorded, after which time they shall be extended automatically for successive periods of 10 years unless an instrument signed by a majority of the then owners of the lots has been recorded in Sarasota County, Florida, agreeing to change the covenants in whole or in part.

Issue 5: In each instance cited within the deed restrictions there was always the requirement of a majority vote to amend or change anything. In the period since the original documents were drawn there were, to my knowledge, two amendments that were properly executed and filed with the appropriate governmental agency neither of which changed nor challenged the majority rule.

Glen,

This is great information. I live in Ohio, I would I go about finding this information for my state?

Thanks!