SteveS8 (New York)
Posts: 128
Posts: 128
Posted:
Our community is still being built, and the sponsor holds the majority of board seats.
Since there is a resident board seat position up for election, two people have decided to run - a full time resident and a snowbird (someone who spends 6 month a year in Florida - our community is in NY).
The snowbird is both a CPA and an attorney and has challenged the sponsor on several occasions (once getting over $330,000 returned for resident overpayment of one of the utilities).
The other candidate was placed on the board a few months ago to take over for a board member who resigned. He is much more of a company man.
A week before the election, the sponsor brought up a resolution at a closed board meeting to not allow any communication devices for absentee board members (i.e. snowbirds) thus cutting them off from "attending" meetings remotely.
They kept this vote a secret and only announced it at the open meeting prior to the candidate's speeches and the elections. It seems clear that they were sending a message to the residents that it was not a good idea to vote for anyone who would not know what was going on at meetings.
As it turned out, however, management announced at the open meeting, just prior to the election speeches that we did not have a quorum in attendance and called off the elections. It is now a week later and we still have not heard when they will be rescheduled.
What strikes many of us as unusual is that we asked how many residents had to be in attendance and were told 305. Since the listed quorum is 51%, that would mean they were basing the quorum on a total number of 598.
But, as it turns out, we did some investigation and found that the community only had 525 sold/closed homes. The number 598 is the total number of buildings that have been constructed, and they are claiming that is the number from which they are supposed to calculate a quorum.
It was explained to us thusly,
"Our covenants and restrictions as well as our bylaws indicated that “The homeowner of a Home or Unsold Home . . .shall be a member”. In addition “each member is entitled to one vote irrespective of the number of homes or Unsold units owned”. Thus if someone owns 2 or 3 units that person is only entitled to one vote. Likewise the sponsor is only entitled to one vote regardless of how many units are unsold or rented."
What recourse do the homeowners have when a sponsor-controlled board makes a rule that seems to be for the sole purpose of keeping a resident off the board and/or hurt his ability to "attend" meetings electronically? And does anyone else have a by-law that allows unsold units to be relevant in determining a quorum?
Thanks,
Steve
Since there is a resident board seat position up for election, two people have decided to run - a full time resident and a snowbird (someone who spends 6 month a year in Florida - our community is in NY).
The snowbird is both a CPA and an attorney and has challenged the sponsor on several occasions (once getting over $330,000 returned for resident overpayment of one of the utilities).
The other candidate was placed on the board a few months ago to take over for a board member who resigned. He is much more of a company man.
A week before the election, the sponsor brought up a resolution at a closed board meeting to not allow any communication devices for absentee board members (i.e. snowbirds) thus cutting them off from "attending" meetings remotely.
They kept this vote a secret and only announced it at the open meeting prior to the candidate's speeches and the elections. It seems clear that they were sending a message to the residents that it was not a good idea to vote for anyone who would not know what was going on at meetings.
As it turned out, however, management announced at the open meeting, just prior to the election speeches that we did not have a quorum in attendance and called off the elections. It is now a week later and we still have not heard when they will be rescheduled.
What strikes many of us as unusual is that we asked how many residents had to be in attendance and were told 305. Since the listed quorum is 51%, that would mean they were basing the quorum on a total number of 598.
But, as it turns out, we did some investigation and found that the community only had 525 sold/closed homes. The number 598 is the total number of buildings that have been constructed, and they are claiming that is the number from which they are supposed to calculate a quorum.
It was explained to us thusly,
"Our covenants and restrictions as well as our bylaws indicated that “The homeowner of a Home or Unsold Home . . .shall be a member”. In addition “each member is entitled to one vote irrespective of the number of homes or Unsold units owned”. Thus if someone owns 2 or 3 units that person is only entitled to one vote. Likewise the sponsor is only entitled to one vote regardless of how many units are unsold or rented."
What recourse do the homeowners have when a sponsor-controlled board makes a rule that seems to be for the sole purpose of keeping a resident off the board and/or hurt his ability to "attend" meetings electronically? And does anyone else have a by-law that allows unsold units to be relevant in determining a quorum?
Thanks,
Steve