A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
🎁 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! →
← Return to Topics List

Asking for Feedback - New Connecticut Voting Rules Effective in October

Started by DonaldN • 81 replies • 11585 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

DonaldN (Connecticut)
Posts: 183
Posted:
we have 60 unit owners - looking at the relevant excerpt shown below, will the budget be rejected if 51%(i.e. a majority) of the 60 reject it or is it 51% of those who vote given that at least 1/3 of the 60 vote ?

to me, reading the words literally, it's the former interpretation but then the minimum of 1/3 (i.e 20 unit owners) is irrelevant since you would need to have a vote by at least 51% of the 60 unit owners so that you'd have a chance for a majority of all unit owners to reject it.

thanks in advance to those who respond .

Don

“ If, at that meeting or in the vote by ballot , a majority of all unit owners or any larger number specified in the declaration votes to reject the proposed budget , the proposed budget shall be rejected , provided not less than thirty-three and one-third per cent of the unit owners entitled to vote on the proposed budget, vote at that meeting or in the vote by ballot to reject the proposed budget “
RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 1,767
Posted:
My interpretation would be:

A majority of the eligible voting power, 31 homeowners, if eligible, must approve to reject, unless the CCR's have a higher number, but at least 33 1/3, 21 homeowners MUST have voted at the meeting or by ballot, however that may be done.
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,062
Posted:
This is exactly like the thread started by Phyllis titled Subject: Professional Manager not following NC HOA LAW .

There are two items that need to be addressed:

1) Number of votes needed. Per the Don's citation, a simple majority is needed. Per Don's posting, 51% is needed to reject. The citation defers to the governing documents. Therefore, if the governing documents specify 51%, the number needed is 51%.

2)Percentage of what amount needed. Don's citation is very very clear. The percentage needed is of the total membership (i.e. all unit owners):

“ If, at that meeting or in the vote by ballot , a majority of all unit owners or any larger number specified in the declaration votes to reject the proposed budget , the proposed budget shall be rejected , provided not less than thirty-three and one-third per cent of the unit owners entitled to vote on the proposed budget, vote at that meeting or in the vote by ballot to reject the proposed budget “

This number would include the entire membership including those who had their voting privileges suspended. Granted, they wouldn't be allowed to vote but they are still included when figuring out the number of votes needed.

In Don's case of 60 lots, 31 (60 times .51 rounded up to next whole number) would be needed to reject the budget.

Please note: As Richard pointed out, Don's citation also includes a quorum requirement of 33 1/3%.

DonaldN (Connecticut)
Posts: 183
Posted:
I agree but then what is the purpose of having that 1/3 or 20 rule since you always need at least 31 to reject ?
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,062
Posted:
It's a quorum requirement.

Quorums ensure that x number of members/lots are present (in person or by proxy) at the meeting. Having quorums minimizes the impression that the corporation didn't limit the notice so the measure wouldn't be adopted/rejected.
EllieD (Vermont)
Posts: 446
Posted:
DonaldN,

I was aware that Connecticut had been considering a number of different proposed changes to the “the budget shall be rejected” meeting requirement clause in the CT Statute.

Apparently one of them has been passed – adding the clause “provided not less than thirty-three and one-third per cent of the unit owners entitled to vote on the proposed budget, vote . . . . ”.

Would you be willing to post a link to what has passed effective October.
Although I do not live in Connecticut, I am nevertheless interested.

Thank you.
DonaldN (Connecticut)
Posts: 183
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By EllieD on 04/22/2013 11:49 AM
DonaldN,

I was aware that Connecticut had been considering a number of different proposed changes to the “the budget shall be rejected” meeting requirement clause in the CT Statute.

Apparently one of them has been passed – adding the clause “provided not less than thirty-three and one-third per cent of the unit owners entitled to vote on the proposed budget, vote . . . . ”.

Would you be willing to post a link to what has passed effective October.
Although I do not live in Connecticut, I am nevertheless interested.

Thank you.

yes the website is www.caict.org and then click the link under "legislative update" - the bills are 6513 and 6477 both available as pdf files - they were too big to attach in my initial post.

if you read 6513 it appears that the 1/3 provision isn't a quorum number as Tim thought although it seems to act sort of like one ; the sticking point for me is the reason for the 1/3 ( i.e. 33 1/3 %) provision if you , in fact, need a majority or 51% that vote to reject ?? - in other words why not just say you need " a majority of all unit owners to reject it " -- which brings me back to thinking that the intent of the bill was to require at least 33 1/3% of unit owners turn out to vote and have rejection of the budget if a majority or 51% of those voters reject it .

and so the question in my mind is : is it 51% of all unit owners or 51% of the 33 1/3% - two very different ideas !!!

EllieD (Vermont)
Posts: 446
Posted:
DonaldN,

Thank you. I will go read about the legislative updates.

At the risk of being wrong, I believe that the reason for the 33.3 percent requirement is because of how “non-votes”, attributed to those owners that those that do not return their ballot and/or do not vote at the meeting, are counted.

The “non-votes” apparently count as – are considered a NO vote.

Here are links to some Connecticut articles that I found by googling. I posted them on the other recent thread, but here they are again. One of the Articles in particular explains what happens when a large number of Owners do not bother to vote the question “Shall the budget be rejected?

http://www.theday.com/article/20120212/BIZ02/302129998/-1/BIZ

http://ctcondos.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/hello-world/

http://www.caict.org/Articles/comm_interest_articles_fin_budget.html

As I understand, it is because of what happened during one of these votes that a number of different proposed changes to the CT Act were recently considered for passage.

Also I believe that the requirement for a majority, or 51% of all Unit Owners is to make it very difficult for the budget to ever be rejected. As I interpret that requirement, the 51% of ALL owners stands.

I recall reading, the thinking is, that the Board of Directors is responsible for “coming up” with the Budget and the “Owners” should not be trying to “second guess” the Budget presented by voting to reject it – and that therefore it should not be easy to do so.

Again at the risk of being wrong, I believe that the 1/3 rd requirement is a compromise percentage, in order to get “at least” that many of ALL the Owners to vote one way or the other.
RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 1,767
Posted:
Donald

Again, in my opinion, the membership must get 51% of the members to rejects. California has a very similar provision in that if at member meeting where if at the first meeting quroum is not acheived, members present may adjourn to another meeting at a later date and quorum may be reduced to 25%. Members at the reduced meeting may vote on any item that was on the original agenda, but may not bring up and vote on any non-agenized item unless they is a quorum of 33 1/3 either in person, proxy of ballot.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
ALL

Often we need to remind ourselves of the basics.

A quorum is the minimum number of members necessary to conduct the business of that group. According to Robert’s Rules, a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons.

While a majority of members is often the quorum for legislative bodies, it is quite common for ordinary groups (such as HOA) to have a smaller quorum.

The number of members that constitutes a quorum differs depending on the group and is usually provided for in that group’s governing documents. A quorum may be:

1. A majority. 76 or more out of 150

2. Some number greater then a majority. Say 2/3rds of 150 or 100 or more. 75% of 150 or 113 or more. No fractions allowed. Round up.

3. Or some number less than a majority. Tricky one here. Could be set at as few as 10 out of the 150.

Robert’s Rules say the quorum set in an organization's bylaws "should approximate the largest number that can be depended on to attend any meeting except in very bad weather or other extremely unfavorable conditions.” Pretty loosey goosey definition if you ask me.

Quite common for the amount required for a quorum to vary within the docs depending on what is being voted on.

Now I see some states are trying to mandate what a quorum is for an HOA. In my view, that is a horror show.
BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:
Don't get all in a dither folks, these bills aren't law yet. There is still a long way to go and in all my years of watching the Connecticut Legislature's shenanigans, they may still never make it to the governor's desk.

First, the bills themselves. HB-6477 has nothing to do with approving or rejecting budgets. It simply extends the time relative to the HOA's statutory lien for assessments from six months to twelve months.

HB-6513 does change how assessments get approved or rejected. Presently, a majority of ALL homeowners entitled to vote have to vote to reject the budget. Rejecting a budget is almost impossible under the present Common Interest Ownership Act because typically fewer than half (or sometimes slightly more than half) of all unit owners ever attend a meeting. Typically, the quorum requirements are low (10 to 20 percent). If less than half of all unit owners attend a meeting, even a unanimous vote to reject the budget would not result in its rejection. If slightly more than half of the unit owners attend a meeting a substantial number would still have to vote to reject the budget, a highly unlikely scenario.

HB-6513 proposes to change that requirement by not requiring a majority of ALL the unit owners to vote to reject the budget, but by requiring only a majority of the unit owners actually casting ballots, either by voting at a meeting or by absentee ballot to vote to reject the budget. Thus, in theory, it should be easier to reject the budget. The 33-1/3% figure insures that at least 1/3 of the unit owners have cast ballots.

However, as I have said, the bills still have a long way to go before the session ends. Once a bill ends up being placed on the House calender, the full House can still vote to send the bill off to another committee. I've seen this happen many times before. Often what happens is the bill gets shuffled off to some committee that has no interest in the bill and it simply dies in committee. Even if the bill is finally approved by the house it must then go to Senate which can pull the same stunt of sending it off to some committee. Furthermore, all this must happen and the bills passed by both houses before the end of the current session, or the bills just die. This year, being an odd-numbered year, the current session ends at midnight on June 5, just a little over six weeks away. Still a long way to go.

Still, I've placed a tracking alert on these bills and I will receive automatic email updates whenever there is any change in their status.
DonaldN (Connecticut)
Posts: 183
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By BruceF1 on 04/22/2013 2:42 PM
Don't get all in a dither folks, these bills aren't law yet. There is still a long way to go and in all my years of watching the Connecticut Legislature's shenanigans, they may still never make it to the governor's desk.

First, the bills themselves. HB-6477 has nothing to do with approving or rejecting budgets. It simply extends the time relative to the HOA's statutory lien for assessments from six months to twelve months.

HB-6513 does change how assessments get approved or rejected. Presently, a majority of ALL homeowners entitled to vote have to vote to reject the budget. Rejecting a budget is almost impossible under the present Common Interest Ownership Act because typically fewer than half (or sometimes slightly more than half) of all unit owners ever attend a meeting. Typically, the quorum requirements are low (10 to 20 percent). If less than half of all unit owners attend a meeting, even a unanimous vote to reject the budget would not result in its rejection. If slightly more than half of the unit owners attend a meeting a substantial number would still have to vote to reject the budget, a highly unlikely scenario.

HB-6513 proposes to change that requirement by not requiring a majority of ALL the unit owners to vote to reject the budget, but by requiring only a majority of the unit owners actually casting ballots, either by voting at a meeting or by absentee ballot to vote to reject the budget. Thus, in theory, it should be easier to reject the budget. The 33-1/3% figure insures that at least 1/3 of the unit owners have cast ballots.

However, as I have said, the bills still have a long way to go before the session ends. Once a bill ends up being placed on the House calender, the full House can still vote to send the bill off to another committee. I've seen this happen many times before. Often what happens is the bill gets shuffled off to some committee that has no interest in the bill and it simply dies in committee. Even if the bill is finally approved by the house it must then go to Senate which can pull the same stunt of sending it off to some committee. Furthermore, all this must happen and the bills passed by both houses before the end of the current session, or the bills just die. This year, being an odd-numbered year, the current session ends at midnight on June 5, just a little over six weeks away. Still a long way to go.

Still, I've placed a tracking alert on these bills and I will receive automatic email updates whenever there is any change in their status.

you're right Bruce I did mention 6477 & that was an error but I believe I only attached 6513 for comment - and thanks for sharing your vast knowledge of the legislative process - however, the motive behind my post was merely to understand the wording of 6513 - whether it passes or not is secondary - and from your paragraph 4 it looks like you believe the words say that a budget is rejected if a majority of those who vote reject it - that makes sense but a literal reading of 6513 doesn't lead to that conclusion - rather it says that a majority of unit owners must reject it - that's very different but it's how others on this thread have also understood the words to mean - I contend that the author(s) of 6513 was/are not precise when it comes to mixing number concepts with words - lawyers are famous for this - and furthermore I think 6513 should be re-worded to make its' intent crystal clear.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Bruce

Using my 150 owners as an example, 1/3 need to vote which would be 50 thus it would take a majority of the 50 (26) to reject the budget. This means as few as 26 of 150 or 17.5% or the owners could reject a budget.

See what I mean when I claim politicians/bureaucrats step on their own whatever.......LOL

BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By JohnC46 on 04/22/2013 4:36 PM
Bruce

Using my 150 owners as an example, 1/3 need to vote which would be 50 thus it would take a majority of the 50 (26) to reject the budget. This means as few as 26 of 150 or 17.5% or the owners could reject a budget.

See what I mean when I claim politicians/bureaucrats step on their own whatever.......LOL


Not exactly. I re-read the bill and the minimum number of votes to reject the budget is 33-1/3 percent of (all) unit owners entitled to vote. Still a tough number considering how many unit owners actually attend a meeting. The difficulty in interpreting the bill comes from the fact that it is worded in the negative.
BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:
Donald,

The bill is still in the LCO. Right now you are likely reading a version of the raised bill. Once it comes out of LCO it heads to the Office of Legislative Research (OLR) before being given a calendar number and proceeding to the full house. The OLR provides a financial analysis of the bill (to determine the state's cost to implement it) and a legislative analysis of the bill. The latter will add a plain language interpretation to the bill (appended at the bottom) which should make the bill easier to understand.

Basically, it appears to me that the bill lowers the number of homeowners necessary to reject the budget from a majority of all homeowners to not less than 1/3 of the homeowners entitled to vote. Note that the number of homeowners entitled to vote could be less than the number of all homeowners.

It makes it easier to reject the budget, but it's still not that easy.
DonaldN (Connecticut)
Posts: 183
Posted:
the bill is framed in terms of number needed to reject but that's equivalent to number needed to accept since if a majority accept then a minority reject.

taking John's example 26 accepting means 24 rejecting .

and using John's example I still feel the literal reading requires 76 to reject ( provided at least 50 vote ) ; but again if that was the intent and if only 50 turn out to vote the budget wouldn't be rejected since you'd need another 26 .

which brings us back to thinking that the intent was to enable only 26 of the 150 or 17.5% of total to reject .

Bruce do you any contacts with those who drafted 6513 and maybe you could pin them down as to the intent ?
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,062
Posted:
Don,

I understand the desire to get a jump on understanding new laws. However, I would suggest that you wait until they actually become laws. Proposed laws (bills) can change often before voted on and even when they are brought to a vote, there is no guarantee of them passing.

You may want to spend energy on things that are currently in place and worry about changes in the law when they actually happen.
BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By DonaldN on 04/23/2013 5:15 AM
the bill is framed in terms of number needed to reject but that's equivalent to number needed to accept since if a majority accept then a minority reject.

taking John's example 26 accepting means 24 rejecting .

and using John's example I still feel the literal reading requires 76 to reject ( provided at least 50 vote ) ; but again if that was the intent and if only 50 turn out to vote the budget wouldn't be rejected since you'd need another 26 .

which brings us back to thinking that the intent was to enable only 26 of the 150 or 17.5% of total to reject .

Bruce do you any contacts with those who drafted 6513 and maybe you could pin them down as to the intent ?

Don,

I believe you are getting confused because you don't understand how to read bills in the Connecticut Legislature that propose to amend current laws. In the portion you quoted in your original post, the word "all" and the words "or any larger number specified in the declaration" currently appear in the law but would be removed if the bill passes.

If you are reading the pdf version of the bill, the text enclosed within brackets should be removed (crossed out or erased) and the underlined text is being added to the current law. If you remove the text enclosed in brackets will will see how the amended law would read.

If you are reading the html version of the bill the brackets and underlines are still there, except the editing is a little easier to spot because the text in the present law that is to be removed is in red whereas the new text that is to be inserted is in blue. The purpose of all this is to indicate how the law is proposed to be changed. In other words, it is possible to compare the old and the new versions at a glance.

As I said before, and as Tim suggested, I wouldn't spend too much energy worrying about this bill just yet. I've watched several bills affecting HGAs go through the Legislature before and most never made it far enough to become law. One of the best examples was the "right to dry" bill that traveled through the Legislature two years in a row several years back. It was a hot topic among associations, was discussed at CAI meetings, appeared in the news, and even appeared among the news items on HOATalk. At one point it looked like a sure thing, but the bill died before becoming law both times and has not been seen since.

I do not know the sponsors of the bill, nor do I personally know any of the present legislators. I do personally know two former Connecticut representatives. One lives only a few houses from me and presently serves on our HOA board along with myself and three others. The other former representative I know, who retired from the House just last year, lives across town. We are members of the same charitable organization and it was her husband who proposed me for membership. We have often sat together at functions and meetings and I have had many discussions regarding legislative matters. She has also submitted written testimony I have prepared at legislative hearings.

Much of what I have learned about how the Connecticut Legislature "works" has been gained from many conversations with both of these people.
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,062
Posted:
Oops, For some reason, this link didn't show:

You can check the status of all CT Legislature Bills at:

BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:
Don,

Perhaps some numerical examples will help to explain the bill.

Let's say there is a community of 100 homes. Of those, 10 unit owners are not entitled to vote because they are behind in their assessments. Thus, the number of unit owners entitled to vote is 90. Now, 33-1/3 percent (1/3) of the unit owners entitled to vote is 30. Thus, the minimum number of unit owners that must vote to reject the budget is 30.

Now, at a meeting called to vote on the budget, let's say that 40 unit owners attend and vote. Let's say that a majority of those in attendance, 21, vote to reject the budget. The vote to reject fails because even though a majority of those voting voted to reject, that majority is less than the minimum number (30) required to reject the budget.

Let's say 50 unit owners show up and vote. Again, a majority of 50 is 26 and the vote to reject still fails because 26 is less than 30.

Let's say 60 unit owners show up and vote. A majority of 60 is 31, which is more than 30, so the budget would be rejected.

Suppose 70 unit owners show up and vote. A majority of 70 is 36. Suppose that 35 unit owners vote to reject the budget. The vote to reject fails because it is not a majority of those voting, even though 35 is greater than 30, the minimum number required to reject the budget.

If the new bill passes it will still be difficult to reject the proposed budget, but not impossible. With the present law, it is practically impossible to reject the budget.
DonaldN (Connecticut)
Posts: 183
Posted:
Posted By BruceF1 on 04/23/2013 6:31 AM
Don,

Perhaps some numerical examples will help to explain the bill.

Let's say there is a community of 100 homes. Of those, 10 unit owners are not entitled to vote because they are behind in their assessments. Thus, the number of unit owners entitled to vote is 90. Now, 33-1/3 percent (1/3) of the unit owners entitled to vote is 30. Thus, the minimum number of unit owners that must vote to reject the budget is 30.

Now, at a meeting called to vote on the budget, let's say that 40 unit owners attend and vote. Let's say that a majority of those in attendance, 21, vote to reject the budget. The vote to reject fails because even though a majority of those voting voted to reject, that majority is less than the minimum number (30) required to reject the budget.

Let's say 50 unit owners show up and vote. Again, a majority of 50 is 26 and the vote to reject still fails because 26 is less than 30.

Let's say 60 unit owners show up and vote. A majority of 60 is 31, which is more than 30, so the budget would be rejected.

Suppose 70 unit owners show up and vote. A majority of 70 is 36. Suppose that 35 unit owners vote to reject the budget. The vote to reject fails because it is not a majority of those voting, even though 35 is greater than 30, the minimum number required to reject the budget.

If the new bill passes it will still be difficult to reject the proposed budget, but not impossible. With the present law, it is practically impossible to reject the budget.

you're correct Bruce , I was leaving in the red type ; please see the attached where I've corrected that & have added some additional thoughts .
📎 Attachments (1):

⏸ Downloads temporarily unavailable

📝1423395165171.doc(24 KB)
BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:
As I said earlier, I signed up to track the action on these bills.

I received notice this morning (5/2/2013) that HB-6513 has made its way through the LCO and the OLR and has now returned to the house. The bill has been given File No. 667.

The bill now has the fiscal and legislative OLR analysis attached to it. Below is a summary of the OLR analysis which makes understanding the bill easier:

"This bill changes requirements under the Common Interest Ownership Act (CIOA) for approval of annual budgets and special assessments."

"Under current law, common interest community annual budgets and special assessments are approved unless a majority of all unit owners, or a larger number specified in the association's declaration, votes to reject them."

"The bill instead provides that a proposed budget or assessment is rejected if (1) a majority of all unit owners participating in the vote rejects it and (2) at least one-third of unit owners entitled to vote on the measure vote to reject it. Otherwise, the budget or assessment is deemed approved."

"Under existing law and the bill, the absence of a quorum in the vote does not affect the budget's or assessment's approval or rejection."

"By law, if the unit owners reject a proposed budget, the last approved budget continues until they approve a subsequent budget. Also, unit owner approval is not required for special assessments that are (1) small relative to the association's budget (unless the declaration or bylaws provide otherwise) or (2) needed in an emergency (see BACKGROUND)."

"The bill also makes technical changes."

The bill is now ready for House action. Here's what can happen:

1. Nothing. The bill never gets called from the calendar for debate and simply dies if not acted upon before the end of the session early next month.

2. The bill gets called up for debate and a vote. It can be passed or defeated.

3. It can be referred to a committee, which likely means the bill will be dead.

4. It can be placed on the Consent Calendar. Placement on the Consent Calendar usually (but not always) means passage since all bills placed on the consent calendar are passed by a single vote without debate. However, any representative can ask that a bill be removed from the Consent Calendar.

For those interested in future developments I will continue to monitor the bill's progress and I will report any additional activity.
BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:

Don't look for any changes to the wording at this point.

Apparently, the OLR doesn't feel there is any ambiguity and I tend to agree.

The words from the OLR summary, "(1) a majority of all unit owners participating in the vote rejects it" seems clear to me. The OLR interprets 6513 to mean exactly the words you are looking for.
DonaldN (Connecticut)
Posts: 183
Posted:
to me the fact that the OLR interprets 6513 in a certain way is part way there ; the next step would be to replace the current words of 6513 with those of the interpretation ; Bruce , I think you and I are at a friendly stalemate ; for this forum discussion it would be could to hear from someone else - in the meantime I plan to point out the current deficiency with the current wording to our State Senator who I'm hoping will pass it along to the drafter(s) of this bill.
BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:

It might be helpful to understand the legislative process in Connecticut.

The sponsors (or co-sponsors) do not draft the actual language of the bill. When a legislator first introduces a bill it is nothing more than a few sentences describing the intent of the proposed legislation which sometimes is vague in nature.

Once in committee, the committee may have the bill drafted in it final, legal, language. This is generally known as a "raised" bill. The LCO may also provide the language to be used.

Assuming the House passes the bill, the Senate could amend the bill to change the language used, but this could delay final passage of the bill because the amendment would have to be agreed upon by the house.

Usually, the full House or Senate will not actually change the wording of the bill. If a change in wording is desired, the bill most likely would be sent to a committee. If that happens, the bill will most likely die.

As I said earlier, this all may be much ado about nothing because passage of the bill is not yet guaranteed at this point. There is only a little more than 4 weeks before the end of the current session and if the bill is not passed by both houses before then, it will be dead. The whole process would have to begin anew next year, and even-year's sessions are one month shorter, ending in early May. Also, in even years individual legislators may only propose bills of a financial nature.

If you go on to the legislative website and pull down the "Citizen Guide" tab there is a link titled "How a Bill Becomes Law" that provides some insight into the process.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
There has been an HOA bill tied up in a SC Legislative Committee for 3 years now. I have contacted my State Senator and State Rep voicing my displeasure with the bill. They pretty well assured me it is dead and will remain so.

SC does have Rules and Regulations for condos (multi unit buildings with shared halls, lobbies, etc.) but not for HOA's of standalone homes nor townhouses.

I for one do not want politicians and/or bureaucrtas telling we owners what to do. It seems to me they end up tripping over their own noses.

Let your voice be heard. You would be surprised how much it will be paid attention to especially if you do not wear a tin foil hat.

BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:
As promised, here's another update on HB-6513 (for DonaldN and others who are interested):

I received notice this morning that the bill passed the House yesterday, 133-0. It's now on its way to the state Senate. Under legislative rules, it's not likely the Senate will take action on the bill until at least sometime next week.

At this point I would have to say there is a good chance the bill will become law, although anything could still happen.

I'll keep watching.
DonaldN (Connecticut)
Posts: 183
Posted:
thanks for the update Bruce - a little over a week ago I sent an email to Senator Kane ( one of the proponents of the bill) & our local guy Senator Witkos asking for some clarification regards the voting requirements articulated in the bill that are necessary to reject a budget and/or a special assessment; with our annual budget meeting coming in a couple of weeks this bill could be a game changer .

to date I haven't heard back from either Senator - disappointing !!!

BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:

I don't see how, since the bill, if it becomes law, won't go into effect until October.
DonaldN (Connecticut)
Posts: 183
Posted:
what's interesting is the content of a letter written by Kane to the Judiciary Committee and others thanking them for the opportunity to testify in favor of the bill - in it he states that the bill would address a problematic situation in condo communities where the budget voting laws can allow a small and unrepresentative group of residents block a budget ; then he goes on to say this bill would require a majority of unit owners voting rather than a majority of all unit owners to reject a budget - clearly these back to back statements conflict with each other.

I'm not convinced that he crafted the bill to accomplish what he wanted ????
BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:

They seldom do.

But, be that as it may, let's take a looks at some examples.

In your original post you stated that you had 60 homeowners. So, assuming all 60 are eligible to vote:

Under the present law, it would require 31 votes to reject the budget; period.

Under the proposed law,

If all 60 homeowners vote, it would still require 31 votes to reject the budget. Same as before.

If only 50 homeowners vote, it would require 26 homeowners to reject the budget.

If only 40 homeowners vote, it would require 21 homeowners to reject the budget; barely enough.

If only 39 homeowners vote, then 20 homeowners would have to vote to reject the budget.

If fewer than 39 homeowners vote, then the budget can be rejected only if at least 20 homeowners vote to do so.

Not being considered in the above examples is the executive board. I don't recall if you stated how many members are on the board. If it is 3, and assuming that the budget is unanimously adopted by the board, and assuming that all three board members do not vote to reject the budget (why would they?), then you would have to adjust the above numbers to account for that fact.

You know your homeowners better than I do. You know the typical turnout for approval/rejection of the budget and the typical thinking and how the vote usually turns out. From your experience and the above examples, you should be able to determine how seriously the proposed law is likely to affect you if it does become law.

DonaldN (Connecticut)
Posts: 183
Posted:
my contention remains that, except for the 1/3 rule, the wording of the proposed bill is the same as present law ; now, the wording in the summary of the "OLR Bill Analysis" is what you've illustrated in your example of the way the proposed law would work - but again, that's not the way the proposed law is written .

instead of saying that the proposed law is clear to you , point out to me where the proposed law explicitly requires a majority of those who "participate in the vote" to reject a budget .

JamesG (Connecticut)
Posts: 83
Posted:
From CAI-CT

HB 6513 – AN ACT CONCERNING THE BUDGET AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS IN COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITIES

As we near the end of the 2013 Legislative Session, things are moving at a fast and furious pace. Please note, we are involved in discussions about this bill.

We believe that the language as it currently reads is very confusing and will likely be misunderstood by many associations.

Click here to read the entire bill:

http://cga.ct.gov/2013/FC/2013HB-06513-R000667-FC.htm

This bill proposes to change the current voting requirements for the ratification of budgets and special assessments.

Under current law, common interest community annual budgets and special assessments are approved unless a majority of all unit owners, or a larger number specified in the association's declaration, votes to reject them.

The bill instead provides that a proposed budget or assessment is rejected if (1) a majority of all unit owners participating in the vote rejects it AND(2) at least one-third of unit owners entitled to vote on the measure vote to reject it. Otherwise, the budget or assessment is deemed approved.

Under existing law and the bill, the absence of a quorum in the vote does not affect the budget's or assessment's approval or rejection.

This is how we think the proposed voting structure would work:

The bill requires that one-third of the unit owners must actually vote to reject a budget AND also requires that the one third voting constitutes a majority of the total votes cast. By way of example, if an association has 100 units, then at least 34 people would have to vote to reject a budget, AND additionally those 34 votes must represent a majority of the votes cast. If 34 folks voted to reject, but 35 voted yes on the budget, the budget would pass.

If only 33 people vote, the budget is approved because the one-third threshold has not been met. This would hold true even if a majority of the 33 votes cast was to reject the budget.

BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:
The bill states, in part, "If, at that meeting or in the vote by ballot, a majority of unit owners votes to reject the proposed budget, the proposed budget shall be rejected, provided not less than thirty-three and one-third per cent of the unit owners entitled to vote on the proposed budget vote at that meeting or in the vote by ballot to reject the proposed budget."

The problem with compound sentences with many words is that they can be difficult to interpret unless you were really good at diagramming sentences in high school English classes. Most people I went to school with hated doing that and were not particularly good at it. I don't know, maybe they don't even teach that anymore.

Anyway, I'll admit it's not clear if you take just the first part alone: "If, at that meeting or in the vote by ballot, a majority of unit owners votes to reject the proposed budget, the proposed budget shall be rejected" since it is not clear whether the majority of unit owners refers to all unit owners, or just those attending the meeting and voting. But, note that the word "all" which is in the present law is removed in the proposed law, so that should be your first clue.

When you consider the first part by itself you are considering it out of context. The second part, "provided not less than thirty-three and one-third per cent of the unit owners entitled to vote on the proposed budget vote at that meeting or in the vote by ballot to reject the proposed budget" implies that only the votes at the meeting (or by ballot) is what is being considered. Note that the words "vote at that meeting" are contained in the second part. That should be your second clue. In other words, as long as at least 1/3 of the homeowners vote to reject the budget (at the meeting or by ballot) and that number is at least a majority of those voting, the budget is rejected.

It should also be clear that 1/3 of the unit owners and a majority of all unit owners cannot be the same, since a majority is more than 1/2. It is a mathematical (and logical) impossibility to require a majority of (all) unit owners to vote to reject the budget and simultaneously meet the requirement that as few as 1/3 can reject the budget. Thus, the only conclusion that meets both requirements is when you consider only the votes at the meeting. Those votes must be a majority of the votes cast and simultaneously at least 1/3 of all unit owners.
BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:
James,

You said:

"The bill instead provides that a proposed budget or assessment is rejected if (1) a majority of all unit owners participating in the vote rejects it AND(2) at least one-third of unit owners entitled to vote on the measure vote to reject it. Otherwise, the budget or assessment is deemed approved."

That is NOT what the proposed bill says.

People are getting confused because they keep putting the word "all" in the requirement. It is not there. The word "all" appears in the present law, but is removed in the proposed law.

I believe it all boils down to some people not understanding how to read proposed bills that amend existing laws. Words enclosed in brackets come out, words that are underlined go in. The easiest way to do this is simply take a heavy pencil and cross out all the words that are enclosed in brackets. What remains is how the law would read if the bill is passed.
DonaldN (Connecticut)
Posts: 183
Posted:
thanks for responding JamesG - if you go to www.cga.ct.gov , type the bill number, 6513 at the top followed by enter and on the resulting page look under the column labeled "5 days & older" and then open the file labeled "bill analysis" you'll see the so-called OLR summary of the bill - your sentence which includes parts (1) & (2) is right from that OLR - and the key words in part (1) are "participating in the vote" .

my continued contention is that the bill itself doesn't explicitly have those words ; and so the required number to reject could be a majority of "all" unit owners not just of those who participate in the vote .

the intent of the bill I think is to have budget rejection if a majority of those who participate in the vote (i.e. in person or via proxy) actually vote against it.

the intent is clear but I think the bill itself needs to be more precise in expressing that intent.
DonaldN (Connecticut)
Posts: 183
Posted:
I think the 1/3 rule is put in there for de minimis participation reasons and has nothing to do with the majority needed to reject - they're independent - if the wording in the OLR summary was inserted into the bill there would be no need for clues - the intent would be clear ; and don't forget the concepts in the bill have to be administered on behalf of their complexes by regular folks - it shouldn't be a guessing game.

I'm telling you this stuff is proposed by legislators and then drafted by attorneys - they do fine as long as number concepts are not part of the mix.

A funny story : years ago I gave a presentation regarding some rules governing pension plans to an audience of lawyers ; there was a fair amount of math involved and at the conclusion an attorney wanted to know what the square of a number was - I explained that the square is what you got when you multiplied a number by itself ; he said great I understand that but the root, what is the root ?

when you have that level of understanding you can see where many of these bills should be edited by mathematicians after the attorney's stab at the wording .
DonaldN (Connecticut)
Posts: 183
Posted:

we won't be impacted that much either since we've been operating according to 6513 except for the new 1/3 requirement ; since 6513 has already passed the House the wording can't be changed but if it passes the Senate I would hope that a clearer description of its' intent would be attached so that it could be carried out in practice without confusion.
BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535
Posted:

That's where we disagree.

I believe the word "provided" at the beginning of the second condition (the 1/3 part) is what ties the two conditions together and makes them dependent. In other words, both conditions must be met simultaneously; they cannot be separated and are not independent. (According to one dictionary, provided means "on the condition that." Thus the second part, the 1/3 requirement, is a condition that must be met simultaneously with the first part.)

I don't disagree that adding the words you suggest would make the bill more explicit and easier for some folks to understand, but I don't believe it is necessary. I think the meaning is clear as it is.

You are correct in saying that bills are drafted by lawyers and the language is often imprecise. Maybe they do that for job security. If bills were drafted by engineers they would probably be more precise, but maybe that's not always a good thing either.

The latest news is that the bill has now been given a Senate calendar number. That doesn't mean anything especially, except it must be on the calendar for at least 3 days before any action can be taken on it. This means the soonest we will learn anything new is next Thursday.

Perhaps the Senate will amend the bill to improve the language. However, if they do, it's going to have to go back before the House. My guess is that if they pass it (which now seems likely) it will be passed unchanged. This means that if the bill does become law, some board members will just have to be confused I guess. I don't think it's going to matter for a lot of associations, but if it does turn out that a vote to reject a budget is incorrectly interpreted then it will depend on whether some homeowner (or homeowners) know enough about the law and are determined enough to take the issue to court. Then we will see how a court interprets the law.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here

Terms of Use and Privacy Statement