Forced Voting

Interesting topic.

Personally, I wouldn't support such a rule as individuals do and should have a freedom of choice.
I think it's wrong not to participate (the old saying if you didn't vote you don't have a right to complain comes to mind). However, free will is one of the things everyone believes in and many have fought for.

There are so many different personality types (not Briggs Myers!) in an association:
The apathetic homeowners, some who recognize and thank board members and some who think the board works for them; complaining homeowners who can’t let a day go by without complaining about something and usually the complaining involves the continued harassment of one or two other homeowners, the homeowners who do not want to be on the board but will volunteer selectively when asked, the absent homeowner landlords who bought into an HOA on purpose because they thought the board would babysit their house and tenants, the seasonal homeowners who attend meetings and offer suggestions to beautify or reduce dues while they are here but then go back home and leave the rest of the association to complete the job and critique the completed job next year, the past board members who now live in seclusion, some who attend meeting, and who nod at you from time to time in a ‘I know just what you are dealing with’ fashion, the past board member who ‘helps’ the association with the tasks that require them to have a key or code (don’t want to lose the ‘important’ feeling of being a board member), the homeowners who walk the development every day, talking to every neighbor and criticizing the board, the homeowners who contact the board to say they lost their job and dues will be a little late or sporadic until they find another job, the homeowner who pays a year in advance, the homeowner who is late occasionally, the homeowners who never fill out ARB forms but do the work anyway.
Then the personality types of board members:
Those who volunteer because they know the board needs members, those who want to make things better, those who are critical and want to spy and report to other critical homeowners but don’t really want to do any board work, the stay at home mom whose kids are in school all day and needs something to fill her time, those who have been on the board for years and either want to continue or don’t want anything to change, those who just want to say they are on the board but do not do anything, and to me, the most dangerous of them all- those who have a need to feel important and need to be the ‘expert’. Why do I think that one is dangerous? Because that is the one who is not acting for the good of anyone but him or herself.

I would not want to require or force anyone to vote. I agree, some might fear their neighbors. The ones who want to participate, do participate. I think it’s a good balance.

One way to look at it is that people who purchase into a neighborhood with C&Rs agree to a certain set of terms. Such an amendment would be to ensure that those homeowners continue to live by that agreement. Instead of fine people because they "didn't know," ownership with voting requirements would make those people more accountable for their actions and would allow for business to be conducted.

From what I have seen it is sometimes near impossible to achieve quorum or even get people aware of meetings, but if a condition for living in a HOA neighborhood was to attend meetings or vote on the matters that affect that property, those conditions can be met.

I personally would not want to live in such a neighborhood ), although when I was in a HOA I was sure to read everything and vote. I think back to when my neighborhood wanted to build a wall. The neighborhood voted and out of 900 homes only a couple hundred people responded but the measure failed. While a majority of the returned ballots voted in the affirmative, it amounted to roughly 20% of the entire neighborhood, meaning "nay" and no votes totaled 80%.

The HOA then pushed for a MSBU, a county taxing district that would only count returned ballots but tax everyone. That same 20% passed and the wall was built pissing off a lot of the neighborhood because now they had to pay hundreds for something they didn't want. Granted it was their own stupidity for not understanding county directions but then again a lot of people who voted the first time didn't know the HOA got the county involved. Now if everyone was required to vote this matter could have been cleared up, money would have been saved, and everyone would theoretically have been happier.

The same thing happened when the HOA wanted to build speed humps. Only a handful of people wanted them (namely the BoD) but they upset a lot of people by getting the county to only poll a small percentage of the entire neighborhood.

The thought crossed my mind and was curious what other experienced HOA types would think.

Or perhaps pay extra in exchange for not having to vote or serve on the board! Make it expensive enough that peoplw would at least turn in a proxy! It's sad that the only way some people will do anything constructive is to smack them in the wallet.

There's at least one community in my area where the CCRs call for EVERY homeowner to serve on the board at least once. I don't know how they manage that or how sucessful it is, but it's an interesting idea.

Back to reality - all of us have freedom of choice, and as has been mentioned on other topics on this site, many homeowners who live in HOAs love the idea of someone else doing the heavy lifting as far as managing the property is concerned, and so they do nothing. At a minimum, it may be nice to require attending the annual meeting, but I'm afraid many people would show up, stay five minutes or so and still walk out before heaving vital information.

Kevin, I misunderstood. I thought that all the residents wanted the wall but you could not get anyone to the meeting to vote so you managed to get it done with the MSBU. If its not what the majority wanted to begin with then yes, it was a sneaky way to get it done.

I for one was for a new wall. Our old wall was a 20-year-old plain cinder block wall with a wooden sign. While the sign was nice it was dated and required a lot of upkeep. The plan presented was for a nice red brick wall but the BoD switched the plans after the vote and MSBU. Not only was the new design cheaper looking, it was also poorly built.

In regards to voting, there were a lot of homeowners who never returned a ballot to the HOA. Those ballots were counted as "no" votes so it is hard to identify apathetic homeowners from those who did not want the wall. Part of me feels that if every homeowner was involved in voting, the matter would have been done with the first vote and had the BoD pushed with the MSBU the homeowners would have been more informed.

Counting a non-vote as a yea or nay vote is improper and could cause problems if the vote was ever challenged. A non-vote is simply that a non-vote.

Not voting may have the same affect as a yea or nay vote (depending on how the proposal is worded) but they should never be counted as a yea or nay vote. They are simply an abstention and, if needed, be recorded as such.

For more info about abstentions see:

Parlipro.org FAQ - How do you count abstentions? As ayes? As no's?

Roberts Rules Online - voting page

Davis-Stirling's Abstain From Voting page.

Very true.

Counting a non-vote (an abstention) as either a "yea" or "nay" vote is improper parliamentary procedure. I've heard of associations doing it, but that's because they probably don't know any better. It could be a problem if challenged.