Manipulation of Voters

Started by KeithM3 • 6 replies • 1537 views

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

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

KeithM3 (Arizona)
Posts: 1

Posted:

Question: We live in Arizona and have a situation where our Board (possibly just the President) have written over 100+ violations to homeowners just prior to an election. The timing has created a situation so volunteering members cannot run due to nomination timing and several votes will be eliminated if the violations are not resolved. Is there a law or precedence on the manipulation of the voting body. Thanks!

GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491

Posted:

While you are right in that the timing is suspect, if they weren't in violation, there wouldn't be a problem. Assuming they just received the violations, they should avail themselves to the requirements under the AZ law that must happen before a fine or penalty can be imposed:

C. A member who receives a written notice that the condition of the property owned by the member is in violation of the community documents without regard to whether a monetary penalty is imposed by the notice may provide the association with a written response by sending the response by certified mail within ten business days after the date of the notice. The response shall be sent to the address contained in the notice or in the recorded notice prescribed by section 33-1807, subsection J.

D. Within ten business days after receipt of the certified mail containing the response from the member, the association shall respond to the member with a written explanation regarding the notice that shall provide at least the following information unless previously provided in the notice of violation:

1. The provision of the community documents that has allegedly been violated.

2. The date of the violation or the date the violation was observed.

3. The first and last name of the person or persons who observed the violation.

4. The process the member must follow to contest the notice.

E. Unless the information required in subsection D, paragraph 4 of this section is provided in the notice of violation, the association shall not proceed with any action to enforce the community documents, including the collection of attorney fees, before or during the time prescribed by subsection D of this section regarding the exchange of information between the association and the member. At any time before or after completion of the exchange of information pursuant to this section, the member may petition for a hearing pursuant to section 41-2198.01 if the dispute is within the jurisdiction of the department of fire, building and life safety as prescribed in section 41-2198.01, subsection B.

You can read the whole section here: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/33/01803.htm&Title=33&DocType=ARS

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

I missed this one, and Glen provides a fine response citing AZ statutes. When is your election, Keith?

If soon, I don't think the alleged violators can go through the due-process steps required by AZ very fast, especially since there are 100 violations!! (I realize that doesn't necessarily mean 100 Owners.)

In other words, all of the alleged violators may seek office if no decisions have been made by the Board.

And even then, Keith, please cite the passage or article in your documents that say candidates must not have an active violation against them at the time of an election. Or words to that effect. I'm thinking there's some kind of misunderstanding here, which may be why no one else replied.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

Kerry brought up a good point.

Although there are governing documents that says a member may not serve on the Board if there account is not current (fines making the account not current), I've never seen where that would stop someone from being a candidate. Granted, they must become current if they win the election, but an argument can be made that since candidates are not currently serving, they would still be able to be a candidate.

Now, the type of tactics that Keiths' Board is using may limit the number of votes eligible (as in voting privileges being suspended if the account is delinquent). This could result in outside candidates not getting the votes needed.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Our bylaws rewrite by or general counsel, which didn't receive enough votes for approval, stated both possibilities: 1. The candidate's account is not current (or they had uncured violations) of xx days. 2. a director's account is not current within xx days, in which case the director's seat would become vacant.

(So, at present, we have no such article. The only qualifier here is that directors must be owners.)

But perhaps Keith's documents say no such thing either! Besides, I don't think any voting rights can be suspended before the alleged violator has gone through due process--and there are so many!

LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099

Posted:

This also brings up the question whether owners who have been charged with a violation, sustained or not, must be branded with a scarlet letter that makes them ineligible to serve for some period of time. Maybe even forever.

I, too, want to see the governing documents that would prevent a person from serving merely because he has been accused of a violation.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

I have refrained from commenting as I would need to see Keith's documents. That said, I doubt there is enough time to find those that letters were sent to (guilty of not) to prevent them from running/voting.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

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

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here