Uncontested Election Options >>>

Our HOA has just closed nominations for three board member positions. There are only three candidates for the positions. The election committee has decided not to have a ballot vote…the by-laws do not state that a ballot is required. So, what is the best way to pursue the election at the upcoming annual community meeting? Options are to declare all three elected by acclamation, a voice vote for each or as a group, or a motion to elect with a yes/no vote. Also, a concern is if any of these options are allowable if there is no quorum.

Joe

Typically the election committee would say with only 3 running for 3 spots they are hereby appointed to the 3 spots. As no one else cares to run, I doubt there would be any objections.

There might could be on catch though. Some Bylaws allow for nominations from the floor right up to the closing of the polls. If so then a candidate could stand for election at the last moment and a vote would have to be held. If your bylaws allow such, then be ready to have a vote at the annual meeting.

At our last annual meeting we had 5 declared for 5 spots but at the last moment a 6th and 7th candidate ran so we had a paper ballot election.

This is a reasonable approach and in many associations the bylaws would require election by acclamation when the number of candidates equals the number of open seats.



Election by acclamation works whether there is a quorum or not. Even if there is a quorum at the annual meeting, nothing would be accomplished by holding an election. You have three candidates and three open seats. If you want an election then you should put your name on the ballot next time.

Some bleeding hearts may lament the fact that there would be no opportunity to nominate someone from the floor. Just where were these people when nominations were open? One of the risks of sitting on your hands when the nominations are open is that election by acclamation may preclude an 11th-hour candidate from tossing his hat into the ring.

Larry B13 : Please help me with this one above. Without a quorum-proven convening of an owners'/shareholders' Meeting, how could the acclamation process itself - or virtually all other business - have been validly activated ?

And next, even a purely acclamation process - IF not next followed by the vesting of legitimacy through a carried Motion of owners/shareholders etc - how would such process actually invest legitimate authority from the owners/shareholders etc. ? Would such process deliver Owner-selected Directors ?

Of course ( if expressed ) Board appointment powers would be available in place of an acclamation process until next General Meeting attempt . . .

Last November ( at a quorumed General Meeting) I watched a renegade non-profit Board refuse to submit the full acclamation roster to the quorumed attendors for a full ratification vote. That rogue Board initially tried to even withhold all identifying details other than names of the acclamation-proposed individuals !

That rogue Board & its Exec Director, were associated with an extremist ideology linked to Freeman on the Land, Timothy McVeigh types. Anyway they refused to submit to any ratification vote and months later defied a Requisition unseating process until police coincidentally arrested the Exec Director on marginally-related criminal charges. Then the rogue Board collapsed with the organization in chaos.

I present this scenario only to show some civil liberties drawbacks when procedural due process is ignored or treated casually in electoral issues.

The acclamation process place when nominations are closed and the there are no more candidates than open seats. The election committee would simply declare that the candidates have won by acclamation. While the candidates do not take their seats until some later date, the close of nominations usually occurs some time before the annual meeting. Those who feel slighted by not having an election have only themselves to blame as they should have tossed their hats into the ring.

This may be a problem with semantics as "acclamation" implies that everyone stands around applauding or shouting their approval. In this case, "acclamation" takes on a much different meaning that seems to derive from the idea that acclamation means there is no opposition. In practice, when the number of candidates is less than or equal to the number of open seats, there is no opposition, hence there is - in theory - acclamation.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acclamation:
"In Canada, a candidate for a parliamentary, legislative or municipal position is said to be elected by acclamation if he or she has no opponents for the seat, an eventuality that rarely occurs except for legislative elections in the northern territories and municipal elections."



The authority for the candidates elected by acclamation to assume their offices would derive from the bylaws. The board would have power to appoint only if the number of candidate is less than the vacant seats.

Larry

I'm not some bleeding heart, but there are times when a write-in candidate (if allowed) is viable option. I have seen first hand, management companies not sending nomination forms to individuals THEY don't want on the Board. Sometimes people need to destroy the emails they send to attorneys. It can bite them on the hind quarter.

In AZ, nominations from the floor are not prohibited but they are an exercise in futility. State law requires allowing voting by both absentee ballots and in-person voting for HOA's, much as it does for public elections. By the day of the meeting most votes have been cast by absentee ballot making it almost mathematically impossible to collect enough votes as a last-minute candidate.



I hope you testified to that effect in front of the grand jury.

Richard,

You said you had first-hand knowledge of a management company acting deliberately to prevent one or more owners from running for election to their HOA boards by withholding nominating materials from those owners.

The property owner has a right to run for the board; the right arises from his ownership of the property. The management company had a fiduciary relationship with the association and used that relationship to fraudulently prevent one or more owners from exercising their property rights to seek election to the board. Depriving a person of his property or some part of his property is a criminal matter. I would hope that you were at least smart enough to cover your ass by filing a police report.

Richard,

I know of nothing that requires anyone at any time to file a police report for anything. When one knows that others have performed acts that may be criminal (and that is usually up to the public prosecutor to make that decision), filing a police report may relieve that person of criminal liability.

I believe that most states have a statute similar to Arizona's ARS 13-1005:
A. In a prosecution for attempt, conspiracy or facilitation, it is a defense that the defendant, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal intent,
gave timely warning to law enforcement authorities or otherwise made a reasonable effort to prevent the conduct or result which is the object of the attempt, conspiracy or facilitation.