Election question again

CfD (Virginia)
Posts: 265

Posted:

I've asked it before, but I want to be sure so I'm asking again.

In our association we haven't had an election in almost 3 years. For the third year in a row proxies are sent out with no candidate information whatsoever, even though the board has already approached individuals within the community to serve on the board, and those people have agreed to. These people are always all friends and staunch supporters of our president.

For the past 2 years our quorum was not met, and even though we have a provision to drop our quorum to only 10% at a subsequent meeting to properly elect our board members, the board has never used it. Instead, they simply appoint these friends of the president to the board at the next board meeting.

This year our president's 3 year term is up and I'd bet the life of my dog we magically meet the 25% quorum. He has already encouraged homeowners to sign a proxy naming a board member and send it to the property manager so that they can "meet a quorum". But our property manager's contract says that the PM only has to correspond with one individual on the board...our president.

So, in my view, this allows the president of our association to essentially control the election of the people he wants on the board that only he knows of long before it ever takes place, if it ever does.

Back in August he appointed his wife and two staunch supporters to a nomination committee, but they have never openly met and nobody has a clue what their intentions are. His wife proclaimed in the meeting referring to her husband "we work as a team".

I've talked to board members of several nearby homeowner associations and they seem to think this is blatant manipulation of an election. They believe, and have showed me references, that having a fair and unbiased election is part of their fiduciary duty to the members. Every property manager I've spoken to thinks this is ridiculous, even if there are only enough candidates to fill the available seats there should be a proper election by the members of the association.

Please share your views and I appreciate it.

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

Well, manipulation by one person won't work unless other people play along - you said the quorum hasn't been met in two years, so it would appear other homeowners don't care what's going on. Otherwise they might cast their own proxies or better yet, show up at the meeting to support those willing to run against these people.

So, let's start there - have you spoken to any neighbors as to how they feel about this? Have YOU tried to run for a position - if so, what happened? The president's friends have come forward to serve and since no one objected, they wound up on the board.

The only way to stop this guy will be for you and like minded homeowners to show up at the meeting - you don't say how large your association is, but you will need enough people to outnumber the ones who simply provide proxies and then vote him (and perhaps his cronies) off. As I always say with these situations, simply getting rid of them isn't enough - you need to have people willing to step up and take over, and then all of the homeowners need to start paying more attention to the folks making all the decisions. Good luck!

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

By the way, I personally don't like nomination committees, partly because stuff like this can happen. I prefer people to nominate themselves or someone else and run a proper campaign, or at least set a deadline where interested people can indicate they want to run.

Next, have some sort of meet the candidates forum where everyone can state their qualifications, what they'd like to accomplish while serving and let homeowners ask questions. If you don't want a meeting, run something in the newsletter like many newspapers do for local elections.

Finally, hold the election - to avoid monkey business, you could always appoint people who would supervise it in front of everyone (including counting the proxies and ballots).

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

Cf,

We have a nomination committee only because our governing documents require it. As those same documents allow for nominations from the floor, the committee is actually pointless (in our opinion) except to ask if somebody wants to run.

We normally can't get enough volunteers to serve on the Board that we simply don't bother to ask if they want to serve on the nomination committee. Instead, to satisfy this requirement, our Association appoints the Board as a committee of the whole.

We ask two individuals to supervise the sign-in sheets and hand out ballots. Those same people count the ballots for us. However, we invite anyone at the meeting who desires to observe or be part of the counting team (typically, nobody volunteers). Keep in mind the amount of apathy, we typically ask spouses to do this task.

Have you indicated a desire to serve on, or chair, an election committee to oversee the vote counting?

CfD (Virginia)
Posts: 265

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By SheliaH on 01/07/2016 6:06 AM
Well, manipulation by one person won't work unless other people play along - you said the quorum hasn't been met in two years, so it would appear other homeowners don't care what's going on. Otherwise they might cast their own proxies or better yet, show up at the meeting to support those willing to run against these people.

So, let's start there - have you spoken to any neighbors as to how they feel about this? Have YOU tried to run for a position - if so, what happened? The president's friends have come forward to serve and since no one objected, they wound up on the board.

The only way to stop this guy will be for you and like minded homeowners to show up at the meeting - you don't say how large your association is, but you will need enough people to outnumber the ones who simply provide proxies and then vote him (and perhaps his cronies) off. As I always say with these situations, simply getting rid of them isn't enough - you need to have people willing to step up and take over, and then all of the homeowners need to start paying more attention to the folks making all the decisions. Good luck!

The president's friends don't come forward Shelia. Their names only come to light after they are appointed in a board meeting. At no time in three years has the name of any candidate been freely revealed to the membership until after they are appointed at a board meeting a month later.

At the upcoming annual meeting I suspect we will have a quorum for the very first time, but nobody is on a ballot. The president says he and two other board members are "undecided" if they will run, but I suspect they will all of a sudden decide at the annual meeting when after he has enough proxies to control the outcome of the election. The last thing he wants is for me to show up at the annual meeting an be nominated from the floor and become a member of the board. He actually tried to prevent that last year by having the annual meeting on the one and only evening of the week he knew I had to work.

I have no problem with the collection of proxies...as long as the membership knows who the candidates are before they are being asked to turn them over. In my view if the board knows of candidates and deliberately does not forward to the membership this material information pertaining to the election of those candidates, they are breaching their fiduciary duty.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Your right to elect directors is fundamental. It's in your organizing docs.

If there is no election, then you have a right to demand one. Get the required number of signatures on a petition to call a Special Meeting to elect ALL director seats.

If you are concerned about collusion, then demand that an independent party oversees the election process from start to finish. Make that part of your Special Meeting petition.

As part of the petition, you can also demand that candidates bios are published and also demand that any other condition must be followed.

You need to get the ball rolling and you need to have your demands in writing and signed by the right number of owners.

That way, if you have force a proper election through the courts, you've got everything lined up to readily get a court order on your election rights.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

Hm, I wonder if the president’s friends don’t come forward because they really don’t want the job – or know they wouldn’t be selected in an actual election, so it’s easier for them to sit and wait a month to be appointed. But as NpS has said you’ll need to speak truth to power and demand answers, and if other people feel the same as you, they need to have your back and stand up as well. I think that’s your real problem - this president has gotten away with what he’s doing because the rest of you (homeowners) either don’t care or are too intimidated.

It’s simple math – whether you have 5 or 500 homes in your community, still talking about 1 person. Are you telling me the remaining 4 or 499 are just standing around, wringing their hands over the unfairness of it all? Last time I checked, 1 is smaller than 2, 4 50, etc.….you want this to change, l you and the other homeowners will have to get up and stand up, a la Bob Marley.

It appears you’ll have to take the initiative on changing this, so if you know when the next meeting is, put in for time off at your job if necessary to ensure you’re at that meeting. Be professional, but speak your truth, complete with citing the appropriate section in your Bylaws. You may even want to make a few copies and pass them out to everyone else.

If changes aren’t made that night, keep pushing – no one said this would happen overnight or would be easy. Hopefully, your taking a stand will light a fire under other people and that’s where the change will begin. If nothing else, the man may be pressured into doing what should have been done all along (it’s really cheeky to stand up in front of a large group of people and telling them to naff off, so to speak)

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

CfD, I believe your neighbors are right but why not cite these laws for us to read?? Are you waiting Tim to again do the legwork for you?

And why not run for the Board and collect proxies for yourself? Do your bylaws permit nominations from the floor? Does VA state law? What do your bylaws say about elections to the Board of your HOA?

GenoS (Florida)
Posts: 4,276

Posted:

Not sure about Virginia, but in Florida an election is not required unless there are more candidates than positions to be filled. That way, a board can turn over members for years without ever reaching a quorum at an annual meeting and without directors 'appointing' people to fill the open seats.

CfD, I think soliciting your own proxies is something to consider.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By GenoS on 01/07/2016 1:14 PM
Not sure about Virginia, but in Florida an election is not required unless there are more candidates than positions to be filled. That way, a board can turn over members for years without ever reaching a quorum at an annual meeting and without directors 'appointing' people to fill the open seats.

Geno, what are the requirements in FL for soliciting candidate names?

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

CfD (Virginia)
Posts: 265

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By KerryL1 on 01/07/2016 11:19 AM
CfD, I believe your neighbors are right but why not cite these laws for us to read?? Are you waiting Tim to again do the legwork for you?

And why not run for the Board and collect proxies for yourself? Do your bylaws permit nominations from the floor? Does VA state law? What do your bylaws say about elections to the Board of your HOA?

Our Association is created pursuant to the terms of the Non Stock Corporation Act of Virginia.
Pursuant to that act a corporation is required to conduct a member's meeting annually. Elections typically happen at the annual meeting, should there be one, but the right to elect the board members is not the only right afforded to the membership at an annual meeting. In Virginia, the membership also has a right to strike down any rule the board has made that the members do not like, as well as conduct other business afforded the membership (most of you know our HOA grants the members the right to approve changes to our architectural guidelines).

§ 13.1-838. Annual meeting.
A. A corporation SHALL hold a meeting of members annually at a time stated in or fixed in accordance with the bylaws.

B. Annual meetings of members may be held at such place, in or out of the Commonwealth, as may be provided in the bylaws or, where not inconsistent with the bylaws, in the notice of the meeting.

C. The failure to hold an annual meeting at the time stated in or fixed in accordance with a corporation's bylaws does not affect the validity of any corporate action.

Failure to get a quorum on the first attempt simply means a board must try again and luckily our governing documents permit a lower quorum on the next attempt. I believe that John C has indicated in the past his HOA has had to go several attempts at an annual meeting before reaching a quorum.

Open, fair, unbiased, and well-publicized elections are also considered ethical and included in the CAI model of Board member ethics.

📎 Attachments (1):

⏸ Downloads temporarily unavailable

📄1170540971.pdf(85 KB)

GenoS (Florida)
Posts: 4,276

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By NpS on 01/07/2016 1:32 PM

Geno, what are the requirements in FL for soliciting candidate names?

FS 720.306(9)(a) defers the election procedure to the governing documents for the most part. Members are allowed to make nominations from the floor unless the process alows candidates to be nominated in advance, in which case it is not required to allow nominations from the floor. There's nothing specific about Nominating Committees.

FS 720.306(9)(b) spells out who's ineligible by virtue of criminal convictions or being delinquent on their assessments.

FS 720.306(9)(c) requires election disputes to be submitted to mandatory binding arbitration.

My HOA's bylaws do specify the operation of a Nominating Committee which rules out nominations from the floor here.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By GenoS on 01/07/2016 2:53 PM
FS 720.306(9)(c) requires election disputes to be submitted to mandatory binding arbitration.

I wonder if there's a mandatory binding arbitration rule in VA that could help Cf out.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By NpS on 01/07/2016 2:58 PM

Posted By GenoS on 01/07/2016 2:53 PM
FS 720.306(9)(c) requires election disputes to be submitted to mandatory binding arbitration.

I wonder if there's a mandatory binding arbitration rule in VA that could help Cf out.

No such rule.

From the corporation act:

§ 13.1-861. Judicial review of elections.

Any member or director aggrieved by an election of directors may, after reasonable notice to the corporation and each director whose election is contested, apply for relief to the circuit court in the county or city in which the principal office of the corporation is located, or, if none in the Commonwealth, in the county or city in which its registered office is located. The court shall proceed forthwith in a summary way to hear and decide the issues and thereupon to determine the persons elected or order a new election or grant such other relief as may be equitable. Pending decision, the court may require the production of any information and may by order restrain any person from exercising the powers of a director if such relief is equitable.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 01/07/2016 3:30 PM

From the corporation act:

§ 13.1-861. Judicial review of elections.

Any member or director aggrieved by an election of directors may, after reasonable notice to the corporation and each director whose election is contested, apply for relief to the circuit court in the county or city in which the principal office of the corporation is located, or, if none in the Commonwealth, in the county or city in which its registered office is located. The court shall proceed forthwith in a summary way to hear and decide the issues and thereupon to determine the persons elected or order a new election or grant such other relief as may be equitable. Pending decision, the court may require the production of any information and may by order restrain any person from exercising the powers of a director if such relief is equitable.

The good news for Cf is the instruction for the court to proceed in a "summary way" which should provide faster results.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

CfD (Virginia)
Posts: 265

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 01/07/2016 3:30 PM

Posted By NpS on 01/07/2016 2:58 PM

Posted By GenoS on 01/07/2016 2:53 PM
FS 720.306(9)(c) requires election disputes to be submitted to mandatory binding arbitration.

I wonder if there's a mandatory binding arbitration rule in VA that could help Cf out.

No such rule.

From the corporation act:

§ 13.1-861. Judicial review of elections.

Any member or director aggrieved by an election of directors may, after reasonable notice to the corporation and each director whose election is contested, apply for relief to the circuit court in the county or city in which the principal office of the corporation is located, or, if none in the Commonwealth, in the county or city in which its registered office is located. The court shall proceed forthwith in a summary way to hear and decide the issues and thereupon to determine the persons elected or order a new election or grant such other relief as may be equitable. Pending decision, the court may require the production of any information and may by order restrain any person from exercising the powers of a director if such relief is equitable.

There have been no elections in our association in years. I do not believe this statute would be relevant if the association simply neglects to hold an election and then appoints members to the board. There has been no election to contest. To me the board's negligence in not conducting an annual meeting as required by law is what is important. You would think it would be easy to file a complaint with our state ombudsman, but she only has jurisdiction in matters pertaining to the property owners act, not the non stock corp act. I believe our property manager exploits this fact.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CfD on 01/07/2016 4:57 PM

Posted By TimB4 on 01/07/2016 3:30 PM

Posted By NpS on 01/07/2016 2:58 PM
From the corporation act:

§ 13.1-861. Judicial review of elections.

Any member or director aggrieved by an election of directors may, after reasonable notice to the corporation and each director whose election is contested, apply for relief to the circuit court in the county or city in which the principal office of the corporation is located, or, if none in the Commonwealth, in the county or city in which its registered office is located. The court shall proceed forthwith in a summary way to hear and decide the issues and thereupon to determine the persons elected or order a new election or grant such other relief as may be equitable. Pending decision, the court may require the production of any information and may by order restrain any person from exercising the powers of a director if such relief is equitable.

There have been no elections in our association in years. I do not believe this statute would be relevant if the association simply neglects to hold an election and then appoints members to the board. There has been no election to contest. To me the board's negligence in not conducting an annual meeting as required by law is what is important. You would think it would be easy to file a complaint with our state ombudsman, but she only has jurisdiction in matters pertaining to the property owners act, not the non stock corp act. I believe our property manager exploits this fact.

Negligence is a very difficult case to win. But failure to hold a mandatory election should be not be.

IMO, you should be talking intentional deprivation of rights, not negligence.

Also IMO, 13.1-861 covers not just an improperly held election, but also an election that is not held at all.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

Cf,

I believe when you previously brought up this issue, although the option to have another meeting with a lower quorum is available, there is no requirement that this be done. The VA CIC Ombudsman agrees with you that she doesn't think the Board is doing their due diligence if a second meeting isn't called, but it's not a requirement, so that is that.

CfD (Virginia)
Posts: 265

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 01/08/2016 3:55 AM
Cf,

I believe when you previously brought up this issue, although the option to have another meeting with a lower quorum is available, there is no requirement that this be done. The VA CIC Ombudsman agrees with you that she doesn't think the Board is doing their due diligence if a second meeting isn't called, but it's not a requirement, so that is that.

I wouldn't be so quick to proclaim "that is that" Tim, especially if a board is exploiting this loophole, if it even is one. Homeowners shouldn't have to rally to get enough support just to compel the board to recognize a right the state is granting them to begin with.

Under this logic, a collection of homeowners that strongly support a board member or members could just as easily put out the word among their friends to "not show up so a quorum is not present". In this way they could keep a board in control forever without ever telling anyone who the candidates are until after they are appointed. How in the world do you think that is legal?

My view would be different if the board put all of the candidates out to the membership, even if there were only 3 members to fill 3 seats, well before the attempt at an annual meeting. Then the membership could see what is coming their way. The secrecy is idiotic, and in my view a breach of a board's fiduciary duty.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

Best option then is to make it a campaign issue and send a letter outlining the issue to the membership asking for them to assign you as a proxy or, better, to simply show up and cast a vote.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CfD on 01/08/2016 6:05 AM

Homeowners shouldn't have to rally to get enough support just to compel the board to recognize a right the state is granting them to begin with.

I agree. Unfortunately, sometimes that is what it takes.

Quote:

Posted By CfD on 01/08/2016 6:05 AM

Under this logic, a collection of homeowners that strongly support a board member or members could just as easily put out the word among their friends to "not show up so a quorum is not present". . . . How in the world do you think that is legal?

It's legal because the statute and your governing docs specify a quorum must be present to conduct business.

Keep in mind that what is legal to do isn't always the ethical thing to do.

One could argue that they should call a second meeting as authorized in your governing docs. The counter argument would be that Statute has already addressed this issues (in the fact that sitting Directors would continue in place) and that the cost to call a meeting is simply too expensive.

As I like to say - Don't blame those who exploit a loophole. Blame those who made the loophole and allow it to continue. In this specific issue, the blame (in my opinion) should be on the membership for not showing up or taking the time to assign proxies.

Quote:

Posted By CfD on 01/08/2016 6:05 AM

My view would be different if the board put all of the candidates out to the membership, even if there were only 3 members to fill 3 seats, well before the attempt at an annual meeting. Then the membership could see what is coming their way.

Understood. I agree with your view (and that is how it works in our Association)

Quote:

Posted By CfD on 01/08/2016 6:05 AM

The secrecy is idiotic, and in my view a breach of a board's fiduciary duty.

I agree that secrecy is idiotic.

I'm not sure it's a breach of fiduciary duty as I can see arguments on both sides. Therefore, it would be a question for the courts.

CfD (Virginia)
Posts: 265

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 01/08/2016 7:40 AM

Posted By CfD on 01/08/2016 6:05 AM

Homeowners shouldn't have to rally to get enough support just to compel the board to recognize a right the state is granting them to begin with.

I understand the secrecy of executive session, but I'm curious. What is your reasoning for seeing the other side of keeping the candidates a secret?

I agree. Unfortunately, sometimes that is what it takes.

Quote:

Posted By CfD on 01/08/2016 6:05 AM

Under this logic, a collection of homeowners that strongly support a board member or members could just as easily put out the word among their friends to "not show up so a quorum is not present". . . . How in the world do you think that is legal?

It's legal because the statute and your governing docs specify a quorum must be present to conduct business.

Keep in mind that what is legal to do isn't always the ethical thing to do.

One could argue that they should call a second meeting as authorized in your governing docs. The counter argument would be that Statute has already addressed this issues (in the fact that sitting Directors would continue in place) and that the cost to call a meeting is simply too expensive.

As I like to say - Don't blame those who exploit a loophole. Blame those who made the loophole and allow it to continue. In this specific issue, the blame (in my opinion) should be on the membership for not showing up or taking the time to assign proxies.

Quote:

Posted By CfD on 01/08/2016 6:05 AM

My view would be different if the board put all of the candidates out to the membership, even if there were only 3 members to fill 3 seats, well before the attempt at an annual meeting. Then the membership could see what is coming their way.

Understood. I agree with your view (and that is how it works in our Association)

Quote:

Posted By CfD on 01/08/2016 6:05 AM

The secrecy is idiotic, and in my view a breach of a board's fiduciary duty.

I agree that secrecy is idiotic.

I'm not sure it's a breach of fiduciary duty as I can see arguments on both sides. Therefore, it would be a question for the courts.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CfD on 01/08/2016 8:18 AM

Posted By TimB4 on 01/08/2016 7:40 AM

Posted By CfD on 01/08/2016 6:05 AM

Homeowners shouldn't have to rally to get enough support just to compel the board to recognize a right the state is granting them to begin with.

I agree. Unfortunately, sometimes that is what it takes.

I understand the secrecy of executive session, but I'm curious. What is your reasoning for seeing the other side of keeping the candidates a secret?

CF,

I never said I agree with keeping candidates names secret.

However, an argument can be made that there were no candidates when the proxy and notice went out. It does happen but should be questioned if it happens every year.

Perhaps volunteering to do that work to ensure it doesn't happen next year could be an option.

CfD (Virginia)
Posts: 265

Posted:

Tim, the board will tell us there are two "candidates" but won't tell the membership who they are. Now that our presidents term is up he is pretending to be "undecided" along with two other board members while he and his supporters collect proxies to control the election. The membership doesn't even know which board members are undecided.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

We send out 2 mailings.

In mailing 1, we announce whose seats are up for election. We include a blank candidate application form with a deadline for sending it back.
In mailing 2, we announce the names of candidates.
We don't allow nominations from the floor.

Current board members are treated like anyone else. Their candidate application forms are due when everyone else's are. I don't see any fairness in forcing the current board members to pre-announce their intentions.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

CfD (Virginia)
Posts: 265

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By NpS on 01/09/2016 8:32 AM
We send out 2 mailings.

In mailing 1, we announce whose seats are up for election. We include a blank candidate application form with a deadline for sending it back.
In mailing 2, we announce the names of candidates.
We don't allow nominations from the floor.

Current board members are treated like anyone else. Their candidate application forms are due when everyone else's are. I don't see any fairness in forcing the current board members to pre-announce their intentions.

Your process is fair nps, but our board knows some of the candidates and can essentially stack the deck going into the annual meeting. They force the membership at large to commit early but play their own hand close to the vest.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CfD on 01/09/2016 10:29 AM

Posted By NpS on 01/09/2016 8:32 AM
We send out 2 mailings.

In mailing 1, we announce whose seats are up for election. We include a blank candidate application form with a deadline for sending it back.
In mailing 2, we announce the names of candidates.
We don't allow nominations from the floor.

Current board members are treated like anyone else. Their candidate application forms are due when everyone else's are. I don't see any fairness in forcing the current board members to pre-announce their intentions.

Your process is fair nps, but our board knows some of the candidates and can essentially stack the deck going into the annual meeting. They force the membership at large to commit early but play their own hand close to the vest.

If your process works anything like ours, all of the candidate's names are printed on the proxies. It seems to me that your concern is that they collect the proxies to get the upper hand. I see where they might have an advantage because they are incumbents, but the incumbent advantage doesn't make it unfair in and of itself.

On the other hand, not holding elections and not sending proxies (if allowed) is IMO blatantly unfair.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Since annual meetings & elections are meetings of the members (homeowners), can you, CfD, along with a sufficient number of other owners call for a meeting of the members and hold an election? In other words, if the board the only entity that can call a members meeting?

As per my way above and also Tim, I think, why not submit your name as a candidate and collect proxies. Do you have ANY owners support? Even two who can help you?? Will you tell us, CfD? Does anyone else in your HOA see the situation the way you do?

Follow Sheila's advice too. I don't have time to even review this post so I may have missed the answer to my above. And I certainly don't have time to review your numerous previous posts complaining about your Board and committees too, but I sorta recall them.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By KerryL1 on 01/09/2016 2:26 PM

Since annual meetings & elections are meetings of the members (homeowners), can you, CfD, along with a sufficient number of other owners call for a meeting of the members and hold an election?

Only if they combine it with a recall effort.

The members do not have the authority to call the second meeting at a reduced quorum unless that authority is provided for in the governing documents.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

So, RfD, do you have enough neighbor support to launch a recall campaign?

CfD (Virginia)
Posts: 265

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By NpS on 01/09/2016 12:27 PM

Posted By CfD on 01/09/2016 10:29 AM

Posted By NpS on 01/09/2016 8:32 AM
We send out 2 mailings.

In mailing 1, we announce whose seats are up for election. We include a blank candidate application form with a deadline for sending it back.
In mailing 2, we announce the names of candidates.
We don't allow nominations from the floor.

Current board members are treated like anyone else. Their candidate application forms are due when everyone else's are. I don't see any fairness in forcing the current board members to pre-announce their intentions.

Your process is fair nps, but our board knows some of the candidates and can essentially stack the deck going into the annual meeting. They force the membership at large to commit early but play their own hand close to the vest.

If your process works anything like ours, all of the candidate's names are printed on the proxies. It seems to me that your concern is that they collect the proxies to get the upper hand. I see where they might have an advantage because they are incumbents, but the incumbent advantage doesn't make it unfair in and of itself.

On the other hand, not holding elections and not sending proxies (if allowed) is IMO blatantly unfair.

What I'm trying to tell you nps is that our board openly invites homeowners to submit their names if interested in running. Other homeowners are contacted to serve (2 homeowners have told me the president contacted them about serving "with the president" and they said they accepted) but the membership at large has no idea who these residents are. Their names do not appear on a proxy.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CfD on 01/09/2016 7:09 PM

Posted By NpS on 01/09/2016 12:27 PM

Posted By CfD on 01/09/2016 10:29 AM

Posted By NpS on 01/09/2016 8:32 AM
We send out 2 mailings.

In mailing 1, we announce whose seats are up for election. We include a blank candidate application form with a deadline for sending it back.
In mailing 2, we announce the names of candidates.
We don't allow nominations from the floor.

Current board members are treated like anyone else. Their candidate application forms are due when everyone else's are. I don't see any fairness in forcing the current board members to pre-announce their intentions.

Your process is fair nps, but our board knows some of the candidates and can essentially stack the deck going into the annual meeting. They force the membership at large to commit early but play their own hand close to the vest.

If your process works anything like ours, all of the candidate's names are printed on the proxies. It seems to me that your concern is that they collect the proxies to get the upper hand. I see where they might have an advantage because they are incumbents, but the incumbent advantage doesn't make it unfair in and of itself.

On the other hand, not holding elections and not sending proxies (if allowed) is IMO blatantly unfair.

What I'm trying to tell you nps is that our board openly invites homeowners to submit their names if interested in running. Other homeowners are contacted to serve (2 homeowners have told me the president contacted them about serving "with the president" and they said they accepted) but the membership at large has no idea who these residents are. Their names do not appear on a proxy.

I don't know how your board gets away with not putting out a proxy with all candidate names on it. And I don't know how your board gets away with not holding an election in 3 years. IMO those two issues combined are a basis for bringing suit against your board and/or demanding their resignations (as long as you have people lined up to take those seats). Don't know what else to tell you.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By NpS on 01/09/2016 10:37 PM

I don't know how your board gets away with not putting out a proxy with all candidate names on it.

I suspect it's a general (vs. directed) proxy.

Until I implemented directed proxies within my Association, our general proxy didn't list candidates. However, our newsletter would identify the known candidates (the unknown would be any who failed to declare prior to printing or were nominated from the floor).

Quote:

Posted By NpS on 01/09/2016 10:37 PM

And I don't know how your board gets away with not holding an election in 3 years.

As Cf pointed out, lack of quorum.

Lack of quorum has been brought to this forum often as a problem from many posters.

Quote:

Posted By NpS on 01/09/2016 10:37 PM

IMO those two issues combined are a basis for bringing suit against your board

Despite the fact that everything that was done is in compliance with applicable statutes and the governing docs (granted it's scummy but it appears to be legal)?

Notices and proxies were sent to the membership
meeting was held
quorum wasn't met, hence no business could be conducted.
Per Statute, existing board members stay in seats unless they resign
Per Statute (and likely the governing docs), remaining board members appoint to fill vacancies

Board did what was legally required of them.

Again, scummy not to hold another meeting to take advantage of the reduced quorum requirement.
However, it appears to be in compliance with applicable laws and governing docs (as we have been provided).

Quote:

Posted By NpS on 01/09/2016 10:37 PM

Don't know what else to tell you.

I'd suggest simply making the membership aware (via one on one conversation or a newsletter) of the issues along with better ways it could be handled. This can take time before the membership actually takes notice (it took me over 3 years).

I'd suggest gathering proxies and nominate yourself from the floor to see if there is enough support to place you on the Board. Once on the Board, volunteer to write a newsletter for the Association, maintain the website, handle the notices, serve on the election committee or nomination committee, etc. so you are in a position to not let this happen the following year.

I'd suggest gathering support and call a special meeting of the membership for the sole purpose of amending the governing documents to lower the quorum requirement for annual meetings (but leave the higher requirement (if any) for special assessments).

CfD (Virginia)
Posts: 265

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 01/10/2016 3:36 AM

Posted By NpS on 01/09/2016 10:37 PM

I don't know how your board gets away with not putting out a proxy with all candidate

I suspect it's a general (vs. directed) proxy.

Until I implemented directed proxies within my Association, our general proxy didn't list candidates. However, our newsletter would identify the known candidates (the unknown would be any who failed to declare prior to printing or were nominated from the floor).

Posted By NpS on 01/09/2016 10:37 PM

And I don't know how your board gets away with not holding an election in 3 years.

As Cf pointed out, lack of quorum.

Lack of quorum has been brought to this forum often as a problem from many posters.

Quote:

Posted By NpS on 01/09/2016 10:37 PM

IMO those two issues combined are a basis for bringing suit against your board

Despite the fact that everything that was done is in compliance with applicable statutes and the governing docs (granted it's scummy but it appears to be legal)?

Notices and proxies were sent to the membership
meeting was held
quorum wasn't met, hence no business could be conducted.
Per Statute, existing board members stay in seats unless they resign
Per Statute (and likely the governing docs), remaining board members appoint to fill vacancies

Board did what was legally required of them.

Again, scummy not to hold another meeting to take advantage of the reduced quorum requirement.
However, it appears to be in compliance with applicable laws and governing docs (as we have been provided).

Quote:

Posted By NpS on 01/09/2016 10:37 PM

Don't know what else to tell you.

I'd suggest simply making the membership aware (via one on one conversation or a newsletter) of the issues along with better ways it could be handled. This can take time before the membership actually takes notice (it took me over 3 years).

I'd suggest gathering proxies and nominate yourself from the floor to see if there is enough support to place you on the Board. Once on the Board, volunteer to write a newsletter for the Association, maintain the website, handle the notices, serve on the election committee or nomination committee, etc. so you are in a position to not let this happen the following year.

I'd suggest gathering support and call a special meeting of the membership for the sole purpose of amending the governing documents to lower the quorum requirement for annual meetings (but leave the higher requirement (if any) for special assessments).

Generally good advice Tim. You are correct about the use of general proxies. Also, when I suggested in a board meeting that the proxy should include a check box allowing the proxy to be used for quorum purposes only the president immediately argued against it. Because we haven't had an election in 3 years, this year all 5 board seats are open. Our terms are staggered. You say newsletter to inform neighborhood, but I'm thinking blog or Web site with password protection might be better, and make it available to all interested homeowners. Right now I'm losing on a political front because our president and his close group of supporters spread so much negative propoganda about me. As an example,I had friends confiding to me that I had been kicked off the grounds committee before I ever knew about it...even though it was apparently done in board executive session.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 01/10/2016 3:36 AM

Posted By NpS on 01/09/2016 10:37 PM

IMO those two issues combined are a basis for bringing suit against your board

Despite the fact that everything that was done is in compliance with applicable statutes and the governing docs (granted it's scummy but it appears to be legal)?

I cannot agree. The failure to set up a fair voting system is illegal. The right to elect directors is a fundamental right of membership. The right to be treated like any other candidate is a fundamental right of membership (if you are in good standing.) The quorum problem does not occur until after all the preliminary steps of setting up a fair election are taken. The incumbents don't get to say in advance that there isn't going to be an election because there won't be a quorum.

Cf seems to be the kind of person who would go out and get signed proxies to make sure that a quorum exists. If I lived in Cf's HOA, I might sign a directed proxy, but I'm certainly not going to sign a general proxy.

When it comes to a general proxy, I might sign it for one of the incumbents I know - but without knowing in advance who the candidates are - the process is a sham.

IMO, the idea of a general proxy for an election is absurd. People have a fundamental right to know who's throwing their hat in a ring - and to choose from among them.

IMO, it's the combination of all the steps that could have been taken but weren't taken that makes it illegal. Cf has called it what it is - the current board's manipulation of the process to perpetuate it's own existence. Which is exactly why the statute and the organizing docs say that the right to run (if in good standing) and the right to vote are fundamental.

The gamesmanship with the committees is secondary. There is no fundamental right to be on a committee. And the board does have the authority to keep people off committees - although to use your term Tim, that would be scummy. But the board does not have the authority to manipulate the process to interfere with everyone's right to run, serve, and elect.

I think that Cf could take this to court and win. He might even be able to get an injunction to force a fair voting system.

Because these rights are fundamental, the burden of proof would be on the board to demonstrate that the steps taken would have and could have led to a fair election - regardless of the quorum problem (which is totally after the fact).

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

CORRECTED:

Quote:

Posted By NpS on 01/10/2016 7:30 AM

Posted By TimB4 on 01/10/2016 3:36 AM

Posted By NpS on 01/09/2016 10:37 PM

IMO those two issues combined are a basis for bringing suit against your board

Despite the fact that everything that was done is in compliance with applicable statutes and the governing docs (granted it's scummy but it appears to be legal)?

I cannot agree. The failure to set up a fair voting system is illegal. The right to elect directors is a fundamental right of membership. The right to be treated like any other candidate is a fundamental right of membership (if you are in good standing.) The quorum problem does not occur until after all the preliminary steps of setting up a fair election are taken. The incumbents don't get to say in advance that there isn't going to be an election because there won't be a quorum.

Cf seems to be the kind of person who would go out and get signed proxies to make sure that a quorum exists. If I lived in Cf's HOA, I might sign a directed proxy, but I'm certainly not going to sign a general proxy that CF asks me to sign.

When it comes to a general proxy, I might sign it for one of the incumbents I know - but without knowing in advance who the candidates are - the process is a sham.

IMO, the idea of a general proxy for an election is absurd. People have a fundamental right to know who's throwing their hat in a ring - and to choose from among them.

IMO, it's the combination of all the steps that could have been taken but weren't taken that makes it illegal. Cf has called it what it is - the current board's manipulation of the process to perpetuate it's own existence. Which is exactly why the statute and the organizing docs say that the right to run (if in good standing) and the right to vote are fundamental.

The gamesmanship with the committees is secondary. There is no fundamental right to be on a committee. And the board does have the authority to keep people off committees - although to use your term Tim, that would be scummy. But the board does not have the authority to manipulate the process to interfere with everyone's right to run, serve, and elect.

I think that Cf could take this to court and win. He might even be able to get an injunction to force a fair voting system.

Because these rights are fundamental, the burden of proof would be on the board to demonstrate that the steps taken would have and could have led to a fair election - regardless of the quorum problem (which is totally after the fact).

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

NP,

All good points.

Members certainly have a right (well privilege - otherwise it couldn't be taken away for non-payment of assessments)to vote. However, it's up to the member to exercise that right.
It appears that many in Cfs' Association has chosen not to exercise said right.

Who said what is legal is fair ?
I hope you have been informed that "life isn't fair" (it would be nice if it was, but it isn't).

Boards should do what is right/fair/ethical.
Boards must do what is legal

The courts will aid the member force a Board to do what is legal.
It's up to the members alone to have the Board do what is right/fair/ethical.

As for the Boards authority, that is specified in applicable laws and the governing documents.

Boards have the option to waive charges and fines. That doesn't mean that they will if you are late in paying your assessment. The same goes for holding the second meeting to have a reduced quorum requirement. Per the Governing Docs, it's an option. Hence, it's the sitting Boards choice.

Members have the option to show up to meetings and cast a vote. Some do, many don't.
Is it fair that those who show up get to make the decisions that affect you and your home?
The answer is no. However, that is what is legally done everyday in most (if not all) Assocaitions.

Is there a problem with Cf's Board yes.

However, the main problem is with the apathetic membership that choose not to show up so an election can occur.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Like it or not, right or wrong it does not matter. What CF has to do is gather enough people (votes or proxies) to beat the BOD at its own game. The methodology is there but it has to be worked for, not wished for.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 01/10/2016 8:05 AM
All good points.

Great. End of discussion. Oh, there's more. I guess what's coming next is the "But, ... "

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 01/10/2016 8:05 AM
Members certainly have a right (well privilege - otherwise it couldn't be taken away for non-payment of assessments)to vote.

Your distinction between rights and privileges is semantics. Non-payment trumps voting rights as it should because fee-for-services is the essence of the owner/HOA relationship. You don't pay, you don't get to vote. On the other hand, if a board selectively imposed fines to make some people ineligible to vote, that would be illegal even if it was theoretically within their power.

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 01/10/2016 8:05 AM
However, it's up to the member to exercise that right. It appears that many in Cfs' Association has chosen not to exercise said right.

Apathy of the electorate is no excuse for setting up an unfair election process. As an owner, I have the right to NOT vote. As an owner, I have the right to rely on the owners who DO vote and who are situated similarly to myself. The board does not have the authority to take those rights away from me. Setting up an unfair process takes those rights away from me.

Posted By TimB4 on 01/10/2016 8:05 AM
Who said what is legal is fair ? I hope you have been informed that "life isn't fair" (it would be nice if it was, but it isn't).

Nice generalizations Tim. Life may not be fair. But unfair elections are illegal.

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 01/10/2016 8:05 AM
Boards should do what is right/fair/ethical.
Boards must do what is legal

The courts will aid the member force a Board to do what is legal.
It's up to the members alone to have the Board do what is right/fair/ethical.

As for the Boards authority, that is specified in applicable laws and the governing documents.

Circular logic. Assumes that rules always supersede fairness. Not so in our legal system. Some laws are based primarily on rules - some primarily on fairness. Voting rights are always measured in terms of the fairness of the process. I don't know where you're coming up with the idea that an unfair election is somehow legal. There is no statute or doc that says I can't hire a thug to selectively bar entrance to the voting place or I can't give some candidates a procedural advantage over others. But if you took me to court, a judge would find what I did illegal even if prohibitions against those behaviors aren't specifically identified in some doc or statute.

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 01/10/2016 8:05 AM
Boards have the option to waive charges and fines. That doesn't mean that they will if you are late in paying your assessment. The same goes for holding the second meeting to have a reduced quorum requirement. Per the Governing Docs, it's an option. Hence, it's the sitting Boards choice.

The defect in this logic is your belief that all powers and rights have equal value. They don't. Comparing the power over fines (legitimate) with a power over elections (non-existent) is silly. The docs and the statutes are not the only thing a court is going to look at when it comes to the most basic right of all - the right to choose who gets to oversee and make changes to the running of the HOA. The number one question a court will analyze - Did the board set up a voting process that was fair to all those who had the right to vote?

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 01/10/2016 8:05 AM
Members have the option to show up to meetings and cast a vote. Some do, many don't. Is it fair that those who show up get to make the decisions that affect you and your home?
The answer is no. However, that is what is legally done everyday in most (if not all) Assocaitions.

Here you go again saying that the only relief available is voting them out - that a court will take no action against unfair elections. I don't know where these ideas come from, but IMO they are flawed. I can be a total jackass but no one can take my right to a fair election away from me. A judge will uphold that right - oops, excuse me - privilege (that you seem to believe that the board can waive just like a fine).

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 01/10/2016 8:05 AM
Is there a problem with Cf's Board yes.

Here you go again with those generalizations. Every board has problems. But no board has the authority to set up a fixed election process.

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 01/10/2016 8:05 AM
However, the main problem is with the apathetic membership that choose not to show up so an election can occur.

So by analogy when one owner or a group of owners sues the HOA, it automatically gets thrown out because not every owner joined the lawsuit. The apathetic owners get to trump the non-apathetic ones. Really?

I will repeat something I said earlier because you apparently missed it. Apathy is irrelevant until the meeting to vote is held. Everything done before that moment in time must be set up so that a fair election can be held - nothing done before that moment in time can be based on an assumption that people aren't going to vote.

Questions for Cf:
If your board produced a proxy that listed the names of every candidate, would you be able collect enough signed proxies to guarantee a quorum every year? IMO, apathy can be overcome if the tools are made available. If the tools aren't made available, you have a right to challenge that failure to adequately disclose in court.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

GenoS (Florida)
Posts: 4,276

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By NpS on 01/10/2016 7:30 AM
When it comes to a general proxy, I might sign it for one of the incumbents I know - but without knowing in advance who the candidates are - the process is a sham.

IMO, the idea of a general proxy for an election is absurd. People have a fundamental right to know who's throwing their hat in a ring - and to choose from among them.

I don't think it would be unusual for some owners to give a general proxy which, in effect, says "use your own judgment and whatever you decide is fine by me". They may not care one bit who the actual candidates are.

For those who want to make an informed choice they should absolutely be given a complete list of candidates.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

Governing documents and especially Bylaws (as the discussion is about elections) were written to work solely for the benefit of the developer. Documents were ordered from attorneys who never set foot on the development, but always had a couple of CANNED docs ready to go.

Maybe by the 22nd century, legislators will figure out that HOA's are really quasi-small-mini governments of their own and should be treated as such. Therre are NOT corporations in the same sense that most people look at the two entities.

If you treated these HOA's like a mini government, then you change how elections are done. NO government election has to be bothered with the ridiculous concept of quorum. You really think the developer cared about what happened AFTER their departure. Not a chance. Everything was stacked in their favor, number of votes, high quorum numbers, cumulative voting, proxies, recalls, especially with cumulative voting.

Make the playing field, really fair. Appointed directors love the prospect of high quorum percentages because they have a position as long as THEY want. The larger the association the more difficult it is for change.

The solution is ELIMINATE the requirement for quorum for the election of directors only. Actually, if you do it right, you could eliminate quorum altogether.

So, to restate or add an amendment to the CCRs, takes 60-67&% approval of members .
To amend or restate Bylaws, a majority approval of the members
To recall a director, a majority approval of members.
To increase dues over a certain, established amount a majority approval of members.
To create a special assessment over a certain, established amount a majority approval of members

The argument has always been that you allow a small amount of people who vote to control the elections. As it is now, for the vast majority of HOA's, an even smaller group, generally a majority of a Board, now controls the association.

THIS DOES WORKS. I KNOW FROM FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE!

Tim suggested that it is the option of the Board whether to conduct a second meeting with a reduced quorum. WHEN did the annual meeting become a Board meeting. The presiding officer of the MEMBERS annual meeting should make a motion and the members should have the opportunity to adjourn, IF they are given the opportunity. How many people really know correct procedures to begin with. Hell, even attorneys don't.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By GenoS on 01/10/2016 1:33 PM

Posted By NpS on 01/10/2016 7:30 AM
When it comes to a general proxy, I might sign it for one of the incumbents I know - but without knowing in advance who the candidates are - the process is a sham.

IMO, the idea of a general proxy for an election is absurd. People have a fundamental right to know who's throwing their hat in a ring - and to choose from among them.

I don't think it would be unusual for some owners to give a general proxy which, in effect, says "use your own judgment and whatever you decide is fine by me". They may not care one bit who the actual candidates are.

For those who want to make an informed choice they should absolutely be given a complete list of candidates.

Interesting Geno.
IMO, you shouldn't have to ask for the complete list of candidates. There should be no conditions whatsoever on receiving that information. It should be provided to all. End of story. Those who want to be informed can read it. Those who don't can ignore it. When it comes to elections, any failure to provide full disclosure in time for an informed decision by any and all potential voters is a slippery slope that leads to abuse.

The point I was trying to make in the segment you quoted is that a general proxy creates an unfair advantage in favor of a board member trying to collect proxies vs Cf trying to collect proxies. I think that unfair advantage could be successfully challenged in court.

There is no right of self-perpetuation. There is no right to withhold candidate names. There is no right to manipulate the process so that owners who don't raise their hands are left in the dark. There's no right to manipulate the process so that the board gets to decide who the replacements are by default. There's no shortage of games that a board can play when it comes to elections. IMO, all of them are subject to challenge in court if needed.

BTW, in the proxy that we use, the names of all candidates are always listed. The owner can check a box that will make it either a general proxy or a directed proxy. The important issue is that there is full disclosure long before any homeowner is asked to vote or to give someone else the right to vote on her behalf. It's that lack of full disclosure that I consider a sham.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

Np,

It seems that I haven't really explained my points well enough to be understood.

I suggest we simply agree to disagree as I doubt our discussion is helping resolve the issue for Cf.

We both agree, for perhaps different reasons, that the Board is acting badly. That the process, as described by Cf, would not be done within our own Associations and (hopefully) not in most Associations.

We disagree on the opinion of what was done met all the requirements as written in statute/governing documents or only some of of the requirements.

We appear to disagree on the interpretation of the requirements as well.

We also appear to disagree on who is at fault (or perhaps we simply see the ratio of the blame differently), the board or the members or both.

If Cf can identify a statute or governing document that the Board has violated concerning the election or make a solid case for fiduciary misconduct (as I can see arguments on both sides, which I stated earlier in the thread) then Cf can consider taking the issue to the Virginia CIC Board to see how they see the issue. The CIC Board has the authority to impose monetary penalties on the Association and any such action will give credence to any legal challenge Cf may desire to consider. The other option is to gather support and vote the bums out or amend the governing documents to reduce the quorum requirement (making changes from within).

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 01/10/2016 2:08 PM
Governing documents and especially Bylaws (as the discussion is about elections) were written to work solely for the benefit of the developer. Documents were ordered from attorneys who never set foot on the development, but always had a couple of CANNED docs ready to go.

Maybe by the 22nd century, legislators will figure out that HOA's are really quasi-small-mini governments of their own and should be treated as such. Therre are NOT corporations in the same sense that most people look at the two entities.

If you treated these HOA's like a mini government, then you change how elections are done. NO government election has to be bothered with the ridiculous concept of quorum.

Richard
The corporation vs mini-government discussion has been going on for a long time. I don't value one structure over the other when it comes to HOAs.

The most significant thing that differentiates a corporation from a general partnership is that ownership is separated from management. Owners don't get to make day to day decisions. Managers don't get rights of self-perpetuation. There is always a tension between these two groups.

If you used a mini-government as your reference point, you would still wind up with the division of rights and responsibilities between two groups. Nor would you eliminate the tensions between these two groups.

I don't think anything the developer did is relevant once the HOA is turned over to the owners. The documents that were taken off someone's shelf were hopefully set up so that things can run like a corporation once the developer is gone. Those docs describe and differentiate between the rights and responsibilities of owners and managers - the two groups that will always be in tension to some degree.

As far as quorums are concerned, I think the concerns you have will go away within the next decade. By then there should be enough experience with electronic voting that reliable standards will be set and in use. If people can vote remotely with low risk of outcomes being manipulated, quorum requirements will become less of an issue.

On the other hand, getting rid of quorums entirely could put too much unconstrained power in the hands of incumbents. They should not be tempted. We don't need quorums for government elections - not because governments are better - but because we have well established systems for campaigns and elections that our courts will enforce.

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 01/10/2016 2:08 PM
Tim suggested that it is the option of the Board whether to conduct a second meeting with a reduced quorum. WHEN did the annual meeting become a Board meeting. The presiding officer of the MEMBERS annual meeting should make a motion and the members should have the opportunity to adjourn, IF they are given the opportunity.

Agree.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

CfD

GOOD NEWS!!

Your problems will be solved, IF you can struggle for the next ten years.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 01/10/2016 3:28 PM
Np,

It seems that I haven't really explained my points well enough to be understood.

I think that you explained your perspectives quite well Tim.

I also think that you and I differ in several ways.

1. You live in an open meeting state and I don't. I don't believe that one is better than the other - they're just different. In PA, owners are guaranteed the right to an annual meeting and to an annual election. They usually take place at the same time. Because of the board's ability to hold closed-door sessions, I am especially sensitive to potential abuses of those rights that are guaranteed to homeowners.

2. Your orientation tends to be rule based because of your military background. I am more likely to take purpose and intent into consideration. To me, the spirit of the law can be be just as important as the letter of the law.

3. I chide you on your attempts to give equal weight to all rules. No offense intended. IMO, elections aren't like any other interaction between board and owners.

It is good to know that VA has a CIC board that will hear Cf's concerns. That could be quite beneficial.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 01/10/2016 4:44 PM
CfD

GOOD NEWS!!

Your problems will be solved, IF you can struggle for the next ten years.

GREAT NEWS! When the alternative is to wait 20 years for a revision to the statute.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

JohnC is right, Cfd!

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By KerryL1 on 01/10/2016 5:20 PM
JohnC is right, Cfd!

CfD

Not sure what John is right about, but what he mentions might work ONE time, what happens the next time and the time after that.

You have to recognize the problem before you can provide a solution.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By NpS on 01/10/2016 5:01 PM

Posted By RichardP13 on 01/10/2016 4:44 PM
CfD

GOOD NEWS!!

Your problems will be solved, IF you can struggle for the next ten years.

GREAT NEWS! When the alternative is to wait 20 years for a revision to the statute.

And whose DAMN fault is that?