Do member not in good standing count for quorom?

ONLY if the Association brought them to a hearing and suspended their voting right, IF allowed under your governing documents.

At our annual meetings, Thomas, we do not count members who may not vote to determine quorum. So, we need only 25% of eligible voters to establish quorum. That's how we've been advised by our MC, but I've never actually checked to see if that's accurate.

Larry raises a good point, Thoms who "told" you you needed 51%? Or is it written somewhere?

Thomas,

What is the exact wording. The language will determine the answer.

For example:

900 lots, 10 had voting rights suspended

51% of the membership = 459 (900 multiplied by .51)
51% of the available votes = 454 (900 lots - 10 suspended multiplied by .51 rounded up)

Thomas,

Based on the what you provided, then yes those who can not vote are still counted for quorum purposes.

If they showed up to the meeting, they would not receive a ballot but would still be counted for the quorum.

If they provide a proxy, the proxy representative would not receive a ballot but would still be counted toward a quorum.

Section 3. Removal of Board of Directors. The entire Board may be removed from office by affirmative vote of fifty-one (51%) percent of the owners entitled to vote at any election of the Board.

This is ours, 51 percent only, no adjournment, no reduction, nothing.

So "entitled' to vote would not include any member who has had privileges suspended?

Correct.

Going with the 900 lot and 10 members who had voting privileges suspended and using Fred's language and your quorum requirement

Quorum = 450 (900 lots divided by 2 (50%))

Number of yea votes needed to remove = 454 (900 lots minus 10 suspended = 880 multiplied by .51 rounded up)

The attorney, regardless of whether his advice is right or wrong, has no say in how the association does business. All decisions are lawfully in the hands of the board. The attorney should not have been invited to attend and when "the HOA attorney told the Inspector of Elections to 'end it'" the proper response should have been to escort him to the door.

Thomas, what matters is not the "exact wording" of the "announcement,' but the exact wording of: state statutes"; and, exactly wording of your documents..

It seems like something is wrong in your recall process.

Glen,

I had to look and agree that that is what it says. Unfortunately, the basis for this opinion is Roberts Rules (not a statute). Therefore, it very well may actually depend on what is written in the governing documents. Thomas has not provided this. He only cited what was given to him by the Association.

It would be interesting to see the exact language for quorums and recalls in the governing documents.

Correct, the Voting Company (Accurate Voting, who I would not recommend)even said "there are jobs on the line".

Wrong!

Unless the attorney has been appointed as a receiver by a court, the board has the final word in all matters and the board members are liable for all actions, even when those actions are taken under the attorney's direction. There is no circumstance where the attorney should ever "run the show." Under California law, attorneys are not even permitted to attend meetings if they are not members of the association.

Appointing the attorney as an election inspector (which is a bad idea, discussed below) gives him only the same authority that any other election inspector would have. Thomas indicated that the attorney issued orders to the appointed election inspector. This would mean that the attorney was not the election inspector. The attorney, presumably hired by the board being recalled, was interfering in the election and should have been denied entrance to the meeting as he was not a member of the association.

The reason it is a bad idea to have your HOA attorney involved in any aspect of meetings or elections is that if anything ends up in court your attorney will be a witness. The rules of court in the civilized states usually prohibit a person from being both a witness and representing a party as an attorney. (God only knows what the rules are in California.)

Larry

How long have you been on this site? I said "many times attorneys run the show". I NEVER said that was the way it should be. I have somewhat more experience in this than you do. As Thomas pointed out, even the company that was hired to run the election said there were "jobs on the line". I have 5 videos from an association larger than Thomas where the attorney stopped the election. It also happened to me.

"Under California law, attorneys are not even permitted to attend meetings if they are not members of the association". Really. So the Association attorney can't attend a meeting they been invited to by the Board? What about the PM or the landscaper. An association that size will have in their election rules that they are required to have 3 inspectors appointed PRIOR to ballots being mailed. Maybe the attorney was appointed as an inspector. If noting else, the attorney will often render an opinion. If it is a contentious election, more often than not, the Board will insist that the attorney is present. 95 out of 100 Boards will follow the attorneys advise, that is just reality.

Your observation about how things are done in California may work for Arizona, but they don't here. I don't like have a bullet button on my AR-15. I don't like only having a magazine of only 10 rounds, but until the rules are changes, I have to follow them. As far as Association law, I am working with many other to make sensible changes, but it takes time.

Thomas,

IF you were in favor or the recall and the inspector wasn't given the proper information as to what quorum would consist of after the suspended owners were removed, then you have a slam dump case to contest the procedure. Fastest way would be small claims, but that will take at least two to three months. The advantage is the association can't have their attorney present in court. They can only be used on appeal if the decision goes against them. If the Board didn't follow proper procedure in suspended voting rights, it works in their favor.

Glen's find, above seems to be accurate in CA for memberships meetings

Civil Code §5000. Membership Meetings.

"(a) Meetings of the membership of the association shall be conducted in accordance with a recognized system of parliamentary procedure or any parliamentary procedures the association may adopt. [Old: Civ. Code §1363(d)]

(b) The board shall permit any member to speak at any meeting of the membership of the association. A reasonable time limit for all members to speak at a meeting of the association shall be established by the board. [Old: Civ. Code §1363.05(h)]"

I'm wondering why Thomas doesn't give us the exact wording from his bylaws....

We did obtain the required amount of proxies and ballots to meet quorum (50%). Many proxies were rejected for ridiculous reasons - letter T not matching the T on Title signature from 20 years ago. It was a joke, an obvious effort on part of the Board, Management, Attorney to not meet quorum.

The votes were never counted because the Inspector of Elections, under pressure from the Attorney, closed the election when he overheard that we were 1 short of meeting quorum. This happened after counting all proxies and ballots to try and establish quorum, then it was determined that we were 1 short.

Voters who came in after this point were turned away.

You have answered my question about members not in good standing not counting, thank you all.

We are off to see an attorney this afternoon, or may go Small Claims as suggested.

Richard,

I believe that the site was hacked.

I understand what you are saying and upon review I believe our docs say 50% of the Membership meaning we might well have done it wrong by disallowing those 6. It was done in the heat of the moment upon recommendation of our MC and no one has said anything about it thus so be it.

I am in agreement but let us not forget our change passed 35 to 20 so even if we fudged a bit on establishing the quorum (at worst, 6 out of 112) the change passed with flying colors. Also this was the largest number of owners we have ever been able to get together at one time so we felt comfortable about it. Had the margin been closer, there might have been some questions asked.