CA - Suspension of Voting Rights

Why won't mgmt. release the number, Thomas? Have you asked her/him/them?

The Board must vote to suspend members' rites to vote. Why not ask a director? Those members who are having their voting privileges removed must be called to a hearing first in CA. That's how your board will know how many there are.

It's feeling to me like something else is going on that's bothering, James. Care to share what it is?

Not sure who James is, but we recently had a recall where we needed 457 for quorum. We the homeowners, were told by Voting Company that we came up 2 short at 455.

The number of members with voting privileges suspended was not factored in to quorum and now we are asking for that information and getting stonewalled.

Reason being that delinquency rate has always been around 15%, which would probably equate to a large # of members whose rights were suspended. That drops quorum and we get ballots opened.

Mgmt. Co gone along with Board.

There's more info. in the statute. Here's the link. If the link doesn't work, Google: Arizona Revised Statutes, then go to Title 10.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/10/03720.htm&Title=10&DocType=ARS

Thanks Kerry, I went through all of that a previous post.

We have a membership list, it is inaccurate. Again, no response from MGMT or Accurate Voting Services to review these inaccuracies. Just stonewalling.

Previous newsletters showing results read as follows:

The number of Members eligible to vote was 850, 64 Members could not vote because their voting privileges were suspended for past due assessments.

So why is info being withheld now?

We have a Small Claims case date of Sept. 1.

All I need to know is whether or not the HOA is required to provide the # of ineligible voters.

Perhaps the excellent California commenters could clarify the floating quorum aspect of Thomas C11's issue.

1-Floating Quorum

If I am able to understand a relevant part of Davis Stirling, its "ch 6 Governance/ Article 3 Member Meeting : Civil Code §5000. Membership Meetings" stipulates that Meetings follow a lawfully adopted parliamentary process.

One such choice is identified by the Adams-Stirling site to legalize a "floating quorum" with adjustments for votes stripped by proper procedure due to arrears.
Quorum of members http://www.davis-stirling.com/MainIndex/QuorumofMembers/tabid/656/Default.aspx#axzz2PQ4jZr2q
. . .
Suspension of Voting Rights. If voting rights are suspended, quorum numbers are adjusted. For example, if an association consists of 100 members and quorum is a majority of the voting power, quorum is 51 members. If, however, 10 members had the voting rights suspended for being delinquent, the voting power is 90 and the quorum is 46. . . (Corp. Code §7512(c).)"

2- the opposite of that choice might ( ? ) be described as static quorums ( like my jurisdiction's condo law )

3 I wonder if the floating quorum choice may actually facilitate - for good or evil - reaching quorum. ie easier to reach the lowering quorum despite fair or unfair vote stripping.

Whether it does or not, the protection cited by RichardP13 above would have given more certainty than merely past levels of vote disqualification.

Folks, all I am asking is whether or not the HOA is required to provide the # of ineligible voters to the other homeowners?

Thanks Richard, is this your opinion or is it stated somewhere. I can see where personal info may not be given out.

Thomas

With some restrictions, you are entitled to a list of eligible voters.

See 8330(a)(2) at:

http://www.echo-ca.org/the-law/corporations-code/ss8330-demand-record

We almost had an issue at our last Annual Meeting concerning suspension of voting rights. We were trying to change our Covenants concerning a Quorum to Conduct Business being needed from 51% to 20%. In order to do so we needed a 51% Quorum to be able to conduct business and to vote on the Amendment.

The BOD (in favor of the Amendment) had a discussion with the Property Manager and it centered around what if the vote was so close or against us, how might we "properly" modify it?

Our Covenants say when an owner is 15 days late in an assessment payment, they are delinquent but there is no mention/procedure for suspension. We decided (right or wrong) that being delinquent by itself, meant one was suspended from voting. They could be counted for Quorum, but suspended from voting.

We agreed that we could be challenged but we felt this was the best way to handle it and we would not make the names of those delinquent (suspended from voting) public if challenged. We would simply say that so and so many votes had been disallowed as they were delinquent in their assessments and their voting rights were suspended and hope that any challenge ended there. We had a list of delinquencies so we were prepared if need be.

Well all was for naught as the Amendment passed with sufficient YEA votes we did not have to resort to disallowing any votes. Before asked, we would have been prepared to disallow YEA votes.

I believe this is an example that if the Covenants are not clear/decisive than one (owner, BOD, lawyer, etc.) can and will interpret them in their favor until said time as they are proven wrong.

§8330 is from Corporation Code, which when conducting elections isn't really used. §8330 would be most applicable if you were running for the BOD, doing a recall, or campaigning for a change in the governing.

There are two important words in §8330, "record date". ALL HOA's in California are required to have Election Rules. Only 30% actually do. Most don't reference a record date and most don't lay out suspension of voting rights.

To suspend someone's voting rights, they must be called to a hearing following due process. Under your governing documents state otherwise, most CCR's state voting rights MAY be suspended.

So Thomas, with an association of your size, I am guessing you have Election Rules. Then you need to see how detailed they are. Does the Association have a policy in suspending voting rights and do they actually do it. My experience, most don't. At the recall meeting, your inspector of election should have announced how many were actually authorized to vote, "Voting Power". This number would have been given to them by the Board AFTER the hearings were conducted.

As was pointed, they are required to provide, IF, you had asked. It is not to say it would have made a difference, because as I said IF I were being unjustly recalled, I would make it as difficult as possible to reach quorum.

The legal opinion on the street is that you have one shot at recall. If quorum is not achieved at the initial meeting, the recall fails. There are no adjourned meetings, no reduced quorum, unless specially written into your Election Rules.

Brenda

You might want to forward this to California Small Claims Commissioners, as I don't think they know of this.

We have Election Rules and we do suspend voting rights

On the the recall documentation,the number for quorum was provided. Simply 50% +1, but not how were actually authorized to vote, "Voting Power", was never provided.

We have asked for the # and are being told it is private information.

You are correct, the Board/MGMNT/Voting Co. all made it as difficult as possible to reach quorum by cheating. Homeowner list was inaccurate (we have a copy and it is outdated), proxies rejected because names did not match list.

We know members who currently have their voting privileges suspended yet quorum was still presented at 50% +1.

There is something rotten in Denmark and we are going to find it. Meeting on Tuesday with Management Co. owners so we'll try to obtain it there.

Homeowners told us their voting rights were suspended. One of them is 3 years delinquent on assessments.

Small Claims is set for Sept. 1, we are trying to avoid the court process and get the matter cleared asap.

Another election coming on July 27 so we are hoping that if not settled now, Judge will retroactively remove Board members who were not up for re-election in July. We have a system where 4 sets open one year, 3 the next.

NPS

Right or wrong, we did (BOD and MC) agree that if one was more than 15 days late (delinquent as stated in our docs) that their right to vote was suspended. We also had the latest delinquency/payment list and we did check it against our sign ins/proxies so, as I say right or wrong, we had some preparation so it would not have been a complete cluster kiss.......LOL

Granted, I say we could have been challenged but we had a good story. One thing most all agree with is punishing those delinquent.

On a wishlist of things for the BOD to consider is a change/definition to clearer define how/when voting rights are suspended but nothing has been done. Unlike CA, SC has no "rules" about such so the BOD is pretty free to do as they wish. Again, most support punishing delinquents.

As a side note. It was our MC that raised the issue beforehand and told us to be prepared. Had he not told us, the BOD would have never considered it. Things like this are one of this chats great strengths. Helping people be prepared or at least, know of.

Feel free to start your own thread. Hijacking happens too many times on this site. Don't be lazy.

Update - a few homeowners had a meeting with Pres and VP of Management Co. at Corporate Office regarding the release of # of ineligible members.

Pres. agreed that # of ineligible members is public knowledge to any homeowner. VP stepped out of meeting to call Prop. Mgr. to request the # and she told VP (her boss) that she was advised by Assoc. Attorney not to release it. VP and Pres were stunned.

Remember, we are in the middle of a recall challenge where we missed quorum by 2.

Yesterday, Management Co. Attorney called Association Attorney and demanded the release of the # and it was again refused.

Something is brewing and the ending is going to something to watch.

If atty refused BOD request to release info, attorney's gone.

I'm guessing the Board instructed the PM via the HOA attorney to NOT release the number on ineligible voters. They, after all, are the ones threatened with recall.

NpS & Tim: Thomas hasn't said that his HOA's Board wants the # released to h'owners. He wrote that the MC's press. & VP asked their onsite PM to release them.

Missed it too. Thx Kerry.

Thomas C11 - I am intrigued. What was the final outcome?

The DS website shows CA Corporations Code 8330:
a member may... Inspect and copy the record of all the members' names, addresses and voting rights...

Corky and Richard ... You do realize this thread is around eight (8) months old. Potentially if Corky has a question a new thread should be started.

IMO, if you are asking the poster, who posts regularly here, for any update on a subject they posted it would be appropriate.

If, on the other-hand, if you were just adding your thoughts to an older posted, it might be better to start a new thread.

Recall ballots opened tomorrow on Judge's order Will post results.

350 for Recall, 101 against.

Thomas

What was the requirement for recall? Many times it is the majority of the Voting Power, which in your case might be in the neighborhood of 450+ in favor of removal. Someones it it is the majority of all votes cast.

Just curious.