Proxy rejected - Page 2 left blank

We recently had a recall election. Voting Service rejected 4 proxies that had the 1st page filled out with name/address/signature, yet proxyholder overlooked checking the Yes or No for Recall box on Page 2.

Proxy was given back to proxyholder who then successfully sought out Homeowner to fill out Page 2.

Proxy was presented again, yet turned away again because Inspector of Elections said "how do we know you didn't just go in the parking lot and fill out page 2". No reference to any voting/proxy procedures were given as a valid reason not to accept.

Is there any documented set of instructions on how to address these proxies in California?

I would argue that it would be considered an Undirected or General proxy and at the least, count toward quorum.

thanks for any direction

Sheila wrote: "You didn't say if this recall went through or if the 4 rejected proxies were enough to swing the vote in one direction or another." Good pits. So, Thomas, did the elimination of these 4 matter?? Did their elimination mean there was no quorum??

As noted previously to you (I believe) CA requires that its HOAs have Election Rules. What do yours say about proxies? You've also been advised previously to visit davis-stirling.com to get some legal opinions on HOA topics. For a recall election as for all our elections, our HOA attorney would certainly attend. Did yours?

Since mail-in ballots, which are secret, were initiated in CA in 2006, my HOA of 200+ condos has had NO one vote by proxy. If they don't want to make a choice they can check "For quorum purposes only," or not return theirs, by mail or in person, at all. There is no requirement to be physically present in order to vote in CA. So why did at least 4 in your HOA try to vote by proxy? It really makes no sense.

I assume, from what you've written previously that you want to see the recall proceed, is that correct (no, I didn't go back to review your previous posts so my memory may be flawed.)

Oops--didn't mean to send....

Thomas

The proxy should have counted for quorum purposes only, unless the powers to be, the Board, the attorneys or PM didn't. If you want to challenge them, it would be on your dime and they know it.

http://www.davis-stirling.com/tabid/2021/Default.aspx

Those are sample rules that an attorney may put in for the associations they represent.

At the end of the day the powers to be when do whatever they can to stay in power. As far as i know there are no rules for the use and interpretation of proxies. In California, because we have secret ballots, proxies should be done away with. My opinion, based on experience.

The whole thing is outrageous, but classic isn't it? Spend Homeowners $$ to defend whatever the Board doesn't want to accept as rightful.

We pulled Deeds, met with Mgmnt. Pres and VP. They corrected the errors to Homeowner List yet Board would still not acknowledge that errors were in fact made. If they did it might, well then....

We took all docs to trial, Judge accepted all of the proxies but did not accept Deeds due to lack of authenticity. It was a copy of the Deed that any Title Co. can get, we needed more supporting documentation I suppose.

I think we made our point though, by showing that Mgmt. Co made changes to HO List, documented in email from VP.

2 of us are now on the Board, and it is a bit rough at times. Especially since we took the others to Court.

We have not lost, it is all in Judge's hands now.

I started the thread looking for some documented policy on the use of undirected proxies. I believe I received some good advice, nothing in writing, it is left up to interpretation. The voting company should act in a way to encourage quorum and they did not.

Thomas

Unfortunately, there isn't anything in writing that tells how proxies are handled. Civil Code says that HOA's shall adopt election rules. *0% in California don't have them. Proxies shouldn't be allowed IF you don't have procedures to handle them.

It appears that because of the number of proxies received that you're in a rather large association. It's possible that legal counsel got involved in the process of the recall and maybe in the interpretation of the proxies. Any reasonable person would have assumed that the proxies not filled in with a yes or no should have been counted towards quorum only, not thrown out.

I had a situation similar to yours eight years ago. Their attorney at the time had a vested interest in the outcome of our elections. The law firm to this day believes that any person who votes by secret ballot MUST be present in order to adjourn a meeting if quorum isn't achieved at the initial meeting. Every attorney I spoke to, including the attorney who run davis-stirling.com, disagreed. They cancelled our election and a lawsuit that drained our association by $200k followed right afterwards.

The other issue was, at that time, proxies were allowed in our association, even though the association had no responsibility to provide the membership with a proper, legal form. On the day of the election knowing quorum wasn't going to be achieved, I received a proxy from a legitimate law firm which our attorney rejected as being not legal. Later we discussed the fix was in.

Based on what you described, I can't see why any of the proxies in question would have been rejected for quorum purposes only.

During testimony of Accurate Voting's Inspector of Elections, she stated that she had several conversations with HOA Attorney during the evening of the recall.

This is a clear violation of our Election Rules that state NOBODY is to come within 5 Ft. of the Inpector.

There is enough evidence to prove that there was confusion and uncertainty surrounding the whole process, possible collusion.

presenting brief on friday, still time to cite any Civil Codes if there are any.