Proxies /in-person votes - Pros & Cons

We haven't had a problem with proxies, except getting enough people to return them so we may make quorum for our annual meeting (which didn't have AGAIN this year!)

Here's an article you might read to get some ideas on what to consider - https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-xpm-2013-11-01-ct-mre-1103-condo-living-20131101-story.html

Generally, I like the 1 unit, one vote, as we have in our community, but as you've probably seen from other conversations on this site, there have also been a ton of problems with things like who's counting them, were they sent out and returned in time, etc. There's also an issue with people who may have several units and therefore are in a position to run everything, rending the one unit/one vote person irrelevant. In fact, I believe there are some communities out there which have one vote per owner, period, regardless of how many units are owned. That approach may make proxy voting more manageable.

Tammy

He who has the votes has the power. The Declarant is in control based on the votes he controls. Your BOD is a mere figurehead.

Proxies are allowed unless banned in Bylaws. They are a way to vote when one will not be at the meeting to vote and taking it away eliminates a method for an owner to vote. Do you really want to do this?

Thanks for the informative link. I'll have to read it several more times ... this quorum thing is completely new to me, and I do not fully understand it.

From Article: "On the positive side, proxies allow greater numbers of owners to participate.".
The only non-resident owner that participates in our election is the developer. For our association, this is not a 'positive'. Apparently, landowners bought land as an investment, weekend getaway spot, or for retirement, not to involve themselves with how their access is provided!! We are an extremely rural community. Road maintenance/grading is association's #1 responsibility and consumes roughly 80% of our budget.

One unit (lot) = one vote in our docs. I just don't understand how the developer 'releases control' and yet still has control, with their 49 votes. That may be 'life', but I feel duty bound to understand if resident landowners that participate in every annual meeting could achieve an equal or greater voice than an out of state developer.

I find one vote per owner intriguing, but owners who own 5 lots are quite proud of their 5 votes. Even if they were inclined to be understanding to the issue, amending the CCRs takes 2/3 majority.
- When it says "2/3 majority" to amend CCRs, would a quorum apply in this instance? Apologies if I am asking silly questions ... {{feeling like I'm 5 y.o.}}

In theory: If we have 144 members, a quorum would be 50%?? = 72. The Developer sends 49 proxy votes to make quorum, and in our case, thereby insures 'majority' vote. Resident members carry 30 votes. Non resident landowners do not participate in any fashion that would assist resident landowners.

- Can proxy votes be used for the purposes of 'quorum', but not to vote?

- Can the 30 'resident' votes achieve quorum without the developer's proxies? Walking out, walking back in = 36 required?

thank you Shelia.

CCRs make no mention of proxy votes. Articles make no mention of proxy votes. Bylaws appear amendable re:proxy: "Can be used" or "Cannot be used". "Can be used only for: ______". -Can/should the Board amend bylaws re: proxy.

Owner voting history = 15 residents landowners vote (30 votes). Developer votes (49 votes). Remaining landowners do not return ballots, and are only represented as an expense under "Office supplies."

IMHO, eliminating proxy doesn't eliminate their vote, it requires them to be participatory. If non resident landowners were required to drive the roads, especially in inclement weather, they would be more understanding of how finances are relevant to safety, access and value.

Am I sure I want to do this? Not my decision. I want to come to the board meeting as informed as possible, put the facts on the table and go from there.