Nominations from the Floor

My opinion since you asked NpB

If you have a larger HOA and enough participation, try appointing an election committee well in advance of the election in accordance with your association By Laws. The election committee should be directed to your state property association laws and your association By Laws, Articles of Incorporation and Declaration for guidance. The management company should also be worked with closely but keep in mind some of the management company personnel know less about the legal requirements than some members and are just doing what they always do the way they always do it.

Yes -- nominations from the floor are healthy outlets for the association. It opens the door to people who are timid about running but who may step up at the last minute. It might increase the number of candidates which could potentially open the door to the types of philosophical statements and discussions you alluded to in your other thread. It could even lead to a productive debate between candidates regarding those elephant in the room issues that no one ever wants to talk about in the meeting!

Nothing says open, inviting and fair more than allowing nominations from the floor in my opinion.

One thing I would also recommend is that when the ballots go out along with proxy forms, ensure you include a statement that nominations from the floor will also be allowed (if your association documents and state law allows it or perhaps better stated, do not prohibit).

One segue topic this will almost certainly come up in my experience is how to vote for multiple candidates running for one director position. Your association documents should state clearly how it may be done (verbal ballot, closed ballot, etc..). Some people may feel uncomfortable not raising their hand for their pesky neighbor.

Just also wanted to add that our HOA well in advance of the annual meeting (approximately two months prior) requests nominations for the ballot. I think it's discriminatory to have one set of ballots for owners who aren't physically present at the annual meeting and one ballot for owners who want to vote in person at the annual meeting that has an opportunity for a "write-in" of candidates who are nominated from the floor.

"“The absentee ballot shall provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.” "

I'm hung up on using the phrase "proposed action" to describe candidates, unless your election process allows people to vote against nominees and have that No vote count against the person's total.

I've never heard of anything like that. Which suggests to me that this wording applies to issues only (such as approving a budget) and not to the election of directors. So I'm not seeing that this contradicts nominations from the floor.

(Also, if absentee voters assign their voting rights to another attendee, then they have in fact been given the right to vote for someone who was nominated from the floor. If they do not do this, then not knowing about all potential candidates is a consequence of using an absentee ballot. The process is completely transparent.)

Is there something in the covenants that could be interpreted to prohibit write-ins?

For elections,our meeting notice includes a disclaimer that if members vote by absentee ballot they will not have the opportunity to consider candidates nominated from the floor. It's the risk they take, and there's just no way around that.

For amendments or other ballot measures requiring homeowner vote, things are a bit stickier. If that is amended or the wording is altered of whatever is being voted on, the choice is to discard the absentee ballots (which could affect quorum) or adjourn the meeting and call a new meeting with the revised wording in the notice and collect new absentee ballots based on the modified ballot measure.

I think your assessment is correct. The code seems clear that any proposal has to be on the ballot which would rule out a vote on a motion or nomination at the meeting. The fact that 33-1812 also prohibits proxy votes suggests votes on motions at the meeting would not be allowed since a proxy would be the only way for an absentee owner to have a vote on a motion from the floor.

That being said, there could be other laws or case law that affects this. I suggest asking an attorney.

When we send out the notice of our Annual Meeting (US Mail, 30 days prior) we include information on the Bod such as whose term is up and who remains on the BOD. We ask that anyone interested in running submit their name to our MC (who runs our elections) to be included on the ballot. The MC has his assistant bring a PC and printer to the meeting. As we allow nominations from the floor, a ballot is subject to change. Once the nominations are closed, his assistant prints out the ballots and we vote.

Having said all that, only once in 5 elections (our first) did we ever have to use a ballot and a nominee form the floor won a spot. Since then, we have never had more run than we had open spots so no balloting. Those that run are on the BOD. We usually have to go begging at the meeting for someone to run.

When nominations from the floor are not allowed, people can always say the slate was fixed.

When nominations from the floor are allowed, people will feel it is an open election.

Adding on to this: do your governing docs require a nominating committee? Some states prohibit them (Florida for condos but not HOAs?), but many allow or require them.

One argument against them is that they can be misused to keep people out. If your community does use a nominating committee, I think it's even more important to allow people to nominate from the floor to ensure you have a fair and open election process.

Nominations from the floor is a 3 step process:

1: You cannot self nominate. A fellow owner must nominate you.

2. You can accept or refuse the nomination.

3. If you accept our MC (our designated Nomination Committee) will verify you are eligible as in not behind on your dues.

NpB wants things to be the way he believes they should be. Not that his beliefs are wrong, actually some are good, but he wants to disregard/work around his docs to suit himself.

My opinion is that if an association send out nomination forms and votes with a ballot, then there should be no need for nominations from the floor. I also believe if one homeowner can nominate another homeowner by sending a candidate form in, then write-in candidates can/should also be eliminated.

Same with your posts.

Anytime I argue that a covenant is not valid, I try to back up my claim with statute, case law et cetera.

You're saying the statute makes the covenant invalid. You have my opinion that this is a stretch. Whatever.

In a conflict between state law and a HOA covenants, state law wins. I see no conflict. Plus it's easy to comply with the covenant and have no problems.

Go ahead and convince the board to do as you want. At least you asked what people thought and presumably realize this is no slam dunk.

NpB, the 2005 Roberts Rules web site you linked seems to be powerful-looking ammo for your position regarding nominations from the floor (but not write-ins). But I find it contradicts itself.

First the site notes:
"In fact, it would be out of order to have nominations from the floor because once balloting has begun it is out of order to discuss further or make changes to the motion (in this case nominations)."

Second the site notes:
"Then it could state that the following nominations have come in from the members. Then the ballot would list all those nominated for each office. The letter could also state that any member is able to write in a name on the ballot. This would allow for a write in campaign."

The site seems to me to be saying it is okay to make changes to the "motion," via a write-in. I guess this is why you want to disallow write-ins altogether.

Write-ins seem to me to be customary in any election, including national elections. (In my mind a write-in is no different from a nominee.)

In the interests of (1) allowing last minute nominees (which the original covenants require); (2) observing that the statute does not explicitly disallow floor nominations; and (3) given that parli.com says write-ins should be allowed under the statute (with said write-ins changing the proposed action), I would argue to allow write-ins on both ballots; to allow floor nominations; and make sure communications to all are clear that this is what is happening.

I am sure whatever of the two or so routes you choose the chances of a challenge are slim to none.