one more day

i want to thank all of you for all of the great advice and information you have shared with me over the past couple of years. Tomorrow is the election. it will be the first contested election since right after the hurricane harvey disaster.

I have collected as many proxies as I could. Many people weren't home any of the times I attempted to knock. I was universally supported by any resident owner I was able to talk to. Of course, I didn't go to the few doors I knew would not support our group.

I can't imagine we don't get at least 3 of the 4 seats. If we get none, that means that the current board gathered proxies from absentee owners. I have 90% of the resident owners supporting our group.

Good luck on the election. However, assigning the reason for why the board wins or loses is not necessarily the reality. It just sounds like you setting up for more complaining about your board and giving it an excuse.

I wish you good fortune in the election.

Best of luck.

I too bristle at assigning reason for losses. If absentee owners grant proxies to the board, it is absolutely legit, assuming your governing docs allow it. It is their prerogative to assign their proxy, and it is a little patronizing to assume they (owners) don't understand what they are doing. (Our elections had a vocal minority preemptively whining about proxies assigned to the board, when it was totally a non-issue and there were very few proxies, and even fewer non-directed proxies.)

Realistically, though, sounds like you are in for a win!

Sorry did not win. I look at the 85 votes as maybe the message has gotten out there about importance of voting. More people are working from home. The number of absentee ballots seems to indicate more people are wanting to participate in the process just maybe not in person. I know many people who hate going to a HOA meeting or are too busy to do so. An absentee ballot checks the boxes for them. Don't have to attend a meeting and can send it in without interupting their lifestyle.

So it may be a good thing that your HOA had such a good turn out despite losing. There is more interest and new blood willing to pull up their sleeves.

I’m very sorry to hear that you lost.

Just a guess: do you think the old Board heard that they might be dealing with some competition, and ‘called in the reserves’ to get more proxies?

Maybe you can try again next year? And perhaps be a bit more ‘stealthy’, and - do you have the addresses of the absentee owners? - perhaps you can start early and ‘steal’ some of those absentee proxies?

BillD

If your proxies are similar to the ones used in my community, it may have language authorizing the board president to vote on the owner's behalf. That may explain the blank proxies (and some people won't read anything let alone understand what's being said or why it's important).

And yet, you did get a considerable number of people to participate in this election and have a few new board members - that's something to celebrate. Change doesn't happen overnight, as you know, and there may be several bumps along the way, but You'll get there.

In the meantime, try to be supportive of the newbies - they may or may not hear assorted stories about you, but You'll have to ignore that and try to be a POSITIVE influence. Good luck to all of you.

One more thing, many of the residents now understand that the decisions of the community are being made by people that don't even live here. While it might be legal, it isn't ideal. I have support of some non resident owners also.

I will start organizing people to determine the steps needed to change our bylaws. A requirements that a majority of the board members on the board must be residents.

i don't know the logistics of how that would work, but i'm sure it can be done.

Residents could also be defined as renters. I know your upset but an owner has every right to vote whether or not they live there. My HOA I moved but had my house there as rental. I could see the trees of my new house's front yard of the other house. However, I did not LIVE there in the HOA. Plus was still President until elections were held. By your rules I would not have been able to vote nor be on my board.

Other people due to their jobs, may have to live else where. They rent their homes out while they decide what to do. How about those people who may be deployed with the military?

There are many reasons why one may be a non-resident. It is NOT fair or right to treat them like a non-owner/member because you don't like how you lost an election.

I don't have any problem with all owners votings. I have a problem with proxies gathered from indifferent owners for the purpose of defeating owner challenging the status quo. However, that's the law. can't do much about it.

I do however have a problem with the board of manager being composed of all absentee owners. while this may be legal. it does not accurately represent the distribution of owners. Also, the current board for the past 3 years always dismissed my concerns , claiming noone else felt the same. Well this year, I was able to get other owners actively involved . Not because they like me, but because the property is not being properly maintained. there is no communication with residents regarding actions taken by the board that significantly effect the property .

THe board does have the right to vote on such matters. However in my opinion, resident and owners concerns should be amongst the pieces of information considered before making decisions. THIS IS NOT DONE>

I would expect such a bylaw amendment, without the support of the current board, would be hard to do. It will be even harder (impossible) without the majority support of all owners. Curious, that percentage of your community is resident versus absentee owners? I agree it seems non-ideal to have the board be entirely non-residents, and I am sorry to hear you don't have a voice on the board. That seems unfair, even if legal. I agree with a previous commenter that non-residents are not necessarily apathetic or dissinterested - but they are certainly likely to have different priorities than you.

I think the suggestion to recruit "absentee" owner proxies in advance yourself next time is a good one. Trying to be more "stealth" in mounting position to the status quo is probably difficult, but you could try. Your ideas and proposals have to appeal to a significant fraction of owners, resident or not.

I do not see how one can assert statements like the above without knowing what the section of the bylaws on amending says.

If the bylaws say an owners' vote determines an amendment, then it's entirely possible board support of the amendment is not required.

My concern is that a properly passed amendment to require that directors be in-residence owners might not be lawful. After all, this is a pretty significant membership right that a super majority (or possibly minority, if a board is allowed to pass such an amendment) that would be taken away. I thought this forum saw case law from one state or another to this effect?

are you sure about this? Requiring directors to be owners and residents might be discriminatory, yes, but that's not a federally protected class. Where are you getting your evidence and support for this requirement not being lawful? I've seen many bylaws that say that Directors must be owners.

Here is an article discussing the pros and cons of restricting board service to residents only.

The article itself is a bit dated, but seems to present both sides fairly. One thing I took away from this is that the issue is probably state-dependent.

A couple points:

* In the past, one big objection to non-residents serving on the board was that they could not attend board meetings, which is their primary duty. Technology has largely eliminated this objection.

* Pragmatically, many HOAs/COAs have a hard time filling board seats and can't afford to turn away anyone who is interested in volunteering.

augustine , I've done quite a bit of research.

an association can require some but not all of the board of directors to reside in the association. I have to find out if it applies to hoa's and condo's either or both?

This 2019 article says that a Florida condo bylaw amendment requiring Florida requiring owners to reside at the HOA/COA to serve on the board conflicts with a particular section of the Florida Condo Act, FS 718:

https://www.floridacondohoalawblog.com/2019/02/10/association-cannot-restrict-board-to-florida-residents/

I put my finger on the statute section at the moment.

The reason why I doubt an amendment requiring an owner to be a resident (and so not a landlord) is lawful is because such an amendment then creates two classes of owners. Such an amendment would denote a tyranny of the majority over a minority. The courts do not like the latter, generally speaking.

If the original bylaws said eligibility for being a director includes residency, I suppose this may pass muster.

augustine, i found this.

https://guides.sll.texas.gov/property-owners-associations/board-of-directors#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20the%20Texas%20Property,board%20members%20to%20live%20there.

In fact, the Texas Property Code states that there are very few restrictions that can be put into effect regarding eligibility for the Board. These include: Bylaws can require one or more board members to live in the subdivision, but they cannot require all board members to live there.

It appears this comes from chapter 22 vs 209..

It says bylaws can require, so if we change the bylaws then we can make it a requirement that some but not all.

That's fine. You ultimately got down to the facts and cited your source. I for one appreciate it.

From TPC 209 (per LaskaS's prior post, and as noted applicable to Texas HOAs but not Texas condos):
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a property owners' association's bylaws may require one or more board members to reside in the subdivision subject to the dedicatory instruments but may not require all board members to reside in that subdivision.

i live in houston. there are no snowbirds.

Owning a vacation home or a second home as investment does not make you neglectful of that property. Airnb people can be very much involved in their property. It's just disturbing that so many people go in and go out. However, the property itself maybe in excellent condition. No one is going to want to stay at a house in bad condition.

Just because one does not "live there" makes them any less of an owner. It may change the type of owner they are. That may mean a "Hands off" to "Hands on". whatever way it is, the HOA should not lessen their rights to vote. They are member no matter if you don't like the way they vote or don't vote.

Melissa, I believe you 100% when you say you took good care of your properties. Anyone with half a brain should understand how investment properties require time and effort to maintain.

Alas, there seem to be a fair number of absentee owners with less than half a brain in my neighborhood. I don’t know what the deal is: Perhaps an over-reliance on remote property mgmt? Maybe they own so many properties that individual houses ‘fall through the cracks’? Maybe they somehow lost touch with the reality of how investment properties work? It’s a mystery to *me*. (Investment-wise, I’m a fan of “Put all of your eggs in one basket, and WATCH THAT BASKET!”)

It’s for this reason I would encourage LaskaS to try again next year, and to try contacting as many absentee owners as possible and seeing if any of them will back his campaign. The opposition managed to collect a lot of proxies - but I wonder just how honestly they were collected?{1}

BillD

{1} Something of a separate rant: I sometimes wonder if the small scale of HOA politics leads to some of the abuses we’ve all seen or heard about? On the somewhat larger playing field of city or county elections, there are enough interested parties, news organizations, etc, that things usually sway towards the honest. But an HOA election? What’s the penalty for forging a bunch of signatures on a stack of proxies? It’d be easy to do but, I think, difficult to prove. And as slimy a move as it is, I’d be surprised to hear that there’s any risk of jail or other significant penalty.

My statement says what i would expect. I am expecting it is more common and easier for the board to propose amendments - even if other paths exist. It is often possible for owners to do so, but then all of the legwork of ensuring it is a lawful amendment (lawyer costs?) fall on the owners), and you might have the board campaigning against it. Hard, but maybe possible. But of course you are right, it depends on bylaw details.

I would be surprised to find bylaws that didn't require that either the board OR the majority of owners (with at least a quorum voting) to need to be in support of an amendment. It isn't clear that there is the support for either one of those paths, if there are a lot of non-resident owners.

Hi Johnc46,

the proxies were mailed out. they were directed proxies.
but they also included the phrase of a proxy is not designated, the board of directors or managing agent will vote on the owner's behalf. If the owner specified who the wanted to vote for, whoever voted for the owner whether proxy designee or board of director apointee, they would have to vote as the proxy stated.

if the directed proxy was left blank in the proxy holder destination and the owner selected only one or none of the candidates, i do think the board designers can vote however they see fit.

It's a gaping hole for abuse.

What concerns me more, the proxies were not numbered or anything. If someone had a master list of owners with their email addresses(which the board does). any one person could easily make a copy of a blank proxy and literally fill out numerous proxies with different absentee owner names. The person could then usps mail the proxies to the managing agent's office. and there would be no trace.

As I was organizing all of the proxies i collected on election day, It dawned on my how easily someone could cheat. I mean, no controls at all. All you have to know is the email address the owner has on file with the accounting company.

When I firs posted the results. Augustine posted that it would be rather easy for someone with a phone and a mission to call and get absentee owner proxies. I think that is probably what happened.

The office manager(board member) for sure called people asking for proxies.(a few owners emailed me and told me).
I don't have a problem with board members on their own calling and collecting proxies. I do think it's improper for the acting office manager, who is also a board member(up for election this year) to use company time to make calls and gather proxies.

Anyway, I have put in a request to view the proxies and ballots(with names redacted) for the past 4 years elections. Accounting company,managing agent,confirmed receipt of my request and said it will take 5 to 10 days. I will update you all when i finish looking over the results.
The good news is, I will have a the names of every owner who voted. This will be invaluable for next year. I will start calling early.

The current board probably think the sweep that occurred was some kind of approval. Actually, it was more akin to who collected the most proxies.

I collected 90% of the proxies submitted from owners who reside here. every one of them was not happy with the way the property has been mismanaged . Not happy with the lack of communication from the board or manager, Not happy with the us against them attitude the board has towards everyone else.

The board, via, the property manager and 3 other board members
Of the 67 I gathered. 48 I gathered going door to door. 12 were from one of the owners who i convinced to run, 4 were from another i convinced to run, and 3 were from another I convinced to run.

All things considered, I think we did well. I now have a better grasp on the number of proxies i need next year. AND if there is any good news.... THERE WILL BE 5 SEATS UP FOR ELECTION.
it would be ironic if they boards changing the seats up for election this year(in an attempt to prevent me and others from getting a majority) ended up being their ultimate undoing next year.

we'll see.

Cathy , A lot of non resident owners are not satisfied with the way the current board has failed to make progress. The money budgeted and charged to owners for maintenance and repairs is not being spent becuase the maintenance and repairs are not getting done. the current property manager does not utilize professional , approved vendors for maintenance issues as has always been the standard. He now tries to fix the things himself or diagnose himself and have our inhouse porters do the work.

A bylaw amendment can be passed with 51% of the approval of the owners. I'm confident that is very acheivable.