Abusing the Proxy Feature

I live in a relatively small townhome condo complex here in CT - our live attendance at the annual budget meeting and meetings in general is dismal hovering close to plus or minus a third of the units - so the few unit owners including Board members who attend meetings know in general who the non-attendees are - we have a meeting coming up to approve or disapprove a hefty special assessment and in the future we will vote on candidates for the Board because of imminent vacancies or drop outs and of course the annual budget meeting.

State condo regulations only say that the association may provide a proxy form to any unit owner who seeks to vote pursuant to a directed or undirected proxy.

The problem is that we have unit owners who actively solicit those owners who most likely won't attend to act as heir undirected proxy .

How do you all feel about the proxy provision and have any of you amended your docs to provide a better method ?

Who would be paying for the notary?

I do not understand. Why is this a problem.

Going door to door for proxy gathering or campaigning to gather proxies has a long tradition in HOAs. I would say that one of the main reasons proxies exist is so owners can pound the pavement, talk to other owners, and collect proxies. It's quite the democratic way.

Anyone not liking it should exercise their own right to get out and pound the pavement and gather proxies.

Hard no to SheliaH's suggestion that the board just toss in a new bylaw requirement (notarization) for proxies. Case law has said this is not allowed. The board simply cannot add additional burdens to owners without going through the amendment process.

You can vote by ballot instead voting at a meeting in person or by proxy. Proxies are not used when voting by ballot. Each unit owner gets a ballot, and the vote can be conducted on paper or electronically.

Voting by ballot is already allowed by HOA laws and nonprofit laws in many states, so most of us here on this forum could vote by ballot if our communities simply chose to do so (without amending our documents).

Assuming you are subject the Connecticut Common Interest Ownership Act, see Sec. 47-252(d). The law allows voting by ballot unless prohibited by your declaration, and lays out the requirements.

You can ask owners for a quick return of the ballot or quick electronic voting. Once a ballot (paper or electronic) is submitted, by law it cannot be rescinded. This makes it more difficult for people to go out to actively solicit ballots compared with collecting proxies.

Overall, I think voting by ballot is usually fairer than voting in person or by proxy, and should be considered by more communities.

This is CT law, Sec. 47-252. Voting. Proxies. Ballots. ...

(d) Unless prohibited or limited by the declaration or bylaws, an association may conduct a vote without a meeting. In that event, the following requirements apply:

(1) The association shall notify the unit owners that the vote will be taken by ballot;

(2) The association shall deliver a paper or electronic ballot to every unit owner entitled to vote on the matter;

(3) The ballot must set forth each proposed action or office to be filled and provide an opportunity to vote for or against the action or the candidate for office;

(4) When the association delivers the ballots, it shall also: (A) Indicate the number of responses needed to meet the quorum requirements; (B) state the percentage of votes necessary to approve each matter other than election of directors; (C) specify the time and date by which a ballot must be delivered to the association to be counted, which time and date may not be fewer than three days after the date the association delivers the ballot; and (D) describe the time, date and manner by which unit owners wishing to deliver information to all unit owners regarding the subject of the vote may do so;

(5) Except as otherwise provided in the declaration or bylaws, a ballot is not revoked after delivery to the association by death or disability or attempted revocation by the person that cast that vote; and

(6) Approval by ballot pursuant to this subsection is valid only if the number of votes cast by ballot equals or exceeds the quorum required to be present at a meeting authorizing the action.

In my last reply I meant to say signature on their physical ballot rather than on their proxy .

Proxies can be tricky only in the sense that most do not understand them. They can also be a powerful tool for those that understand them. Personally, I am all for them.

It may have ben easier for you to start a new conversation with this questions, but since you didn't....

If you’re wondering if something’s legal or not and you haven’t consulted your documents to see what’s allowed, you’ll need to see a private attorney. Most of us aren’t attorneys and what’s true in my state may not be in the case in yours. That said, I agree with you this is a HUGE conflict of interest, although I suppose technically you could do it. In fact, there are several conversations on this board where board members have done just that and that's how they stay in power.

I’ve never heard of “aging balance” but Googling indicates this is an accounting term (a breakdown of receivables according to their age relative to their due date). Are you saying one of the homes owned by this person is delinquent in assessments? If so, check your documents again to see what it says about delinquent homeowners and their right to vote.

(You really need to read your documents thoroughly – if you’re running for the board, this is the type of information you should already know if you want to be an effective board member).

Anyway, if the person owns, say two units, your documents call for one vote per unit, and one of his/hers is behind in delinquencies, the owner can only cast one vote for the one in good standing.

The unit owned by an entity – this sounds like it was owned by a corporation or LLC. If the secretary of state dissolved it, that doesn’t necessarily toss the owner’s right to vote. You need to ask the association attorney about that one, because if that home is current in assessments, someone’s taking care of it. If that person was part of the LLC or corporation, he/she may be able to cast a vote.

For the rest of it, see my last comment to Donald – people have to take responsibility for giving their proxy to people they know will vote the way they want. People pound the pavement to get people to vote for them, sign petitions, etc., all the time, so if someone shows up at your home out of nowhere asking for your proxy and you don’t ask a few question like “I’ve never seen your name listed as a board member – who ARE you?’ you get what you deserve if you say “okie-doke” sign the proxy and hand it to them. These same people then wonder why things go sideways in their communities – and this also applies to elections for school boards, state legislators, prosecutors, and Presidents.

Which reminds me – for those of you who live in areas having elections tomorrow – don’t forget to vote!

Actually, the question of the LLC that is legally dissolved is interesting. Does the LLC still have a legal obligation to pay their mortgage or property taxes? Is the LLC now exempt from enforcement of the CCR's? I'm guessing that the answers are "yes" to the first and "no" to the second. Otherwise this would amount to a legal method of walking away from one's obligations.

I'll note that many community associations also forget to renew their registrations. Does this mean they're now legally defunct, can no longer collect assessments or pay bills? Maybe. But again, this may be a "get out of jail free" card for owners in those communities. I doubt that lawmakers intended these outcomes.

Usual disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. Talk to your own attorney and don't rely on what you read on the internet - the law is a minefield for the over-confident.