Elections

Where do the 'candidates' send their info?

Not in my CA HOA elections. The membership learns at the same time, when the ballots arrive.

They send it back to the election company.

So far as I know, hiding candidates' names from owners, including board members is not mandated by statute. If a poster can show me that such names do not need to be revealed until 30 days before ballot are sent out in CA, please do.

So, from what I know over many years CA election experience, whoever is collecting the nomination app forms may reveal the names of all applicants at any time. I suppose a board of directors could vote to instruct the recipient of the nomination forms to keep these secret until the the mandated time to send out the names to all owners, but what would be the point???

I suppose a company that the board hired could have a "policy" to hide applicants names until the time to send out the list of candidates to owners????

Our PM collects the nomination forms and anyone who wishes, can contact her snd ask "who's nominated themselves, so far?" I've done that. It's also common, I believe, for board members to talk among themselves and ask if our directors are running, etc. One year, for strategic reasons, I didn't turn in my candidate app. form till the last minute.

If you're a Board member, Sheila, just ask your colleagues. If you're not, ask them anyway.

Sorry I wrote unclearly: What I suggested was that all owners, including directors, be given the info about who's running whenever they ask. Not just Board members--all owners.

How individual potential candidates want to deal with their own applications strategically is up to them. Ask wrote above, for at least one election, I turned in my app. for reelection at the very last minute. When I was asked--several times-- if I was running again, I said I was still trying to decide.

Just about what I was going to post. That is why I asked who ends up receiving the nominations.

I think one of the reasons the election rules were changed in 2020 is because the legislature figured out that the Property Manager can not be trusted with the election process and required that going forward there be an 'independent' Inspector of Elections. If the management company is still involved in any part of the process, receiving nominations, mailing out the ballots, etc - is the process independent?

SheilaR5 - I suggest you ask in writing for a copy of the contract with your Inspector of Elections. I did and I found out that the IOE was to provide 'weekly updates' on the ballot count which really turned things around. Knowing how many ballots have be returned is a game changer, especially if your close to meeting quorum and you need a last minute drive to get over the line

Ours does to

From what I understand, one of the newer candidates in out last election wrote the Property Manager and asked if all the candidates were required to use the 'form' that the HOA included with the nomination material. It was a simple form with 4 sections (boxes) such as list your goals, experience, civic organizations, why should you be elected etc.

The HOA never responded and when all the homeowners received their ballot package, surprise surprise, some of the candidates (the incumbents or their 'chosen ones') had multi page statements, with colored graphics, etc, while the new 'schmucks' had their simple black and white, one page form with the four boxes

How is that fair and impartial?

The best approach is that the request for candidate notice INCLUDE the REQUIRED Candidate Statement form. I hope Riley's Board will approved such a requirement. There also is in my HOA a briefer form for candidates to sign stating they will adhere to & enforce our gov. docs and expect to attend a board meeting each month plus occasional special meetings.

The notice says that candidates MUST use the attached "Candidate Statement" form and limit their typed remarks to 300 words that must fit on one page. This single page also may include a 1"x1" pic. After a "gap year" in '19, following 12 years of board service, I decided to run. 3 bad incumbents sought reelection. 2 new to Board service ran, too.

The rules above applied. Well, 2 of "them" had a one page Statement PLUS "attachments." A former chair of an Econ. Dept. at a major non-Calif. univ. basically attached chunks of his CV including pubs going back to the '90s-- 6 pages! The other, an attorney, did something similar with an attachment of 4 pages including his prof previous activities in another state also long ago. The then-PM accepted them! It was well known that she was "friends" with the 2 who cheated and w/the then-board prez.

We all rec'd these with all owners, and one new applicant was outraged as was I. We each sent a scathing letter to the head of the MC slamming the PM and insisting that "something must be done!" The MC head consulted with the Board prez, a member of the bad directors' team, and came up with: All candidates who'd followed the rules, could add new materials that would be sent out to all owners if we wished. We were given 24 hours to reply. I & one new applicant passed.

The other new candidate put together a couple of excellent pages about his recent prof background that fit the needs of our HOA. He holds an MPA and had worked in the local public sector for a number of years with a good background overseeing big projects, which we had forthcoming.

The 3 incumbents had a disastrous Candidate's Night full of verbal missteps. The three were defeated and the new. guy who added to his Candidate Statement had the most votes of all. With one on "our" side already on the Board of 7 & one ambivalent, the old Prez soon resigned. Her "friend" the PM left our HOA a few weeks later. We thought she'd resigned but, instead, we learned she'd been dismissed from the sizable MC though very highly qualified for high rise mgmt.

So, yes, the PM did cheat, but was caught and fired. The 2 incumbents also cheated, but their dreary, lengthly, non-relevant, snobby tomes hurt them.

Our PMs answer anyone who asks about who's submitted a statement. And later, during the election process, they answer anyone who asks how many votes have come in. The double envelopes they receive are checked off on an Owners List and kept in a locked box. All signed envelopes, the Votrs list and ballots are all kept of year in case any owner want to review them.

There are two pages, the first is signed by the candidate and also states the 300 word, one-page limit on the Candidate Statement a that is mailed to Owners. This is our Candidate Statement with spacing between A-D. Note it is a "Suggested" Format. Candidates may write whatever they wish; there is NO "force" about content.. They all have equal access to this resource.

Our HOA has many forms that MUST be completed by Owners, e.g., ARC apps.

Candidate Statement
Name & Assocation address

(Suggested format) [KL left off C since I had none that was recent or relevant]

A. Goals and Objectives for the Board of Directors:
B. Community Association Experience:
C. Civic Organizations and Positions Held
D. State why you should be elected to the Board of Directors.

Our Election Rules, a req. gov. doc in Calif., states: "b. With regard to candidate or member writings intended for distribution to the members, e.g., a 'Candidates Statement,' the Association may also include a statement specifying that the candidate or member, and not the Association, is responsible for the content of the communication. Candidates Statements may be only on one page with no attachments and must not exceed 300 words. A 1” x 1” photo may be included on that page."

"c. No submission for distribution shall be edited for content. Modifications to formatting may be made to allow for space. If any formatting modifications are necessary, they shall be applied equally to all submissions and at no time shall any formatting be applied that may signify a preference or partiality."

Our good-sized HOA Legal firm vetted the ERs thoroughly.

I had in mind California's somewhat strict (but fair-minded IMO) statute about candidates' use of HOA resources. California requires all candidates to have the exact same access to HOA resources. I do not believe Delaware has anything like this.

I think a one-page statement, where the candidate is free to say whatever he/she wants and where the HOA will send the statement to all owners, is fair. This assumes the incumbents are not taking advantage of any HOA other resources to campaign. In other words and as a matter of fairness, ethics and "optics," and even absent a statutory requirement, I think all candidates should have the exact same access to HOA resources.

I also think fair-minded questions can be asked on any required "candidate form," but again, the form says the candidate is free to ignore the questions and say whatever he/she wants.

I brought this up for California because I have seen boards ask questions of candidates, on a required form, that were designed to make one candidate look bad. In my opinion this is giving incumbent directors "access to resources" that non-incumbent candidates do not have.

Others may feel differently. As usual, this is just my take.

This was actually a minor point of contention here. One board member had the Secretary send a short set of innocuous questions (What is your experience, what are your goals, what make you feel you will be good for the board) to all of the candidates. I emphasized that we needed to tell all candidates they can ignore all of that and prepare their own one-page statement in whatever format they wanted.

David wrote: "I emphasized that we needed to tell all candidates they can ignore all of that and prepare their own one-page statement in whatever format they wanted." I sure agree, David. That's why our HOA's Candidate Statement form (posted above) states "suggested format."

For some candidates, our loose suggestion gives them a little guidance on ways to think about their candidacy and what they was voters to know about them. If they want to mention that they were a Girl Scout Troop leader 15 years ago, that's up to them