Limited Proxies when voting

Started by ChrisS29 • 5 replies • 181 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

ChrisS29 (Florida)
Posts: 48

Posted:

My condo is currently voting on a Declaration amendment and the despite circulating the ballots with the sheet to sign off on the limited/general proxy, they aren't collecting proxies with the ballot.

In the community chat we have the organizers of collecting the ballots, in coordination with the office manager, are telling people they only need to turn in the ballot.

In my experience, I've always been told that the ballots require the limited proxy for the unit owners to grant the Secretary the authority to cast the ballot for them.

Am I missing something on why this wouldn't be the case anymore? Would this amendment fail without the proxies, or be illegitimate if passed without the proxies?

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

I think the proxies are the least of your problems. I have an issue with anyone collecting ballots.

Ballots should be confidential. There should be ways to verify that a single person submitted only one ballot; that the ballots have been filled out by someone with the authority to do so (owner or designated proxy); and there should be procedures in place to prevent the ballots from being alerted or otherwise tampered with.

If I were on the board, I'd be in favor of tossing this vote and starting over with proper procedures in place. Otherwise, you can't have any confidence that the amendment was lawfully approved.

ChrisS29 (Florida)
Posts: 48

Posted:

There are several issues with how it's been handled which I think could nullify it after the fact, but the Board is the one responsible for these issues and don't care about procedures.

I know there are several homeowner's already ramping up for a complaint to the DBPR, but I'm curious if the whole thing could just be nipped in the bud by the fact that the proxies are not going to be included. If it's gets halted immediately and the Board has to follow the correct procedure, it would be more beneficial now rather than two or three months from now when, or if, the DBPR has come to a decision.

From my recollection the proxy is to allow the Board member to cast your ballot that was attached to the proxy but also to establish a quorum at the meeting when the voters aren't attending. Without the limited proxy neither can be done, can it?

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

You're correct: there has to be a completed proxy form for each vote that the board casts on behalf of someone else. The proxies should be retained along with the ballots as proof that there was no monkey business.

DeanJ
Posts: 1,786

Posted:

Ballot #001 of 125
Owner: Alfred Adams
Unit number:23

Vote to change the declaration to read end the sillyness. 70% affirmative vote required for passage,

(). Approve
(). Disapprove

Signature: ___________________. Date:_________________

ChrisS29 (Florida)
Posts: 48

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CathyA3 on 09/16/2024 11:06 AM
I think the proxies are the least of your problems. I have an issue with anyone collecting ballots.

Ballots should be confidential. There should be ways to verify that a single person submitted only one ballot; that the ballots have been filled out by someone with the authority to do so (owner or designated proxy); and there should be procedures in place to prevent the ballots from being alerted or otherwise tampered with.

I certainly agree. The whole voting package was imply email to residents for them to print, sign, and return. No envelopes were provided.

Quote:

Posted By CathyA3 on 09/16/2024 12:23 PM
You're correct: there has to be a completed proxy form for each vote that the board casts on behalf of someone else. The proxies should be retained along with the ballots as proof that there was no monkey business.

The voting package contained a "written consent" to sign approve/disapprove that they told people to turn in. It also contained a proxy for the representative to cast our vote of choice and to qualify for the qourum.

Since they received over the required 75% of vote via the "written consent" forms (not proxy), and well under the amount required to make a quorum actually showed up to the meeting in person, this amendment passing should be disqualified, shouldn't it?

The attorney was conveniently not present at the meeting to decide this.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here