RosalieP1 (Florida)
Posts: 13
Posts: 13
Posted:
For as long as I can remember, our HOA proxy forms have always stated that if no designated voter is assigned, the vote would revert to the Secretary. Our governing documents say nothing about thisâonly that all proxies must be filed with the Secretary.
For this yearâs annual meeting, which included a Board of Directors election and proposed Bylaws and Covenant changes, the wording was suddenly changed to say that if no designated voter is assigned, the vote would revert to the President. The President happened to be up for reelection, and ultimately kept her seat by just four votes.
No one knew about this change until the proxy forms were released. We were told that the President discussed it with the HOA attorney and was told it was acceptable, but it was never brought up at a meeting. Everyone was blindsided. In effect, the President had the proxy language changed in a way that directly benefited her.
To add to that, she received the lowest number of votes among those elected (the memberâatâlarge received 66 more votes), yet she took control of the organizational meeting, announced the roles for all new directors, and once again appointed herself President. She did get a second on her motion and one âayeâ vote, so it is what it is. With only six people running for a fiveâmember boardâand the three new candidates receiving the highest number of votesâhaving the two previous members (who had the lowest vote counts) remain on the board was essentially a given.
While maybe not illegal, totally unethical!
Thoughts?
For this yearâs annual meeting, which included a Board of Directors election and proposed Bylaws and Covenant changes, the wording was suddenly changed to say that if no designated voter is assigned, the vote would revert to the President. The President happened to be up for reelection, and ultimately kept her seat by just four votes.
No one knew about this change until the proxy forms were released. We were told that the President discussed it with the HOA attorney and was told it was acceptable, but it was never brought up at a meeting. Everyone was blindsided. In effect, the President had the proxy language changed in a way that directly benefited her.
To add to that, she received the lowest number of votes among those elected (the memberâatâlarge received 66 more votes), yet she took control of the organizational meeting, announced the roles for all new directors, and once again appointed herself President. She did get a second on her motion and one âayeâ vote, so it is what it is. With only six people running for a fiveâmember boardâand the three new candidates receiving the highest number of votesâhaving the two previous members (who had the lowest vote counts) remain on the board was essentially a given.
While maybe not illegal, totally unethical!
Thoughts?