Election results audited.

Started by LaskaS • 10 replies • 98 views

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

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,032

Posted:

soooooo. after asking for over a month to review the election ballots and proxies and tally's. Myself and A current board member went to the mgmt company offices to view the records.(recall that we are self managed condominium who uses this mgmt company for financials only and also as the registered managing agent) Long story short. The election results that were announced to not match the proxies and ballots that were turned in. There were results were within 1 to 2 percentage points. Come to find out, the "neutral" observer subjectively rejected 12 votes. Reasons were not consistent and did not match the actual records. Of those votes. 10 negatively impacted group A. 2 negatively affected group B. of the 12, 2 were legitimate rejections. 10 were absolutely valid votes. the votes materially change the outcome. SIGNIFICANTLY.

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,032

Posted:

When we notified the mgmt agent "neutral" election official of the numerous issues that did not match the actual proxies and votes. He said we needed to send him a line item specifics of what we were disputing. We spent 15 hours going back to view the records and manually reconstruct each and every proxy and match it to a ballot. We created a line item explanation of each dispute and showed the effect it would have on the vote tally. We were assured that if the issues raised were verified, they would do the right thing. UM.. The next morning we get an email from the mgmt agent , not addressing any of the line items he required we specify and explain. He said, he stands by his results and we would have to ask the board if they would agree to adress the issue and or go to court.

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,032

Posted:

Here is the email we sent after the first audit.. and the response we got back.

.JXXXX,

After an exhaustive audit of the proxies, ballots, sign-in sheets and other documentation contained in the election records we identified numerous discrepancies affecting the election tally. This is not just a few votes here or there. The election results are not accurate and need to be corrected.

Our review found ballots that should have been counted but were not, as well as ballots that were counted despite significant questions regarding their validity. There appears to have been arbitrary exclusion of certain votes where valid proxies were submitted, while other questionable proxies and ballots were included in the count.

Many of the discrepancies appear to stem from incorrect or missing unit types written on ballots, including bulk ballots prepared by your employe assigned to the meeting to collect proxies and tally votes. In several instances, valid votes were excluded because of administrative errors that can be reconciled through the underlying proxies, ownership records, and sign-in documentation.

Based on our findings, the outcome that was announced does not accurately reflect the votes cast by the owners. We would like to meet with you to review these discrepancies, examine the supporting documentation, and discuss the appropriate path forward to ensure the election results accurately reflect the will of the membership.

Please advise as to when you are available to meet this week as this is an urgent matter.

He responds.. "Identify your concerns in writing and I will respond accordingly. "

We respond...JXXXX,

Thank you for your response.

Our concerns have been identified through an exhaustive review of the election records and generally fall into the following categories:

Ballots excluded due to incorrect or missing unit types despite supporting documentation that identifies the voting owner and unit.

Valid proxies that were submitted but not counted.

Ballots counted where the supporting proxy or sign-in documentation raises questions regarding validity.

Discrepancies between sign-in records, proxies, and ballots issued.

Bulk ballots prepared by Creative personnel containing incorrect unit "code" that resulted in valid votes being excluded and total percentages being incorrect.

Instances where the underlying ownership records, proxies, and sign-in documentation support counting a vote that was excluded from the tally.

These discrepancies collectively affect a significant percentage of the vote and, in our view, materially impact the accuracy of the announced results.

We remain willing to meet and review the specific documentation supporting each discrepancy. Please provide several dates and times this week when you are available to do so.

Thank you,

he responds... "I need specifics, not generalities. Identify each proxy and your objection."

we then spent 15 hours starting from scratch, and had every single disputed ballot with an explanation and a copy of the actual proxie or ballot.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,078

Posted:

It's up to the Board to accept tally (certify the vote). Why is the management company doing it?

JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 893

Posted:

Find a solution that you can bring to the board. Without a solution this is just complaining.

Some ideas:

Find an individual or individuals who are willing to sort this out definitively for the board and who are acceptable to the board, in part to prevent a lawsuit that they know you are capable of, or to prevent the undermining of their authority by a tainted election.

Take one clear, undeniable example of a bad vote, and email it to the "neutral" observer. Ask him/her what he thinks of this one vote.

Talk to some of the owners whose votes were excluded and get them to go with you to the board (or at least write a note to the board). The right to vote is fundamental to an owners association.

Talk to the board members who were wrongly voted in to ask them what they think of the vote. If they can back you, then the board will have a harder time accepting the vote.

Talk to the board members who were wrongly voted out to ask them what they think of the vote.

Find independent people to sort it out.

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,032

Posted:

we are seeking an emergency injunction to prevent the board from acting on or relying on the disputed election results. the lawsuit accompanying the emergency injunction request will be seeking declatory relief declaring the announced election results unreliable and ordering a neutral third party to reconstruct the election based on the actual proxies. The ballots and sign in sheet were a mess . The employee accepting proxies, checking people in, verifying proxies , etc. made numerous clerical errors that resulted in the ballots being issued without an underlying proxy.etc..

JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 893

Posted:

Do you have a neutral third party?

What are others saying, such as other candidates (winners and losers), voters, the board? Are any candidates willing to concede or support a recount?

Is it possible to determine a true result without ambiguity?

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,032

Posted:

No neutral third party has been brough in yet. The board members who would normally approve a recount are the same people the recount threatens. The candidates sitting in the disputed seats would likely lose them once the votes are properly counted — so they don't agree to a recount. And the majority of the current board doesn't want one either, because corrected results would likely flip the board's majority. The recount is being blocked by exactly the people whose seats depend on the wrong numbers.

The good news: a true result CAN still be determined. It just can't come from the ballots — those were miscoded and mishandled on election night. It has to be reconstructed from the original proxies the owners turned in. Those are the documents we owners actually signed, and they weren't touched by the errors.

So I'm requesting that a neutral third party rebuild the election from scratch, as if the meeting were starting over:

Verify and document every original proxy — signed, dated, which unit, who's the holder.

Issue one ballot per proxy, exactly as should have happened that night.

One exception: if a single owner owns multiple units and put them on one proxy, one ballot covers all their units. Units belonging to different owners never share a ballot.

Count the reconstructed ballots and publish a report where every vote traces back to a specific unit.

That's it. Nothing exotic — just doing the count the way it's been done in every prior election, by someone with no stake in the outcome. The only reason to oppose this is knowing what it would show.

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,032

Posted:

While we are scrambling to get an emergency injunction, this board is moving to:

Change the officers — locking in leadership chosen by a board whose own composition is in question;

Fill a disputed vacancy with a former board member who was never elected to it — adding another unelected vote to the majority;

Adopt new policies while ignoring policies previous boards already approved — picking and choosing which rules count, depending on who they serve.

JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 893

Posted:

We all understand self-serving interests, but isn't there anyone on the board with personal integrity regardless of these power plays?

LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,032

Posted:

personal integrity apprentely depends on context to man people. there are only 2 board members who object to what is going on. there are 2 that pretty much are potted plants and dont say anything or always agree with the majority ..the other 4 are a strong faction and they are the most vocal and 2 of them will likely lose when a neutral reconstruction of the vote occurs

🎯 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