A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
🎁 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! →
← Return to Topics List

Candidates running as a Team

Started by GrahamV • 36 replies • 2623 views

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

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

GrahamV (Colorado)
Posts: 7
Posted:
Our anual elections are comming up, we will have three of the five board members retireing from
the board after fullfilling their two year commitment, a group of three homeowners want to run as a "team", in order to vote for the team, your vote is cast as three votes for the team, you vote for all of them, they are not stand alone candidates, you could not vote for one of the "team" and two other candidates not part of the "team", I am uncomfortable with this "team" approach,
Any thoughts?
RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164
Posted:
GrahamV,
Person opinion. Unless you have this kind of provision already in your documents(and God knows why you would want one), It would be prohibited. That has got to be one of the strangers election ideas I have ever heard of. It has so much wrong with it, it should never have got to the planing stage, let allow trying to get it adopoted by the association and it certainly would require a vote to amend your documents.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,062
Posted:
Graham,

I would disapprove the team voting based on the issue of not protecting the right of the member to vote for whom they wish. I expect your bylaws (and perhaps State laws) allow member to cast a vote for the directors of their choice. By forcing them to vote for someone on the team that they may not want to vote for - or by forcing them to not vote for someone on the team because they don't want the others team members, the Board would be (illegally?) restricting the members right to vote for whom they wish.

The team may campaign together and encourage the members to vote for all of them but they can't force the members to chose all or none. This is similar to voting for the party at local elections. The option is there, but you need to cast your vote for each candidate individually.

If one of the members is elected and the others are not, the can politely resign and the Board will appoint someone to the seat.

Hope this helps,

Tim
PeterB1 (Florida)
Posts: 257
Posted:
Disagree - the idea of a 'team' on the Board makes sense to me. The 'objectors' above probably forgot who they voted for as United States VP in the last election.

I would think - unless prohibited by your governing documents it would be an OK concept. No one is 'forced' to vote for those candidates. What it shows me is that several people agreed to serve on the Board, knowing who they would be serving with.

In an environment where almost no one volunteers for the Board, it would be a bad idea to discourage these folks!
SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202
Posted:
Candidates don't control the ballot!!

List each person separately or hold each election separately - whatever you do.

They can "campaign" as three people with the same philosophy, but they can't make the membership accept them as one unit on the ballot.

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164
Posted:
Peter,
I imagine the "objectors" do remember who they voted for last general election.

Not sure that that means in relation to a three candidate (what would it be? a slate, a ticket?????). I sure don't even know a name for it. Just suppose you were running for the board outside the three member "deal", and there was three vacancies. Think you might object?

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
Sorry, Peter, I respectfully disagree.

How general elections in this country for government office are constructed has no effect on corporate board of director elections.

If the governing documents do not allow for "team" nominations, and I suspect they do not, then Susan is correct. The nominees cannot control the logistics of the election.

They either run individually and hope that all three are elected, or they pull their names for consideration.

It sounds like they are trying to effect some sort of "coup."

They would be better served doing so on a legitimate basis, all three elected on the strength of each of their candidacies.

To do otherwise raises all sorts of red flags for me.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
This sure puts new meaning to the expression "running on the same ticket". Political candidates do this all the time, only difference is that at the ballot box the registered voters can vote for the "ticket" or each individual candidate whichever they choose. No candidate should have the ability to dictate how votes can be cast. Comparing this to the V.P. running with the Pres of the US is like comparing apples to oranges.

As others have said, unless this procedure is allowed in the bylaws, it cannot be done this way. Frankly I would have a problem with electing these candidates. Each member of the BOD should vote on the issues based upon what they feel is best for the assn. Are these 3 going to always vote together or are they going to be able to think for themselves? Sounds to me like their main concern is to have control of the board!
GrahamV (Colorado)
Posts: 7
Posted:
most of your response is the same way I am seeing it, the governing docs do not address the issue, I have many concerns over this, but your feedback is invaluable.
1) as there are 3 board vacancies, each proprty owner has three votes, (1 for each vacancy)
If you vote for the team it takes 3 votes, so if ten people vote for the team, that is 30 votes, if each homeowner was to run for a stand alone candidate that would only be 10 votes.
If you only count a vote for the team as one vote, you can vote for two other stand alone candidates, if the stand alone candidate garners 1 more vote than the team, they would be elected to the board leaving two vacancies on the board, if the team is the next largest amount of votes, then they could not be seated, as there would be three candidates for two seats, plus whoever was third would be out. It seems like bad policy to me and far outside the intent and spirit of the bylaws.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Graham,

Yes, there will be 3 votes from each voter but that does not mean that those votes are not seperated at counting. Each candidate stands alone and absolutely does not mean that if #1 gets the most votes, that #2 and #3 will get enough votes to be elected. Give your members credit that they will vote properly and with the idea of seperate candidates.

Unless you have them on the ballot as TEAM#1, they are not assured of all being elected, hopefully saying that there are other candidates.

You posted this

"If you vote for the team it takes 3 votes, so if ten people vote for the team, that is 30 votes, if each homeowner was to run for a stand alone candidate that would only be 10 votes.
If you only count a vote for the team as one vote, you can vote for two other stand alone candidates, if the stand alone candidate garners 1 more vote than the team, they would be elected to the board leaving two vacancies on the board, if the team is the next largest amount of votes, then they could not be seated, as there would be three candidates for two seats, plus whoever was third would be out. It seems like bad policy to me and far outside the intent and spirit of the bylaws."

I will bet that there is no place in your bylaws under elections that can explain your math and logic here.

GrahamV (Colorado)
Posts: 7
Posted:
Donna,
No that is not the way it will vote, the candidates do not stand alone, they stand as a TEAM,
a vote for the team essentially means a vote against all the other candidates that are "Stand
alone candidates", If the Team get the majority of votes cast, then all three would be seated in the three vacant chairs, when a property owner chooses to vote for "the team", they can vote for no one else on the ballot.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Graham,

Is that how voting is allowed per your Bylaws?
RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164
Posted:
Graham,
No Graham, that is not the way it is, it may be the way you allow it to be, but that is a different story. Overwhelmingly, good folks have posted her and voiced their opinion. You can heed it or do as you like. There seems to be enough reason voiced to not do it or, after a legal ruling, change your by-laws and have the people vote on it. But none tells you what to do, all we give are opinions.
GrahamV (Colorado)
Posts: 7
Posted:
It is not addressed in our by laws at all.
The opinions on this web site are really good, and make for a lot broader reasoning than just the small sample you can get from concerned homeowners.
GrahamV (Colorado)
Posts: 7
Posted:
Robert,
The postings on this site are just opinions, I understand that, and well reasoned and logical, my reply to Donna was more as information, because I thought that she was under the impression that the "Team" was a group of stand alone candidates, I appologise if I sounded like I was arguing with her opinion, or yours.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Graham,

You just posted a perfect example of how confusing some of these questions and answers are interpreted. I did not think at all that the "team" were stand alone candidates. They are like a block of 3. Buy one, you buy them all and I did understand that. Sorry if I posted my question not clearly.
MichaelK11 (Texas)
Posts: 432
Posted:
I think the idea of three homeowners running for the Board, who want to work together is great.

I think changing your Bylaws to allow for "team" or "party" voting (or ignoring your bylaws)are bad ideas, which will eventually do m]more harm than good for the HOA.

I think your best bet is for the "team" to simply disseminate and publicize the information that they support each other and want to work with each other, together on the Board. They probably have a good chance of getting similar numbers of votes -- in fact, that type of campaigning would probably be viewed as positive and increase the support for these candidates.

Trying something new, complicated and controversial as far as election rules would probably be less welcome; I would expect many homeowners to see that as a nut-ball idea and a pain in the neck.
GrahamV (Colorado)
Posts: 7
Posted:
This really is great conversation, while we have been pitching our opinions back and forth I have been in contact with state and county election officials, it doesn't get any clearer there! I think that the more youhear the more layers you discover, so it looks like it comes down to what your gut reaction is, I think most agree that it's good to have concerned property owners who are wanting to get involved.Thank You for all of your imput, very good ideas.
RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164
Posted:
Graham,
No apology necessary. After you post here a while you come to realize that even though you direct your reply to a single person, other people may be reading your words and have a problem with them. So we try to address the issues in general and of course this leads to a wide field of differing opinions and sometimes the initial issue gets lost and we end up out of the ball field. The joy of this site is the ability of those that post to get lost and come back home on a new thread. That plus the fact, all regulars would agree there is few days that go by we don't learn something. In my case that is usually in concert with the fact I forget something nearly every day.
I enjoy your perception on this post and your ability to maintain an even keel.
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
Graham, I find it hard to believe that voting is not addressed in your documents somewhere. Usually there will be a phrase such as one vote per lot or cumulative voting is or is not allowed.

The example you used where 10 votes becomes 30 is pardon me fuzzy math on your part, it would be 10 votes for each of the "team" not 30. While corporate elections are different than governmental, think where are the only times you see a team, President & VP and Governor & Lt. Governor, when you vote for one you get the other but your vote is only counted once

This idea has lawsuit written all over it. I agree that they can run and campaign together as a team but when it comes time to vote they're on their own.
Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
Could you see the ballot instructions?

Vote for not more than three people to fill the vacancies on the Board. If you want to vote for the "team" check only box A and no other box. You are automatically voting for the three amigos'.

If you want to vote for anyone else check their box and either lose your third vote or write someone in but DO NOT CHECK BOX A IF YOU VOTE FOR ANYONE ELSE OR ALL OF YOUR VOTES WILL BE VOID BECAUSE YOU JUST VOTED FOR FIVE PEOPLE NOT THREE; WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU ARE FLORIDA?
Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164
Posted:
Glen,
I hope all take your post for the intended purpose, and not take offense. I find it really humorous, and like all humor has a serious side. I also think we ALL take ourselves too seriously at times. Your post gives us all a wake up call.........I hope.
All I can think of when I read this thread is the opening blurb of the movie: The Three Amigos. I know that was your reference but now I have the mental image.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:


Glen,

A bumper sticker found in Florida after the 2000 elections said.

"IF YOU THINK WE CAN'T DRIVE, YOU SHOULD SEE US VOTE" (remember Gore vs. G.W.B.?)
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
Yes Robert & Donna that was my pathetic attempt at humor for 2am but seriously how would you write a ballot or proxy for what Graham says the candidates want? If you think GW-Gore was a battle; you ain't seen nothing like screwing up a HOA election where there are "principles" involved.
Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Glen,

I did a search once on HOA video fights. Usually the guys swinging at each other are 80 + and use canes at each others heads.

I would love to be in Grahams HOA and I assure you that there would NOT BE TEAM VOTING. I never ever heard of any documents allowing this. Who cares what this team concocted to convince any Board that this was an accepted system of voting. It just ain't the right way to elect anyone.
CarolB6 (California)
Posts: 6
Posted:
I agree with Tim. You need to vote each candidate individually. You could vote in a team that will vote all the same way on projects; thus running the HOA to their liking instead of the good for the community.
We have that problem in my HOA. Four out of the seven vote the same way and to self-interest instead of what is good for the community.
Thanks Carol
MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By DonnaS on 11/07/2009 1:23 PM

Glen,

I did a search once on HOA video fights. Usually the guys swinging at each other are 80 + and use canes at each others heads.

I would love to be in Grahams HOA and I assure you that there would NOT BE TEAM VOTING. I never ever heard of any documents allowing this. Who cares what this team concocted to convince any Board that this was an accepted system of voting. It just ain't the right way to elect anyone.

This one deserves a repeat performance.

Could not possibly agree more.

"TEAM" candidates for an HOA are poisonous. It's already too easy for boards to be group-think petri-dishes to begin with. I would quash this in a heartbeat.

If someone wants to be on the board, he or she should have the BALLS, er, strength of character, to do so on his or her own merits, and not one part of a "three-headed" beast.
DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671
Posted:

Graham,

I think that your HOA might just be in big trouble--Michelle and I are coming over to fix things.
AnnaD2 (Florida)
Posts: 960
Posted:
Hey, can I come, too??? I'm from Florida so I KNOW how things should be done! Right?
RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164
Posted:
Egads,
Now we have the three Amigoette's on the road to storm the place.

If you all do find out how to do it right, don't forget your friends on Hotalk, they all want to know how to do it right.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Hey, Graham is in CO, not FL. so he's really my neighbor. I could just send him a smoke signal warning!
EllenS1 (Florida)
Posts: 1,148
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By PeterB1 on 11/06/2009 4:01 AM
Disagree - the idea of a 'team' on the Board makes sense to me. The 'objectors' above probably forgot who they voted for as United States VP in the last election.

I would think - unless prohibited by your governing documents it would be an OK concept. No one is 'forced' to vote for those candidates. What it shows me is that several people agreed to serve on the Board, knowing who they would be serving with.

In an environment where almost no one volunteers for the Board, it would be a bad idea to discourage these folks!

I'd be very surprised if this were allowed in the documents. Also need to see if this is allowed in the Florida statutes.
EllenS1 (Florida)
Posts: 1,148
Posted:
Cout me in too. If my hoa ever tried something like this they would be in big trouble. It's obvious the three want dictatorial control of the board with no free thinking of the other board members.
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
Let's not ascribe malice where none has been shown. They could just be three "regular Joe's" hoping to take back their HOA from a dictatorial or incompetent BOD; they just can't do it this way.
Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
MichaelK11 (Texas)
Posts: 432
Posted:
As I indicated, I think this "team" might gain support by informing their neighbors (the Membership) that they would like to work together. This might get more people to vote for them, and might also get more people to vote for all three together.

Trying to change the voting rules -- anything that makes the election strange, difficult, complicated or controversial -- could very well annoy the neighbors and discourage people from voting for these individuals.

While I agree that this is probably not allowed, should not be done if not allowed, and should not be allowed, I think these practical considerations (if applicable in the actual situation) may also make a "team" ballot pointless and self-defeating. Perhaps a "team" campaign would be OK and even positive.
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
As I stated earlier, there's nothing wrong with running on the same ticket. Legislators (at least where I live) do it all the time. But when votes are cast they're cast for individuals not "teams". As Glen said, these three may not have any ulterior motives in running as a team they just don't seem to understand that they cannot require votes to be cast for the "team".
GrahamV (Colorado)
Posts: 7
Posted:
As you can see from this thread so far, it is not a simple request, my personal opinion is that if you want to campaign together, that's Ok, but the bottom line to me is the homeowners
should vote for the best three candidates on the ballot, whatever that means to each individual. I really appreciate all the input,cicking this around has been mind expanding!

🎯 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

Terms of Use and Privacy Statement