Special Meeting to REMOVE board members- Who PRESIDES?

I find this incredible....

We needed 20% of members to petition for a Special Mtg of homeowners to REMOVE unwanted board members. We got over 30%-- based on the FULL number of units (177)...even though we had been told that those still owned by the builder and bank foreclosed did not count (this comprises nearly 20 units).

The petition states the name of the members we wish to remove AND promises a short "presentation" of their mis-actions.

According to the "board's" attorney: "Normally, the President calls the meeting to order, then passes the gavel to someone (manager or attorney). The meeting purpose is very short. Essentially, call it to order and vote. However, if [The president] does not wish to pass the gavel, she does not have to. The Condo Act quite clearly states that the President is to chair the meetings of the Board and Owners."

Of course - this president has been an ongoing belligerent bully- and declared:
"I will be conducting this meeting and probably not passing the gavel."

This is NOT a board planned event, this is "from, by and for the HOMEOWNERS" - NOT the board. I booked the room and will have PLENTY of witnesses there with pitch forks if necessary!

The Bylaws mirror the spirit of the following:
Illinios general non-for-profit act Article 7: Members
Section 107.05 Meeting of MEMBERS
(c) Special Meetings may also be called by other officers or persons entitled to vote...and may be called by such members having 1/20 of the votes to be cast !!!

It would seem LUDICROUS to have her preside over this. Can anyone shed more light on similar situations, and additional Illinois statutes that would clarify their "interpretation"?

If WE are 'calling' the meeting- we should get to "run" it - not everyone planning to attend has been following along on our e-list or website! Hence, we- myself as VP of the board and the members involved in the coordination of this meeting, presentation, voting, etc... have been planning the necessary processes.

Per ByLaws: Special mtg may be called at any time for the purpose of matters requiring approval of the voting members...matter to be submitted to board 10 days prior- who shall submit to the voting members. (BTW-- our submitted info was ignored and only a barren sheet with minimal info offered, no proxy included). SO-- we have distributed ourselves (since board, property mgmt, and their attorney threaten to cancel the whole meeting if we don't got by THEIR rules).

Furthermore-- the bylaws say: Any action to be taken at any meeting of members with a quorum present shall be upon the affirmative vote of more than 50%...

Any additional thoughts, plans, ideas, artillery? We are being held hostage.
Best email response from another homeowner: "I thought I owned MY home, BUT now I find out that my association owns me!"

Want some comedy? Try this: youtu.be/DfXZD5M5shQ

We could start a new sitcom!

You did not call the meeting. You petitioned the Board to call a meeting.

The VP would preside only if the President is absent.


Typically a notice for any meeting includes the date, time, place and agenda or a summary of the agenda (the purpose of the meeting). This is the only requirement the Association needs to comply with. As the VP, you should know this.


I would strongly suggest that you read and understand your Associations governing documents, any HOA or Condo laws that apply and, if your incorporated, your State's applicable corporate laws.

I would also suggest, as hard as it might be, to leave your emotions out of the issue and deal with the provable facts, as they typically can speak volumes.

I would also suggest that you actively solicit for proxies otherwise, those who can't attend might send them to the Board and allow the Board to vote for them.


Personal opinion, I see issues on both sides. I don't believe that the editor should have added any comments. Additionally, for someone who doesn't have the background story, the edited comments that I saw weren't correct. Example: the comment (paraphrased) nothing should have been done without an open meeting, is technically incorrect. There are things called actions without meetings that are allowed to occur. The viewer never heard what was done. It might have been a report about research for abc or bids for xyz. It's also possible that an Officer or Director was given that authority at a meeting to complete abc or xyz. If this happened, there would be no need for another meeting to have things done.

This gives me the perception that the issue is partially personality conflicts. There may be real issues (I didn't dig that deep into it), but the personality conflict shows through more than the issues. This is why I said that the editor should have just shown the meeting and let the facts speak for themselves.

Tim

Yep, Sometimes the recall committee has to do all the work.

The Lawyer is correct in the fact that the Association isn't required to produce a proxy form as a proxy designation letter is not required to be on any specific form to be valid. The Association is also not required to send out additional information other than the notice.

Anyone who is cornered will tend to fight. Anyone who feels that they are being taken advantage of or their work is unappreciated may start to do only the minimal required.

I would heed the attorney's advice and, as I mentioned before, actively solicit proxies. If you don't have enough votes, things from your perspective might get worse before they get better.

Tim