RobertG
(Arizona)
Posts:505
 |
| 03/19/2008 7:33 AM |
|
Well I am alive to tell the tale and I am not going to sell any JuJu Juice.
With a few exceptions, the new board seems be reasonable people. There were about 20-25 homeowners in attendance which is a bit high. The mood was mostly pleasant. The homeowner's comments were at the end and there were only 3; I was last.
I made the statement I posted with a few changes. I left out the first sentence about apologizing. I also jumbled a few sentences together towards the end but the meaning was the same. I made my statement and sat down. There was a basic hush in the crowd. It was as if no one understood what I said or everyone was confused. The president then asked a question that basically indicated they he didn't understand why it was illegal to allow nominations from the floor. I had the law and read the appropriate part and tried to explain that it does not allow nominations from the floor since it would not allow an absentee voter the ability to vote on a person who was not on the ballot. He didn't seem convinced and then I also explained that from a logical point of view that people who either voted early or those who where nominated from the floor didn't get a fair process. I think that made some people think. One of the homeowners then commented how they had filled out an absentee ballot and turned it in as they came to the annual meeting. They said they didn't know there would be nominations from the floor and they would have changed their vote had they known of the other candidates. The president stated he was not convinced that I had interpreted the law correctly.
The property manager (who was at the annual meeting) and his boss said the board should contact the attorney for the HOA. [I feel property managers should have known the law to begin with but that is a different discussion.] One of the board members (who was on the original ballot) who is known for irrational statements stated that it must have been ok as the HOA attorney was present in the audience during the vote.
The president stated they would contact the lawyer and the discussion was over.
There was no discussion about the person who was included on the ballot before the deadline. There was no discussion about how to prevent it in the future. It was a bit strange as it just didn't seem to cause anyone to get excited about it. It is possible that people just didn't understand the issue well enough to have any feelings about the issue at all.
I did my part and feel good about it. What the board does now is really up to them. I have an opinion of what will happen next, but I am going to wait to see the outcome.
I do think this is a really important issue for all of us as it goes to the heart of conducting legal and fair elections and what to do about the outcome if the rules are not followed.
|
|
|
|
|
GeraldT4
Posts:1022
|
| 03/19/2008 7:54 AM |
|
| RobertG - No Wednesday quarterbacking here. You did good, and the push pack and stonewalling reaction is what often occurs. The "hush" in the room was probably more like the sounds of crickets. I suspect your comments will not make there way into the minutes, or if they do, will be misquoted. The, "blame it on the attorney" excuse is absolutely pathetic. It does not require an attorney to interpret the law, or follow it correctly for that matter. Common sense somehow goes out the door when it's convenient. An interpretation however is one you will most likely get. You've done the right thing in trying to resolve this first in an amicable way. If your satisfied with that as the outcome than that is the right decision for you. |
|
|
|
|
BruceF1
(Connecticut)
Posts:1510
|
| 03/19/2008 8:58 AM |
|
RobertG,
I agree with Gerald, I think you handled it very well. Even if nothing results, you made other people aware that there are those who are sincere and will check things out for themselves and question the status quo when things don't appear to be right. It's always good to back up your claims with information (laws, governing documents, etc) that you can point to. You did your homework.
In the meantime, I have another suggestion. Look for a chapter of the Community Association Institute in your area. It is a national organization with chapters in about every state. A number of professionals, including lawers and property managers are members. Board members of some HOAs also belong. Individual homeowners can also become members. If you can get to know some of the members in your area, you may be able to get some sound advice that's very pertinent. It's not cheap to join, about $75 for an individual homeowner, but if you really want to learn more, it may be worth the investment. You can find out more at www.caionline.com
|
|
|
|
|
RobertG
(Arizona)
Posts:505
|
| 03/19/2008 9:11 AM |
|
| Even though CAI is a good resource, it is now up to $99 to join. I can get legal advice for a bit more per hour if necessary, but I don't plan to at this time. |
|
|
|
|
PaulM
(Pennsylvania)
Posts:1347
|
| 03/19/2008 10:18 AM |
|
RobertG: This might be an opportunity for the new Board to join as a collective group of the Assn. to learn nuances in situations such as what just transpired. The cost of $99 for an association to pay is small peanuts to gain an understanding of association principles, and could benefit you greatly, irregardless of advice re recent events your present mgmt. company has offered.
|
|
|
|
|
RobertG
(Arizona)
Posts:505
|
| 03/19/2008 11:47 AM |
|
Posted By PaulM on 03/19/2008 10:18 AM
RobertG: This might be an opportunity for the new Board to join as a collective group of the Assn. to learn nuances in situations such as what just transpired. The cost of $99 for an association to pay is small peanuts to gain an understanding of association principles, and could benefit you greatly, irregardless of advice re recent events your present mgmt. company has offered.
You can lead a horse to water but ....
They have many opportunities to learn and get education. No one seems to have time. |
|
|
|
|
GeraldT4
Posts:1022
|
| 03/19/2008 12:00 PM |
|
| It's hard enough to get them to hold an election properly, I can't imagine them paying $99.00 to educate themselves, or expand their scope of knowledge. Sometimes leading a horse to water is difficult. Sometimes all you can do successfully is say, "Horse, there's the water, drink if you want to survive." |
|
|
|
|
HaroldS
(Arizona)
Posts:904
|
| 03/19/2008 12:03 PM |
|
I don't see the benefit of an HOA membership in the CAI. I'd be willing to bet that Robert's HOA's management company belongs to CAI. The rep should be able to utilize that membership to get any needed information, if he/she doesn't already know. After all, I'm sure the membership is included in their fixed costs when calculating the contract. In addition, the CAI is always dinging members to support their "causes" by additional donations based on the number of "doors" in your HOA.
I stand by my earlier suggestion to request another MC rep. |
|
|
|
|
GeraldT4
Posts:1022
|
| 03/19/2008 12:30 PM |
|
| HaroldS - Who should request another MC rep.? |
|
|
|
|
RobertG
(Arizona)
Posts:505
|
| 03/19/2008 12:47 PM |
|
Posted By GeraldT4 on 03/19/2008 12:30 PM
HaroldS - Who should request another MC rep.?
Not speaking for Harold, but the HOA should through the board. One of the functions of a MC is too guide the board with their advice. If they aren't providing guidance on issue like this and don't even know the law, then what else don't they do?
As much as I don't like the idea, I am not going to tackle that issue. I think the MC will sink or swim on a bunch of other issues. Also, we just got them in November after going through one per year for the past 3 years.
I made our case and it is up to the board to do the right thing. We are going to move on to a much bigger issue next which I might need help with from this community. I have already started a thread but it is a bit generalized at this point just to get some ideas.
The good news of all this is that there are few more people nodding their heads that some things need to be fixed. They haven't gotten vocal yet, but it is progress in the right direction. |
|
|
|
|
HaroldS
(Arizona)
Posts:904
|
| 03/19/2008 1:30 PM |
|
| Of course Gerald, the HOA board - they have the contract with the MC. It is not unusual to request another rep if the one they furnish is not working out in any way. It is not as traumatic as replacing the MC completely. |
|
|
|
|
GeraldT4
Posts:1022
|
| 03/19/2008 1:36 PM |
|
Posted By HaroldS on 03/19/2008 1:30 PM
Of course Gerald, the HOA board - they have the contract with the MC. It is not unusual to request another rep if the one they furnish is not working out in any way. It is not as traumatic as replacing the MC completely.
HaroldS - Your post didn't qualify who should request a new MC. Additionally you had posted earlier, "...if the board is allowing the MC to wag the dog, then they would be useless to contact also."
|
|
|
|
|
HaroldS
(Arizona)
Posts:904
|
| 03/19/2008 2:42 PM |
|
"...if the board is allowing the MC to wag the dog, then they would be useless to contact also."
Gerald - that was in reply to your earlier suggestion that Robert send a letter to the board in CARE of the MC. And Robert had said that the MC knew about and did not refuse the original candidate's late sign up. Why would someone send a letter to the board in care of this person? That is what I was questioning.
It appeared to me that the MC was making decisions to bypass the rules, which I doubt is within his scope. Thus the wagging the dog comment.
Maybe Gerald, I should submit all my comments to you in the future for your permission and clarification. |
|
|
|
|
GeraldT4
Posts:1022
|
| 03/19/2008 4:00 PM |
|
| HaroldS - My question to you on who should request a new MC was simple. Your post on who should request was not obvious, hence my request for clarification. Your answer was, "of course Gerald, the HOA Board". RobertG's post on the reaction of the HOA Board reveals that going through the HOA Board has been accomplished, the outcome unknown. It is appropriate to put concerns in writing and provide them to the Board c/o the MC. The MC, regardless as to bent must forward the communication on. I do think those who post should be consistent in their recommendations and if they find they've had a change of heart through reading the threads, say so, rather than get defensive when questioned. My opinion is that RobertG has taken the high road and done the very best he can prior to escalating the matter to state representatives. If I were him I'd let it go and make attempts at turning things around at a future date. At least until the dust settles over this one. |
|
|
|
|
RobertG
(Arizona)
Posts:505
|
| 03/24/2008 6:55 AM |
|
I forgot to ask opinions on how this problem should be corrected.
Which should be the outcome -
A - The current results voided, the old board stays in power and a new election is held with request for nominations for the ballot
B - The people who were nominated from the floor are declared not elected and the election was valid and 4 vacant board members need to be filled by the new elected board (3 on the ballot)
|
|
|
|
|
HaroldS
(Arizona)
Posts:904
|
| 03/24/2008 3:25 PM |
|
| I vote for "A" Robert. Letting the boars appoint three positions is not the answer. If that were the case, why have an election at all? Just let the board replace themselves. Letting it go as Gerald suggests is exactly what the board expects. |
|
|
|
|
GeraldT4
Posts:1022
|
| 03/24/2008 3:35 PM |
|
Posted By HaroldS on 03/24/2008 3:25 PM
I vote for "A" Robert. Letting the boars appoint three positions is not the answer. If that were the case, why have an election at all? Just let the board replace themselves. Letting it go as Gerald suggests is exactly what the board expects.
HaroldS - Tisk, tisk. I posted, "If I were him I'd let it go and make attempts at turning things around at a future date. At least until the dust settles over this one.". |
|
|
|
|
MaryA1
Posts:0
|
| 03/25/2008 9:12 AM |
|
Robert,
Though not the issue, another poster has brought up a valid point. Absentee ballots and nominations from the floor do not go hand-in-hand. In fact, although not specifically stated in current AZ law, because absentee ballots are required nominations from the floor are outlawed. If you read the statute carefully it states that "The absentee ballot shall set forth each proposed action." Technically speaking, listing the names of all the candidates on the ballot is setting forth a proposed action, i.e., only these people can be voted for.
FYI, this statute was enacted several years ago and also outlaws proxy voting.
Mary |
|
|
|
|
RobertG
(Arizona)
Posts:505
|
| 03/25/2008 9:18 AM |
|
Posted By MaryA1 on 03/25/2008 9:12 AM
Robert,
Though not the issue, another poster has brought up a valid point. Absentee ballots and nominations from the floor do not go hand-in-hand. In fact, although not specifically stated in current AZ law, because absentee ballots are required nominations from the floor are outlawed. If you read the statute carefully it states that "The absentee ballot shall set forth each proposed action." Technically speaking, listing the names of all the candidates on the ballot is setting forth a proposed action, i.e., only these people can be voted for.
FYI, this statute was enacted several years ago and also outlaws proxy voting.
Mary
Mary, even though you are restating the correct analysis of my issue, you might want to be careful. Absentee ballots are NOT required by state law. The law states that IF they are used, then .... If this election was done without absentee ballots, then nominations could have been used as the law does not get invoked then. However, in this case, absentee ballots were used so your statement that absentee ballots and nominations do apply. |
|
|
|
|
MaryA1
Posts:0
|
| 03/25/2008 9:20 AM |
|
In answer to Robert's question regarding quorums and AZ law. There is state law (ARS 33-1813)outlining the quorum for a special meeting to remove a board member. The statute outlining proxies and absentee ballots (ARS 33-1812) states that absentee ballots count toward a quorum. Other than that, there is no specific statute which outlines quorum requirements; it's whatever is outlined in the gov. docs.
Mary
AZ |
|
|
|
|
RobertG
(Arizona)
Posts:505
|
| 04/16/2008 8:05 AM |
|
I just wanted to add an update to the original problem of having nominations with absentee ballots in Arizona.
The board meeting was last night and was the next board meeting after the problem was explained as I stated earlier. The board did absolutely nothing, not even an explanation as to what they thought. |
|
|
|
|