DarylF
(Washington)
Posts:59
 |
| 06/17/2008 12:03 PM |
|
Determining a quorum should be easy, but nothing with our property manager has been. Because of a past issue many people are refusing to pay their HOA dues in full and were thus not allowed to vote at our recent turnover meeting (no one was told this until at the meeting). When calculating if we had a quorum, how do you count houses not eligible to vote?
It's a multiple choice word problem:
We have 88 houses. 46 were represented at the meeting, but 6 in attendance had not paid their dues. There are 16 total houses in the community that has not paid the dues. Does that mean we had:
A. 46 of 88 or 52% present
B. 40 of 88 or 45% voted (subtract the 6 that could not vote)
C. 40 of 72 or 56% of eligible homes voted (subtract the 6 that could not vote and subtract the 16 not eligible from the total number of houses)
Here is Washington’s state law on a quorum:
“Unless the governing documents specify a different percentage, a quorum is present throughout any meeting of the association if the owners to which thirty-four percent of the votes of the association are allocated are present in person or by proxy at the beginning of the meeting.”
And note that our bylaws specify a quorum is 51%.
|
|
|
|
|
BrianB
(California)
Posts:1646
|
| 06/17/2008 12:21 PM |
|
1) do your rules say that owners not paid in assessments are not allowed to vote?
2) are your sure your rules say a quorum is 51%, and not a majority is 51%
|
|
|
|
|
BradP
(Kansas)
Posts:1742
|
| 06/17/2008 12:24 PM |
|
| I hate math...when I was in school I was always told go with C. on any multiple choice question when unsure...However, I am picking A this time....if they were not told before the meeting that their vote would not count then the association has not given them due process. Unless I am mistaken your rights can not be taken away until you have due process so they should have been allowed to vote and A. is the answer! |
|
|
|
|
DarylF
(Washington)
Posts:59
|
| 06/17/2008 12:54 PM |
|
1) do your rules say that owners not paid in assessments are not allowed to vote?
Yes
2) are your sure your rules say a quorum is 51%, and not a majority is 51%
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
BrianB
(California)
Posts:1646
|
| 06/17/2008 1:42 PM |
|
my take is C, depending on the wording of your state and your by-laws:
For that answer, i am assuming that they are worded such that you are speaking of votes eligible to be cast, which is 72 in this case. Your rules counter the state's, so you need 51% of 72, or 37 eligible voters/legal proxies to be present to claim a quorum. You had that, with 40 voters showing up.
If the words for a quorom are "owners" rather than "voting owners" or "eligible voters", then you need 51% of 88, which is 45, which you did have too (doesnt matter if they were eligible if the by-laws don't discount ineligible owners).
If the by-laws state that only eligibile voters can count towards a quorum, but it is total votes, owners or lots that count (and not eligible), then you are DOA, having only 40 eligible for casting a vote spread over 88 lots that count (whether they are eligible to cast a vote or not).
|
|
|
|
|
TinaF1
(Washington)
Posts:14
|
| 06/17/2008 3:08 PM |
|
| I live in the same community: The bylaws say " ... the presence at the beginning of any meeting of Members entitled to cast fifty-one (51%) of the votes of the Association constitutes a quorum throughout that meeting for any action. ... " |
|
|
|
|
MaryA1
(Arizona)
Posts:1888
|
| 06/17/2008 4:03 PM |
|
Posted By TinaF1 on 06/17/2008 3:08 PM
I live in the same community: The bylaws say " ... the presence at the beginning of any meeting of Members entitled to cast fifty-one (51%) of the votes of the Association constitutes a quorum throughout that meeting for any action. ... "
Tina & Daryl,
The key here is "the members entitled to cast 51% of the votes of the assn" (empha;sis on "members entitled to cast" and "votes of the assn"). There are 88 members but only 72 were entitled to cast votes (16 were delinquent). Therefore, 37 members were needed to meet the quorum. There were 46 members present, but only 40 were eligible to vote, leaving 40 members present eligible to vote. The quorum was reached by 3 votes! At least, that's the way I interpret it! |
|
|
|
|
SusanW1
(Michigan)
Posts:1804
|
| 06/17/2008 5:05 PM |
|
I find it odd that the quorum requirement is tied to voting restrictions.
A member who attends a meeting should be considered as counting toward the quorum, even if that person cannot or does not choose to vote.
51% for a quorum is very high. - IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
BrianB
(California)
Posts:1646
|
| 06/17/2008 6:03 PM |
|
| being tied to being able to vote isn't horribly unique: MFHOA had the same wording. It keeps the meeting from occurring unless there's enough people there to actually vote and pass the business, i guess, as well as makes it easier for a meeting to occur in the presence of apathy (40 owners, 15 late on their dues, so the number needed to make a quorum is less than if you counted all owners). it weights the process slightly to the owners who pay and care. |
|
|
|
|
KirkW1
(Texas)
Posts:915
|
| 06/17/2008 10:28 PM |
|
| You might also check state laws regarding making people ineligible to vote based on owing assessments. Some states prohibit the practice. (Partly because some HOA boards have abused the system in assessing fees to make more people ineligible to vote.) |
|
|
|
|
GeraldT4
Posts:932
|
| 06/18/2008 6:53 AM |
|
| DarylF - Answer is C. Subtract 16 from 88 = 72. 40 out of the 46 that attended are eligible. Quorum is those members in good standing. Witholding dues, regardless of the "issues", is stealing from the association, and an offense that may warrant a lien on the property. Big no, no. |
|
|
|
|
BruceF1
(Connecticut)
Posts:499
|
| 06/18/2008 7:51 AM |
|
I do enjoy math, and mathematics is not one of my weak points (9 semesters of math at the college level).
But, I don't think this is really a math problem. I think it has more to do with the interpretation of the bylaws and the statute.
Daryl replied that the governing documents do state that that an owner who is delinquent in their dues is not eligible to vote. That means that Brad's comment about owners not being given "due notice" before the meeting is irrelevent. Since the requirement is stated in the governing documents, everyone has been given due notice prior to the meeting that they would be ineligible to vote if their dues were not paid.
Both Daryl and Tina say that the quorum requirement is 51% and not merely a majority, and furthermore, even though it is higher than the statutory requirement, the bylaws trump the statute because the statute itself contains the phrase, "unless the governing documents specify a different percentage," which they do.
So, we are left with the definition of the quorum stated in the bylaws, which I think Mary analyzed perfectly. So, I agree with Mary's, interpretation, which is also the same as several others. The answer is C. |
|
|
|
|
KirkW1
(Texas)
Posts:915
|
| 06/18/2008 8:32 AM |
|
| While perhaps it is people's responsibility to know the rules and their standing, I would encourage you to include a reminder in the next meeting notice that only members whoa re current on their dues may vote. |
|
|
|
|
MD
(California)
Posts:27
|
| 06/18/2008 8:36 AM |
|
| I think it's important to establish member status in an election but I've now lived in two associations and member status has never been assessed except in retaliation for complaining about the association. Is there a legal obligation for an association to verify members are in good standing before allowing voting? |
|
|
|
|
TinaF1
(Washington)
Posts:14
|
| 06/18/2008 8:41 AM |
|
| This is a topic for another day, but the dues were raised not in accordance with the CC&R's; when the dues increase was contested they took a different approach by amending the CC&R's since we were (at that time) under Declarant Control, then still made the increased dues mandatory for the current year even though they had already been invoiced before the amendment was done. That is the reason, as I understand it, that people weren't paying all or a portion of the dues. |
|
|
|
|
SusanW1
(Michigan)
Posts:1804
|
| 06/18/2008 8:42 AM |
|
At the annual meeting, all members sign in, according to address (some couples come, but only one vote is allowed; some renters come along with owner, etc.)
But even before that, members should know when their voting rights are NOT in force. At the time of the Annual Meeting sign-in, it is confirmed with the homeowner whether they have voting rights, or not.
|
|
|
|
|
TinaF1
(Washington)
Posts:14
|
| 06/18/2008 8:42 AM |
|
| I absolutely agree with this statement and many of us thought it should have been done this way in the first place - mainly as common courtesy. |
|
|
|
|
BradP
(Kansas)
Posts:1742
|
| 06/18/2008 8:44 AM |
|
| I knew I should have went with C...backs up my theory, when in doubt pick C! |
|
|
|
|
TinaF1
(Washington)
Posts:14
|
| 06/18/2008 8:46 AM |
|
It seems that a few of my posts, which I had used the 'quote' feature didn't actually quote the post.
Just so it makes sense, my post regarding the dues increase was quoting GeraldT4's post
In my post stating that I agree ... common courtesy, I was quoting KirkW1's post regarding including a reminder. |
|
|
|
|
GlenL
(Ohio)
Posts:1301
|
| 06/18/2008 9:50 AM |
|
Posted By MD on 06/18/2008 8:36 AM
I think it's important to establish member status in an election but I've now lived in two associations and member status has never been assessed except in retaliation for complaining about the association. Is there a legal obligation for an association to verify members are in good standing before allowing voting?
Emma it is different for every state. In Ohio a BOD can restrict a member's right to vote if they are 30 days delinquent in condo communities but has no law governing HOA's at this time. In California it can be done but there are definite steps the BOD must go through first.
1. The procedure for suspending voting rights must be in the articles or bylaws. In the alternative, it must be annually sent to all members.
2. The person must be given written notice by either personal delivery or first-class mail, at least 10 days prior to the meeting at which voting rights will be suspended (unless the governing documents provide for a longer notice period). The notice must contain the following:
a. The date, time, and place of the hearing,
b. The nature of the alleged violation for which a member may be disciplined, and
c. A statement that the member has a right to attend the hearing and present evidence in his/her defense
3. A hearing must be held where a member has the right to submit their defense in writing rather than make an appearance before the board.
4. If the board suspends the member's voting rights, notice of the suspension must be given by personal delivery or first-class mail within 15 days following the board's decision (unless the governing documents provide a shorter notice requirement) and at least 5 days prior to the effective date of the suspension. Once imposed, suspension of voting rights may continue until such time as the violation ceases.
|
|
|
|
|
GeraldT4
Posts:932
|
| 06/18/2008 9:51 AM |
|
| Hi TinaF - It's the obligation of all to pay the maintenance that is billed. If there is a belief that the procedure for raising the fee wasn't proper, until it's resolved the fee in effect must be paid. An association doesn't run on fumes. |
|
|
|
|
TinaF1
(Washington)
Posts:14
|
| 06/18/2008 10:35 AM |
|
Exactly Gerald, but even those that paid the fee in effect were told they couldn't vote either until they paid the remaining balance of the increased dues.
The Declarant Board considered it resolved when they recorded the amendment even though the amendment: 1) wasn't sent out to all homeowners after recordation or prior to the turnover meeting and 2) was prepared and recorded after the 2008 assessment billing had gone out with an incorrect raise in dues. The homeowners weren't even notified prior to the increase, we only found out about the increase when the invoices were sent out. |
|
|
|
|