Get 6 months of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Sunday, December 21, 2014
HOA Websites by Community123.com (National Community Website Provider)
We built HOATalk and we'll build your community website for free!  Click here for information on a free trial website.
Community Associations Network (National HOA Reference Library)
News, articles and blogs about condos/HOA's
Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.
Subject: Roberts Rules Has Been FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED (a mistake)
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Author Messages
JimL6
(Florida)

Posts:45


04/17/2010 1:21 PM  

Hello,

I just noticed something regarding Robert's Rules of Order. There has been a fundamental change in how the voting requirement to approve an action is defined. I don't think that the change was intentional. I think that it's a mistake.

Robert's Rules of Order states that its rules are based on Congress, and Congress ALWAYS requires a MAJORITY (or more) of a QUORUM to pass anything. Everything that is stated in the fourth (1915) edition is consistent with this.

However, the tenth (2000) edition DIFFERS from the fourth (1915) edition, and the folks over at the RONR (editions 7 through 10) discussion forum, at least one of which is one of the editors of the tenth (2000) edition, INSIST that LESS than a MAJORITY of a QUORUM (even as few as 2 members) can pass a motion, which is CONTRARY to the fourth (1915) edition, and CONTRARY to Congress, on which Robert's Rules of Order is stated to be based.

The material below shows this FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE between the fourth (1915) edition and the tenth (2000) edition.

In the FOURTH edition (1915), a MAJORITY VOTE excludes ONLY BLANKS and INCLUDES ABSTENTIONS FOR THE PREVAILING SIDE, hence the example of A MAJORITY OF A QUORUM to ACT and TWO THIRDS OF A QUORUM to SUSPEND.

fourth edition (1915), section 64: ... a quorum of an assembly is such a number as must be present in order that business can be legally transacted. THE QUORUM REFERS TO THE NUMBER PRESENT, NOT TO THE NUMBER VOTING. ... if A BARE MAJORITY of the membership is PRESENT at a meeting ... a majority vote (which means a majority of those who vote) shall be sufficient to make the act the act of the body, unless it suspends a rule or a right ... and that a two thirds vote shall have the power to suspend these rules and rights. this gives THE RIGHT TO ACT for the society TO ABOUT ONE FOURTH [a majority of a majority is 26 out of 100, or about one fourth] of its members in ordinary cases [as opposed to cases of suspension of rules or rights] and TO ABOUT ONE THIRD [a two thirds majority of a majority is 34 out of 100, or about one third] of its members in case of SUSPENDING the rules and certain rights. ... [IN OTHER WORDS, A MAJORITY OF A QUORUM CAN ACT AND TWO THIRDS OF A QUORUM CAN SUSPEND] ...

http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-11.htm#64

fourth edition (1915), section 46. when a quorum is present, A MAJORITY VOTE, that is A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST, IGNORING BLANKS, is sufficient FOR THE ADOPTION OF ANY MOTION that is in order, except those mentioned in 48, which require a two-thirds vote. ... while it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on the question to express it by his vote, yet he cannot be compelled to do so. HE MAY PREFER TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING, THOUGH HE KNOWS THE EFFECT IS THE SAME AS IF HE VOTED ON THE PREVAILING SIDE. ...

http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-08.htm#46

In the TENTH edition (2000), a MAJORITY VOTE excludes BLANKS AND ABSTENTIONS, hence the view that LESS THAN A MAJORITY OF A QUORUM can ACT and that LESS THAN TWO THIRDS OF A QUORUM can SUSPEND.

roberts rules of order, tenth edition (2000), page 334: ... a quorum in an assembly is the number of voting members (see definition, page 3) who must be present in order that business can be legally transacted. THE QUORUM REFERS TO THE NUMBER OF SUCH MEMBERS PRESENT, NOT TO THE NUMBER VOTING on a particular question. ...

roberts rules of order, tenth edition (2000), page 387: ... the basic requirement FOR APPROVAL ... is A MAJORITY VOTE. ... when the term majority vote is used without qualification ... it means MORE THAN HALF OF THE VOTES CAST by persons legally entitled to vote, EXCLUDING BLANKS OR ABSTENTIONS, at a ... meeting at which a quorum ... is present. ...

roberts rules of order, tenth edition (2000), page 389-390: ... A MAJORITY OF THOSE PRESENT ... are generally undesirable. ... AN ABSTENTION in such cases HAS THE SAME EFFECT AS A NEGATIVE VOTE ...

Somebody goofed between 1915 and 2000.

Jim

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:5671


04/17/2010 2:10 PM  

Jim,

Well, the fact that business organizations usually follow RROO, the Florida Statutes require that HOAs must follow the Statutes for each type HOA, that being 718 for condos, 720 for HOAs and 723 for Mobile Home associations.

Probably somewhere in your documents, as mine state, that RROO should be followed but that is for meeting decorum and procedures, definitely not for voting and quorum requirements.
JimL6
(Florida)

Posts:45


04/17/2010 8:51 PM  
Posted By DonnaS on 04/17/2010 2:10 PM

Jim,

Well, the fact that business organizations usually follow RROO, the Florida Statutes require that HOAs must follow the Statutes for each type HOA, that being 718 for condos, 720 for HOAs and 723 for Mobile Home associations.

Probably somewhere in your documents, as mine state, that RROO should be followed but that is for meeting decorum and procedures, definitely not for voting and quorum requirements.




The Bylaws of my Association state that Robert's Rules of Order is the parliamentary authority except where the Bylaws differ, in which case the Bylaws supercede Robert's Rules of Order.

Robert's Rules of Order does apply to how a Membership deciding vote can be decided, unless there is a Bylaw that states that not less than a majority of a quorum can pass a motion or can act on behalf of the entire Membership, which I don't see anywhere in the Bylaws of my Association.

According to the fourth (1915) edition of Robert's Rules of Order, not less than a majority of a quorum can pass a motion or can act on behalf of the entire Membership, which agrees with what Congress does, which (Congress) is the stated basis for Robert's Rules of Order, whereas according ot the tenth (2000) edition, less an a majority of a quorum (even as few as 2 Members) can pass a motion or can act on behalf of the entire Membership.

The difference is in how abstentions are handled. In the fourth (1915) edition, abstentions are added to prevailing side of the vote, whereas in the tenth (2000) edition, abstentions are NOT added to the prevailing side of the vote.

Jim
GlenL
(Ohio)

Posts:5241


04/17/2010 9:52 PM  
Jim didn't you like our replies the last time you posted about the quorum requirement? Did you think rephrasing the question would change the answer?

Posted By JimL6 on 04/14/2010 3:13 AM
Florida HOA Arbitrator Ruling. ... The 2005 annual meeting/election was conducted on February 21, 2005. According to its answer, the association is comprised of 1,606 total voting interests and 109 interests were present in person at the meeting and 435 were present by proxy. Thus, a total of 544 interests [less than 34%] were present, either in person or by proxy, in compliance with quorum requirements of section 720.306(l), Florida Statute, requiring 30% of the voting interests to achieve quorum, unless a lower number is provided in the bylaws. As the bylaws require a higher percentage for quorum, the statute controls and 30% is required. ...

http://www.ccfjedu.net/DBPRarbrulingHOAelection.html

Florida 720.306.1.a. Unless a lower number is provided in the bylaws, the percentage of voting interests required to constitute a quorum at a meeting of the members shall be 30 percent of the total voting interests. ...

http://www.ccfjedu.net/HOAFS720.306-2007.htm

Roberts Rules states that unless a lower quorum number or percentage is stated in the Bylaws of a society, the quorum is to be a majority, although Roberts Rules suggests a quorum smaller than a majority for most voluntary societies, stating that it should be the largest number or percentage that can be reasonably certain to attend meetings, and stating and that one number or percentage does not fit all societies, hence the provision in the Bylaws of each society.

The primary purpose of a quorum is to require a large enough number or percentage to prevent an unrepresentative action by an unduly small number of members, as stated in Roberts Rules, with the secondary purpose being to require a small enough number or percentage to allow business to be transacted.

Florida 720.306.1.a provides a 30% quorum requirement for any Association that does NOT have a specified quorum number or percentage in the Bylaws of the Association. The statute states that it should be 30%, that is, UNLESS the Bylaws specify a smaller number or percentage.

What appears to me to be IMPLICIT in this Florida statute is that if the Bylaws of an Association determine that a quorum should be higher than 30%, such as a majority, then THAT is what the quorum for that Association SHOULD be.

Nevertheless, this Arbitrator quoted above interpreted this Florida statue to mean that any Bylaw of an Association that specifies a quorum percentage that is higher than 30% is wrong and is to be ignored.

Is it just me, or does it also seem to you that the way that this particular Arbitrator reads this statute is illogical? Is it logical that a quorum percentage higher than 30%, even if specified in the Bylaws of an Association, is NOT ALLOWED in Florida?

The language of the statute states that “UNLESS a LOWER number is provided in the bylaws, the percentage ... shall be 30 percent.”

Does this not IMPLY that the percentage is to be AT LEAST 30%, UNLESS a LOWER percentage is stated in the Bylaws of the Association, NOT that the percentage is to be NO MORE THAN 30%, UNLESS a LOWER percentage is stated in the Bylaws of the Association?

Does this statute not describe the MINIMUM percentage, UNLESS stated otherwise in the Bylaws, NOT the MAXIMUM percentage, UNLESS stated otherwise in the Bylaws?

According to the higher quorum percentage in the Bylaws of the Association regarding which the Arbitrator was making a ruling, a quorum was NOT established, but according to the 30% quorum percentage in the statute, it was.




Regardless of what RRO states to be a quorum and regardless that your documents say that "The Bylaws of my Association state that Robert's Rules of Order is the parliamentary authority except where the Bylaws differ, in which case the Bylaws supercede Robert's Rules of Order."

The controlling statute would be:
720.306 Meetings of members; voting and election procedures; amendments.--

(1) QUORUM; AMENDMENTS.--

(a) Unless a lower number is provided in the bylaws, the percentage of voting interests required to constitute a quorum at a meeting of the members shall be 30 percent of the total voting interests. Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in the articles of incorporation or bylaws, decisions that require a vote of the members must be made by the concurrence of at least a majority of the voting interests present, in person or by proxy, at a meeting at which a quorum has been attained."

So unless your quorum requirement in your By-Laws is less than 30% then by statute 30% would be your quorum requirement and since you also stated that your By-Laws carried no quorum requirement for elections:
Posted By JimL6 on 04/11/2010 12:25 PM


Section 5.02b in the Bylaws specifically states that "the election shall be by ballots OR by proxy ... There shall be NO QUORUM REQUIREMENT for election of Directors; however, at least 10% of the eligible voters must cast a ballot OR proxy in order to have a valid election of members of the Board of Directors."

Jim



So for election meetings you would have no quorum for all others it would be 30% not the majority that RRO is calling for.


French historian and author of Democracy in America Alexis de Tocqueville famously observed, "In a community association, members get the boards they deserve."
JimL6
(Florida)

Posts:45


04/17/2010 11:23 PM  
I'm not talking about the other thread in this thread. I'm just talking about Robert's Rules of Order here.

I've taken as second look.

Fourth edition (1915), Section 46. ... When a QUORUM is present, a MAJORITY VOTE, that is a MAJORITY of the VOTES CAST, IGNORING BLANKS, is SUFFICIENT for the ADOPTION of any MOTION that is in order, except those mentioned in 48, which require a two-thirds vote. ... While IT IS THE DUTY OF EVERY MEMBER WHO HAS AN OPINION ON THE QUESTION TO EXPRESS IT BY HIS VOTE, yet he cannot be compelled to do so. He may prefer TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING, though he knows the effect IS THE SAME AS IF HE VOTED ON THE PREVAILING SIDE. ...

http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-08.htm#46

Robert’s Rules of Order, tenth edition (2000), page 387: ... the basic requirement for APPROVAL ... is a MAJORITY VOTE. ... when the term MAJORITY VOTE is used without qualification ... it means MORE THAN HALF OF THE VOTES CAST by persons legally entitled to vote, EXCLUDING BLANKS OR ABSTENTIONS, at a ... meeting at which a QUORUM ... is PRESENT. ...

It doesn't actually say that the vote of the abstaining members is added to the prevailing side. It merely says that by not voting, the abstaining member is allowing the prevailing side to prevail, which is the same as if the abstaining member had voted on the prevailing side.

The fourth (1915) edition says "ignoring blanks" and the tenth (2000) edition says "excluding blanks or abstentions." I suppose that a "blank" and an "abstention" are basically the same thing.

So I think that my first statement that the abstentions are counted on the prevailing side was probably wrong.

Nevertheless, both editions plainly state that Robert's Rules of Order are based on (in the fundamentals, if not in the details) what Congress does, and Congress requires at least a majority of a quorum to pass anything, and the example provided in Section 64 in the fourth (1915) edition, which discusses a quorum, plainly states that if a bare majority is present, then a majority of that bare majority, or about one fourth (26 out of 100, or about one fourth), not less, has the right to act for the entire body, which is consistent with what Congress does.

So I guess it all boils down to an interpretation of the statement in both editions that a quorum refers to the number present, not to the number voting.

In both editions, after stating that a quorum is the minimum number of members who must be present in order for business to be legally transacted, it is repeated that the quorum refers to the number present, not to the number voting.

Why repeat this if not to emphasize the fact that with regard to the minimum required number of votes to pass a motion, the reference point is not the number voting, which could be smaller than a quorum, but the number present, which must be at least a quorum?

If the minimum required number of members that must be present is the quorum, then the minimum required number of votes to pass a motion must be a majority of the votes cast by the minimum required number of members, a majority of a quorum, which is consistent with what occurs in Congress.

So a majority vote is a majority of those who are present and voting, or a majority of the votes cast, and that is what is required to pass a motion, as long as that majority vote is not less than a majority of a quorum.

In other words, ignore this thread.

Jim

PS: As for the other thread, I suppose Florida 720.306.1.a means just what it says, that is, 30% if not less in the Bylaws.
DonN
(Michigan)

Posts:357


04/18/2010 9:24 AM  
My view is that the later editions have it right. You posted the rationale in your original post.

Posted By JimL6 on 04/17/2010 1:21 PM

In the TENTH edition (2000), a MAJORITY VOTE excludes BLANKS AND ABSTENTIONS, hence the view that LESS THAN A MAJORITY OF A QUORUM can ACT and that LESS THAN TWO THIRDS OF A QUORUM can SUSPEND.

roberts rules of order, tenth edition (2000), page 334: ... a quorum in an assembly is the number of voting members (see definition, page 3) who must be present in order that business can be legally transacted. THE QUORUM REFERS TO THE NUMBER OF SUCH MEMBERS PRESENT, NOT TO THE NUMBER VOTING on a particular question. ...

roberts rules of order, tenth edition (2000), page 387: ... the basic requirement FOR APPROVAL ... is A MAJORITY VOTE. ... when the term majority vote is used without qualification ... it means MORE THAN HALF OF THE VOTES CAST by persons legally entitled to vote, EXCLUDING BLANKS OR ABSTENTIONS, at a ... meeting at which a quorum ... is present. ...

roberts rules of order, tenth edition (2000), page 389-390: ... A MAJORITY OF THOSE PRESENT ... are generally undesirable. ... AN ABSTENTION in such cases HAS THE SAME EFFECT AS A NEGATIVE VOTE ...

Somebody goofed between 1915 and 2000.

Jim





Without the exclusion of blanks and abstentions, blanks and abstentions would be counted as "against" the motion which is clearly contrary to the intent. They basically choose not to vote and accordingly, their votes even if submitted don't count.

Don Nordeen
Governance of Property Owners Associations
MichaelK11
(Texas)

Posts:432


04/18/2010 10:08 AM  
Not sure this helps, but assuming a quorum is present:

If the requirement for a motion to succeed is affirmative votes by a majority of the members voting, then abstentions have no effect on the results (they support the majority, in the sense that the abstainers are not absolved of responsibility, but effectively support whichever side has more votes). This is the default under RONR, if no other conditions (such as majority of the members present) are specified by statute or in the assembly's Bylaws.

If the requirement for a motion to succeed is affirmative votes by a majority of the members present (if specified by statute or Bylaw), then abstentions have the same effect as negative votes.
JimL6
(Florida)

Posts:45


04/19/2010 5:34 AM  
If the total is 100, and if 51 is the quorum, and if only 70 are present, and if only 60 vote, 10 abstaining, then a majority of those present and voting is 31, whereas a majority of those present is 36. So there is a difference between a majority of those present and voting and a majority of those present. But I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about the minimum required number, which is not an issue in the example above because more than a quorum is voting.

The concept in voting is that not less than a majority of some number can act. If there is a minimum number that is required to act, then it has to be not less than a majority of another minimum number. What is that other minimum number?

If that other minimum number is the minimum number that is required to VOTE in order for a majority to be able to ACT, then that other minimum number has to be 3, because 3 is the smallest number of members that can vote in order for a majority (2 members) to act.

In contrast, if that other minimum number is the minimum number that is required to be PRESENT (and thus able to vote) in order for a majority to be able to ACT, then that other minimum number is the QUORUM number, in which case not less than a MAJORITY of that QUORUM number can ACT. In the earlier example, the quorum number is 51, which would mean that not less than 26 could act in the name of all 100, which is ABOUT ONE FOURTH of the total 100.

This is consistent with the example presented in Section 64 (titled "Quorum") in the fourth (1915) edition of Robert's Rules of Order, which specifically states that “if a bare majority of the membership is PRESENT ... a majority vote (which means a majority of those who vote) shall be sufficient to make the act the act of the body” and that “this gives the RIGHT to ACT for the society to ABOUT ONE FOURTH of its members.”

Thus, not less than about one fourth (a majority of a quorum, if the quorum is a majority of the total membership) of the total membership has the right to act in the name of the entire membership.

http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-11.htm#64

Earlier in this same section (64) in the fourth (1915) edition, it is stated that a "quorum" is "such a number as must be present in order that business can be legally transacted" and that "the QUORUM refers to the number PRESENT, NOT to the number VOTING." The tenth (2000) edition states the the same thing.

Why is it emphasized that the QUORUM refers, NOT to the number VOTING, but to the number PRESENT? The example provided in the same Section in the fourth (1915) edition explains why.

As shown in the example, it is NOT a majority of the number VOTING (which could be a smaller number due to abstention), but a majority of the number PRESENT, that is, ABOUT ONE FOURTH (a majority of a majority is 26 out of 100, which is about one fourth), which has the RIGHT to ACT in the name of the entire membership. Not less than a majority of a quorum can act.

This appears to be what is meant by the statement that "the QUORUM refers to the number PRESENT, NOT to the number VOTING."

What is the purpose of a quorum (a minimum number that is required to be present [and thus able to vote]), if not to establish a minimum number (a majority of a quorum) that has the right to act in the name of the entire membership?

In Section 3, on page 20, in the tenth (2000) edition, it is stated that the purpose of a quorum is to establish "a protection against totally unrepresentative ACTION (as opposed to presence) in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons." This stated "protection" only exists if the number of members who can ACT in the name of the body is NOT LESS than a MAJORITY of a QUORUM. If as few as 2 members (an unduly small number of persons) can ACT in the name of the body, then there is NO such "protection."

Further, both the fourth (1915) edition and the tenth (2000) edition state that Robert's Rules of Order is based on what Congress does (at least in the fundamentals, though not in the details), and in Congress, NOT LESS than a MAJORITY of a QUORUM can ACT, which is consistent with the stated purpose of a quorum on page 20 in the tenth (2000) edition and with the example in Section 64 in the fourth (1915) edition and with the emphasis in both editions that the QUORUM refers to the number PRESENT, NOT to the number VOTING.

Jim



MichaelK11
(Texas)

Posts:432


04/19/2010 6:30 AM  
Jim,

I'm not going to read through your entire reply and compare the different editions you mention. I prefixed my post with "Not sure this helps, ..." because I didn't read the preceding thread thoroughly. So I don't know if this is on-target.

But I think may see a problem with your interpretation of RONR. I think you are defining "minimum number who can act" as distinct from a quorum.

Quorum is the minimum number who must be present. I think RONR implicitly defines that as those who act -- all who are present, act.

Under RONR, with a quorum present and absent a different requirement in the assembly's Bylaws, a majority of those voting determine the action of the assembly. Those who vote in the minority fail to determine the action in which they participate. Those who abstain effectively support those who vote in the majority.

RONR is specific about this -- those who abstain do not avoid responsibility for the action of the assembly. Every member has a duty to vote. Those who do not vote, effectively vote on the prevailing side (thus leaving it to those who vote to decide their effective vote). (RONR state "every member who has an opinion on the question", but this applies to all present in a mathematical sense.)

If statute or Bylaw provides that a majority of those present determine the action, then abstentions affectively go with the Nays instead of the majority of votes. The principle is the same -- those who are present, act, and those who do not vote effectively determine the outcome as much as those who do.
GlenL
(Ohio)

Posts:5241


04/19/2010 6:38 AM  
Jim, forgive me but if you have a problem with the change you really need to take it up with the Robert’s company. Despite the phrase in your By-Laws: “The Bylaws of my Association state that Robert's Rules of Order is the parliamentary authority except where the Bylaws differ, in which case the Bylaws supercede Robert's Rules of Order.” RONR cannot supersede the controlling statutes even if any particular State has weak HOA statutes, the States non-profit statutes would apply.

IMO it would be rare that an Association didn’t have both a quorum requirement and a threshold for an item to pass. In my COA there is a 51% quorum requirement for member meetings with a majority vote of those in person or by proxy to elect. To change the Declarations it would require a quorum of 51% to hold the meeting but it would take 75% of all homeowners voting yes to pass.

In your case you state “There shall be NO QUORUM REQUIREMENT for election of Directors" that is in fact a quorum requirement that there shall be no quorum for that type of meeting. For every other type of meeting the State statute would apply: (a) Unless a lower number is provided in the bylaws, the percentage of voting interests required to constitute a quorum at a meeting of the members shall be 30 percent of the total voting interests. Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in the articles of incorporation or bylaws, decisions that require a vote of the members must be made by the concurrence of at least a majority of the voting interests present, in person or by proxy, at a meeting at which a quorum has been attained."

The next sentence also applies; you must have a 30% quorum to call the meeting and if you have that, then the majority in person or by proxy rules.

French historian and author of Democracy in America Alexis de Tocqueville famously observed, "In a community association, members get the boards they deserve."
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Roberts Rules Has Been FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED (a mistake)



General Legal Notice:  The content of forum messages are from the posting member and have not been reviewed nor endorsed by HOATalk.com.  Messages posted by HOATalk or other members are for informational purposes only, are not legal or professional advice and do not constitute an attorney-client relationship.  Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.  HOATalk is not a licensed attorney, CPA, tax advisor, financial advisor or any other licensed professional.  HOATalk accepts ads from sponsors but does not verify sponsor qualifications nor endorse/guarantee any sponsor's product or service.
HindmanSanchez Legal Notice:  (For messages posted by HindmanSanchez) This message has been prepared by HindmanSanchez for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Members of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send us confidential information unless you speak with one of our attorneys and get authorization to send that information to us. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in our firm. Our attorneys are licensed to practice law in the state of Colorado only.

Legal Notice For Messages Posted by Sponsoring Attorneys: This message has been prepared by the sponsoring attorney for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Readers of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send any sponsoring attorney confidential information unless you speak with the sponsoring attorney or an attorney from the sponsoring attorney’s firm and get authorization to send that information to them. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in the firm of the sponsoring attorney. Sponsoring attorneys that post messages here are licensed to practice law in a specific state or states as indicated in their message signature or sponsor’s profile page. (NOTE: A ‘sponsoring attorney’ is an attorney that is a HOATalk.com official sponsor and is identified as such in the posted message or on our sponsor page.)

Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.
Copyright HOA Talk.com, A Service of Community123 LLC ( Homeowners Association Discussions )   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement