Get 1 year of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Monday, December 06, 2021











HOATalk is a free service of Community123.com:

Easy to use website tools to help your board
Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.
Subject: Problems with Annual Meeting Quorum and Proxies
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Page 1 of 3123 > >>
Author Messages
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/06/2021 11:33 PM  
Hello everyone, I believe proxies need to be eliminated entirely in all states.

Questions?

- Is the association manager allowed to re-elect the board members the same day that we failed to meet the quorum without any of them being present, and adjourn the meeting not allowing concerns to be addressed?

- What happens if the bylaws are silent in regards to what happens if the quorum is not met?

- The board members were able to solicit proxies to vote AGAINST dropping the quorum during our annual zoom meeting, however ALL members were NOT given the same opportunity because proxies were not distributed to everyone. Is it legal that proxies were "NOT" distributed to all members to vote in regards to dropping or not dropping the quorum requirements to have a valid election? We easily met the subsequent quorum of 25.5% if they were to drop the quorum as stated in our bylaws, however the stupid paragraph "another meeting MAY be called" ruins everything. Proxies are allowed per our bylaws....

- If this election was done primarily by mail, how is it possible that all members were not given the same opportunity to have a say in dropping the quorum requirements even though it's a different concern regarding the same purpose?

- Even though this is separate from the ballots being casted, it would appear to be an unfair advantage when 75 members voted and obviously wanted to have an election to occur despite the 21 proxies the board members solicited to go against it. The 75 members that casted their ballots obviously wanted a valid election, however was voted against by the 10% of clueless members who gave proxies to the board.

- I believe if more ballots than proxies are turned in to vote against dropping the quorum, than the ballots should supersede the proxies. These laws and proxies are a total joke and allow fraudulent elections to occur in my opinion.


I kindly ask for knowledgeable responses to my questions if possible, however thank everyone for any comments or answers to any of the questions above.


Thank you!!!


CathyA3
(Ohio)

Posts:2599


08/07/2021 4:57 AM  
I agree that proxies can be misused. However, without them many associations would never make quorum for their annual meeting, and I don't believe that quorum should be abolished - otherwise you'd end up with more serious abuses that you see with proxies.

If you believe proxies are being misused in your community, you should try to tighten up proxy procedures that are the real problem. Getting rid of proxies altogether would be like chucking out your car because you have a flat.
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 5:54 AM  
Hi, thanks for your reply. I’m not saying getting rid of quorums, but if the hoa fails to meet quorum what ever ballots have been turned in count to have a real election. Many articles I have read show how much abuse can conducted while using proxies. There’s no authenticity in them, and members can give up their proxies not knowing what they are doing. In our case, proxies were not distributed to all members, and these corrupt board members simply got 10% of our community to go against having an election to stay on.
LetA
(Nevada)

Posts:1466


08/07/2021 7:45 AM  
Is it possible that nobody submitted any nomination forms and your current board of directors were reelected through acclimation?
AugustinD


Posts:1920


08/07/2021 8:19 AM  
Posted By EdwardD4 on 08/06/2021 11:33 PM

- Is the association manager allowed to re-elect the board members the same day that we failed to meet the quorum without any of them being present, and adjourn the meeting not allowing concerns to be addressed?
The association manager does not have the power to "re-elect." However, and to review:

-- Pursuant to California Corporate Code 7512 (d), "In the absence of a quorum, any meeting of members may be adjourned from time to time by the vote of a majority of the votes represented either in person or by proxy, but no other business may be transacted, except as provided in subdivision (c)." See https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Corp-Code-7512

-- After failure to achieve quorum and after a vote on whether to adjourn takes place,an Association Manager who asserts, that no other business may be transacted, pursuant to the Corporate Code, is correct in her or his assertion.

-- Pursuant to California Corporate Code 5220 (b), under these circumstances directors serve until a successor has been elected and qualified. See https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Corp-Code-5220. An association manager who asserts, after failure to achieve quorum, that the current directors continue in office for now pursuant to Corporate Code, is correct in her or his assertion.
- What happens if the bylaws are silent in regards to what happens if the quorum is not met?
See above citations to the California corporate code.
- The board members were able to solicit proxies to vote AGAINST dropping the quorum during our annual zoom meeting,
Assuming all other state required and bylaw required election rules were followed, those present in person or by proxy have the right to vote against adjournment to another time. All owners have "notice" that this option may occur. If this option is exercised, and all other bylaw and statutes were followed with regards to elections, then no one has any lawful right to undo the vote you describe.

Covenants are a contract. Statutes are what they are. If people choose not to read either the covenants or statute, the courts say, "These people made their choice and now have to live with it."
however ALL members were NOT given the same opportunity because proxies were not distributed to everyone. Is it legal that proxies were "NOT" distributed to all members to vote in regards to dropping or not dropping the quorum requirements to have a valid election?
I do not think the premise of your question is valid. Were proxy forms distributed to all owners eligible to vote? If so, then the proxy form empowers whomever an owner assigned the proxy to vote on the owner's behalf on any issue at the meeting, including whether to adjourn to a later date.
We easily met the subsequent quorum of 25.5% if they were to drop the quorum as stated in our bylaws, however the stupid paragraph "another meeting MAY be called" ruins everything. Proxies are allowed per our bylaws....
Please quote exactly what your bylaws state on the subject of what happens when quorum is not met at an annual meeting.
- If this election was done primarily by mail, how is it possible that all members were not given the same opportunity to have a say in dropping the quorum requirements even though it's a different concern regarding the same purpose?

- Even though this is separate from the ballots being casted, it would appear to be an unfair advantage when 75 members voted and obviously wanted to have an election to occur despite the 21 proxies the board members solicited to go against it. The 75 members that casted their ballots obviously wanted a valid election, however was voted against by the 10% of clueless members who gave proxies to the board.

- I believe if more ballots than proxies are turned in to vote against dropping the quorum, than the ballots should supersede the proxies. These laws and proxies are a total joke and allow fraudulent elections to occur in my opinion.
I think what you say above begs the question of what instructions the law requires to be sent out when California HOAs/COAs send out the required ballot. These sites seem helpful:

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Sending-Ballots

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Election-Rules-Required

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Civil-Code-5105

Does your HOA/COA have election rules that explain the "effect of proxies," as required by California Civil Code 5105?
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11665


08/07/2021 8:23 AM  
Posted By CathyA3 on 08/07/2021 4:57 AM
I agree that proxies can be misused. However, without them many associations would never make quorum for their annual meeting, and I don't believe that quorum should be abolished - otherwise you'd end up with more serious abuses that you see with proxies.

If you believe proxies are being misused in your community, you should try to tighten up proxy procedures that are the real problem. Getting rid of proxies altogether would be like chucking out your car because you have a flat.



I agree. Proxies are a valuable tool but often misused and not understood.
AugustinD


Posts:1920


08/07/2021 8:28 AM  
Correction to my earlier post:

California Civil Code 5115 (d) directs that the Elections Inspector count ballots (not just proxies) towards quorum. From 5115(d): "If a quorum is required by the governing documents, each ballot received by the inspector of elections shall be treated as a member present at a meeting for purposes of establishing a quorum."

EdwardD4, did the 75 ballots when added to those present in person or by proxy resulted in a quorum? If so, then a vote to adjourn should not have occurred, and the election should have proceeded at this meeting, along with any other business on the agenda.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11665


08/07/2021 8:58 AM  
Posted By JohnC46 on 08/07/2021 8:23 AM
Posted By CathyA3 on 08/07/2021 4:57 AM
I agree that proxies can be misused. However, without them many associations would never make quorum for their annual meeting, and I don't believe that quorum should be abolished - otherwise you'd end up with more serious abuses that you see with proxies.

If you believe proxies are being misused in your community, you should try to tighten up proxy procedures that are the real problem. Getting rid of proxies altogether would be like chucking out your car because you have a flat.



I agree. Proxies are a valuable tool but often misused and not understood.



ADD ON

Without proxies, we would not make Quorum of 20% of 112 owners. Was 50% but we did an amendment to 20%. I am seeing more and more at 10%
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:8729


08/07/2021 9:53 AM  
Augustin's comments all seem good. I too would like to know if the combination of proxy and actual ballots exceeded the required quorum.

And, with Augie, does your HOA have Election Rules? These state requirements, eff. 1/20, demand a great deal for a valid election.

This is odd to me: With mail-in (absentee) ballots and no physical attendance required for CA HOA elections, why did owners fill out proxies? No voters at my HOA have used proxies for over 10 years.

CA HOA attorneys rec eliminating proxies, cumulative voting and quorum from their Bylaws, but that takes amending them with Owner votes. But proxies carry just as much weight as mail in ballots or in-person voting, Edward.

It, as LetA suggests, might it be that the PM made the announcements because there were not more candidates than spots to fill, i.e., by acclamation? But that's no longer allowed in CA except for HOAs of over 6000 (!!!) members. Our Prez conducts annual meetings, but it's true in some HOAs, directors want the PM to do it as the directors don't know how.

Finally, Edward, I can't quite determine if this meeting was an election for directors or to amend the Bylaws re: quorum? Or both? Wait, on rereading, it looks like it was only an w election to drop quorum form the Bylaws? If so, this was not your "Annual Meeting," but a Special Meeting of the Members."

Please clarify, Edward.



EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 11:17 AM  
Hi, last year we had 5 new members running to replace the board incumbents, this year we had 4.
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 11:18 AM  
Hi, last year we had 5 new members running to replace the board incumbents, this year we had 4.
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 11:21 AM  
My former association in California eliminated quorum and proxies when the Bylaws we restated, as recommended by the owner of the www.davis-stirling.com site They are also the legal counsel of record for my old association. Quorum is useless, and if not used, proxies are not needed either. Secret ballots, or absentee voting have taken over the use of proxies. The state of Arizona has banned the use of proxies for HOA's.

How is quorum tabulated? The number of secret ballots received, plus any proxies brought to the meeting, plus any Member who shows up to the meeting, but may not want to vote. Proxies can be general or directed. If general, they are for quorum purposes only. While proxies may still be in the CCRs and Bylaws, associations are no longer required to send them out as secret ballots count toward quorum.

Now you have the issue what if you don't receive enough ballots? Bylaws will have a provision whereas the Members present, either in person or by proxy, may adjourn the meeting to a later date where quorum could possibly be reduced, sometimes as much as half or 25%. So in an association of 100 Units, 44 ballots or proxies were returned and quorum is 51. If the Members present at the meeting vote yes to adjourn, then at the next meeting you already have enough ballots to make quorum. If the Members who attended the meeting vote no, then the meeting is over, and the Board remains the same. My company conducts HOA elections in California. This exact scenario happened two weeks ago.

While secret ballots will count towards quorum, the Members MUST be present in order to adjourn. How does the outer envelope of a secret ballot cast a vote to adjourn? Could a candidate create a proxy just giving the proxyholder the Members power to adjourn, yes. I have never seen it done. You have to know how the game is played.

Quorum is only required when voting to raise assessments greater than 20% or special assessments greater than 5%, California Civil Code §5605, and is defined as more than 50% of the Members.
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 11:26 AM  
We required 109 ballots and only 75 were submitted. The board obtained 21 proxies to go against dropping the quorum to 55 ballots to have an election of board members.
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 11:27 AM  
We required 109 ballots and only 75 were submitted. The board obtained 21 proxies to go against dropping the quorum to 55 ballots to have an election of board members.
AugustinD


Posts:1920


08/07/2021 11:33 AM  
Posted By EdwardD4 on 08/07/2021 11:26 AM
We required 109 ballots and only 75 were submitted. The board obtained 21 proxies to go against dropping the quorum to 55 ballots to have an election of board members.
EwardD4, quorum is 109, correct? So your HOA requires the ballots, proxies and people attending in person to add to 109, correct?

-- How many ballots were submitted?

-- How many folks attended by proxy?

-- How many attended in person?


Some background appears at https://www.hoatalk.com/Search/ForumSearch/tabid/87/forumid/1/postid/304098/view/topic/Default.aspx
AugustinD


Posts:1920


08/07/2021 11:35 AM  
Posted By AugustinD on 08/07/2021 11:33 AM
Posted By EdwardD4 on 08/07/2021 11:26 AM
We required 109 ballots and only 75 were submitted. The board obtained 21 proxies to go against dropping the quorum to 55 ballots to have an election of board members.
EwardD4, quorum is 109, correct? So your HOA requires the ballots, proxies and people attending in person to add to 109, correct?

-- How many ballots were submitted?

-- How many folks attended by proxy?

-- How many attended in person?


Some background appears at https://www.hoatalk.com/Search/ForumSearch/tabid/87/forumid/1/postid/304098/view/topic/Default.aspx
Correction: How many ballots were submitted by mail?
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 11:46 AM  
Ae had 75 ballots and required 109. The board obtained 21 proxies to go against dropping the quorum to have a valid election to elect new members during our annual meeting. The board conducted this meeting through zoom with mail on ballots. No member was made aware of the proxies, however our bylaws allow it. Our board members, especially our President has been serving for 25 consecutive years and the others right behind him. Yes, hanky panky is definitely suspected
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 11:53 AM  
Posted By EdwardD4 on 08/07/2021 11:27 AM
We required 109 ballots and only 75 were submitted. The board obtained 21 proxies to go against dropping the quorum to 55 ballots to have an election of board members.



Unfortunately, all legal.

There are some legislatures in Sacramento working on eliminating quorum for the election of directors and eliminating proxies in HOA's.
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 11:55 AM  
Posted By EdwardD4 on 08/07/2021 11:46 AM
Ae had 75 ballots and required 109. The board obtained 21 proxies to go against dropping the quorum to have a valid election to elect new members during our annual meeting. The board conducted this meeting through zoom with mail on ballots. No member was made aware of the proxies, however our bylaws allow it. Our board members, especially our President has been serving for 25 consecutive years and the others right behind him. Yes, hanky panky is definitely suspected



Yes, while proxies are allowed in some Bylaws, there is no requirement for the association itself to distribute them.
AugustinD


Posts:1920


08/07/2021 11:58 AM  
Posted By EdwardD4 on 08/07/2021 11:46 AM
Ae had 75 ballots and required 109.
No EdwardD4, there is no 'number of ballots required to achieve quorum.' If the Bylaws set the quorum at 109, then the question is: What is the sum of (1) the number of ballots submitted (by mail or drop-off) in advance of the annual meeting; (2) the people who attended by proxy; and (3) the people who attended in person?

Do you know these three numbers?


EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 12:18 PM  
It’s 51%, if we fail to meet the quorum it “MAY” be adjourned to 25.5% by members in person or by proxy. The Board solicited 21 ballots to selected members “NOT” to drop the quorum.
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 12:34 PM  
I haven't sent a proxy out in 5 years, maybe longer. Ballots are either mailed or can be dropped off, at a management company, a drop box on premises, or brought to a meeting. If the meeting is held by Zoom, there are no attendees dropping off ballots. It should be stated on the ballot that they need to be received by, say 5:00 PM, the day before the meeting. Many associations have eliminated proxies for election of directors, therefore, the only document needed to count toward quorum are the ballots. Unless of course, you have someone show up on a zoom meeting that says they didn't vote, but wants to count toward quorum. Good luck with that one.

It sounds like this board know how the game is played. If only 3 people showed up for the Zoom meeting and one was holding 21 proxies, plus themselves, the vote to adjourn could be defeated 22-2.

The only legal foot you could stand on is if the election itself was not conducted properly. The adjournment, IMO and experience, was conducted properly.
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 12:42 PM  
Thanks for your response. These board members don’t play fair. They provided the wrong meeting ID and Passcode to the zoom link on both the managements company’s web portal calendar, and what was mailed out to all the homeowners. I emailed them to adjourn the meeting to obtain more ballots to achieve a quorum or allow members to turn in proxies such as the ones they gathered to vote by proxy against dropping the quorum. I have yet to hear from them. If you suspect shady, yes you are 100% on point.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:8729


08/07/2021 12:43 PM  
I'm sure it's just me, Edward, but WHAT were owners voting on? Directors? Changing the number required for quorum? Both? If on changing the Bylaws, what % of Owners must approve the changes? Generally it's 50% +1 or similar.

I have never heard that owners attending the annual meeting, but NOT voting count towards quorum in CA, Max. I've never heard of owners attending the annual meeting and election who don't vote. In addition, when it's joint owners of the same home, we know we may not count each towards quorum, but only one. I'll look it up later.

How many homes or units are in your HOA, Edward?
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11665


08/07/2021 12:43 PM  
Edward

You are confusing me. Help me understand

1. How many homeowners do you have?
2. What % of all owners required to make Quorum?
3. What % of all owners required to make an Amendment?

Some examples:

1. 200 owners.

2. 55% of owners (110) required to make Quorum. In person, ballots, proxies are counted. One vote per
owner. If a Quorum is not established, no business can be done including elections. Existing BOD stays in place. We are 20%
to establish a Quorum.

3. 51% of ALL OWNERS (101) must agree to the new amendment. This can vary depending on the type Amendment. We are 51% for a Bylaw change and 2/3rds for a Covenant change. No votes do not go against YES votes. Only the YES votes count.

The above is the way most associations operate but not all associations.
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 12:56 PM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 08/07/2021 12:43 PM
I'm sure it's just me, Edward, but WHAT were owners voting on? Directors? Changing the number required for quorum? Both? If on changing the Bylaws, what % of Owners must approve the changes? Generally it's 50% +1 or similar.

I have never heard that owners attending the annual meeting, but NOT voting count towards quorum in CA, Max. I've never heard of owners attending the annual meeting and election who don't vote. In addition, when it's joint owners of the same home, we know we may not count each towards quorum, but only one. I'll look it up later.

How many homes or units are in your HOA, Edward?



They have 212 units.

Owners can attend a Annual Meeting and their presence counts towards quorum. They may not vote because the people on the ballots are the scumbags of the earth. It happens and it is all legal.

This was a Annual Meeting and a Meeting to elect Directors. The proxies were used to defeat the adjournment. All legal
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 1:02 PM  
Posted By JohnC46 on 08/07/2021 12:43 PM
2. 55% of owners (110) required to make Quorum. In person, ballots, proxies are counted. One vote per
owner. If a Quorum is not established, no business can be done including elections. Existing BOD stays in place. We are 20%
to establish a Quorum.




Actually, if you read the Bylaws carefully, if quorum is not achieved, many Bylaws will have a provision for the Members present, either in person or by proxy, to adjourn to a new meeting in which the same quorum percentage or lower percentage would be required. The motion would come from either the presiding officer or a Member on the Floor. If the adjournment procedure is silent in your Bylaws, you would use a parliamentary procedure, such as Robert's Rule of Order to adjourn the meeting.
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 1:03 PM  
You are absolutely correct on the definition of the them. Yes, 212 and we had 75 ballots turned in. Members who were able to use the correct meeting ID and passcode made motions to drop the quorum, and behind our back the board pulls 21 ballots out of you know what to go against dropping the quorum requirements. I’m trying to challenge the meeting due to providing false misleading meeting ID’s and Passcodes in more than one place.
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 1:08 PM  
Oh by the way, I’m running on the board for the first time to remove the corrupt board who has been serving consecutively for as long as 25 years and caught them on countless shady things going on in our community. Last year even when the new law was passed, the association manager conducted the annual meeting, would not allow members to talk to the inspector of elections and re elected them w out any incumbents being present. We had 5 new members running against the current board. Collusion? Impropriety? More likely…..
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 1:26 PM  
Posted By EdwardD4 on 08/07/2021 1:08 PM
Oh by the way, I’m running on the board for the first time to remove the corrupt board who has been serving consecutively for as long as 25 years and caught them on countless shady things going on in our community. Last year even when the new law was passed, the association manager conducted the annual meeting, would not allow members to talk to the inspector of elections and re elected them w out any incumbents being present. We had 5 new members running against the current board. Collusion? Impropriety? More likely…..



The association manager can conduct the meeting, but they cannot be the inspector of election, meaning they can't count the votes. Because the last two years, meetings are held virtually, many board members don't feel comfortable running meeting. Also, for my meetings, it is my account that is being used, as the majority don't want to pay or run their own account.

You also need to understand the association manager didn't re-elect the board member. What happened was quorum wasn't reached, the Members present, either in person or by proxy chose not to adjourn to a new meeting, where based on your information, quorum would have been reached and an election would have taken place. Right or wrong, that is the procedure. Quorum, like proxies, can be abused, if you know the legal procedures. That is one of the reasons the owner of www.davis-stirling.com recommended getting rid of quorum for the election of directors and proxies.
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 1:43 PM  
Makes sense, and I do recall reading that on the Davis Stirling Act. During last year I did make a motion to drop the quorum, but did not say the term “Motion” or “Move to”. Is that legal jargon necessary as a volunteer. I informed the association manger of our bylaws but disregarded my comment.
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 2:03 PM  
The proper terminology is adjourn the meeting to a new date, at which time quorum will be what is stated in your Bylaws, in your case, 25%. Someone, either the presiding officer, or someone from the floor makes a motion, asks for a second and then asks for the vote. If a motion is made, and a second not given, then a vote is not taken.

Annual or Membership meetings are required to be run using a recognized method of parliamentary procedures. The requirement can be found in your Bylaws or, if not, in Corporate Code §5000(a).
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 2:15 PM  
Thank you Max for your swift responses and being able to elaborate on my postings. All the best
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 2:21 PM  
All the best!
AugustinD


Posts:1920


08/07/2021 2:23 PM  
Posted By EdwardD4 on 08/07/2021 1:08 PM
Oh by the way, I’m running on the board for the first time to remove the corrupt board who has been serving consecutively for as long as 25 years and caught them on countless shady things going on in our community. Last year even when the new law was passed, the association manager conducted the annual meeting, would not allow members to talk to the inspector of elections and re elected them w out any incumbents being present. We had 5 new members running against the current board. Collusion? Impropriety? More likely…..
You keep raising certain issues that are not against the law or the covenants. Are you sure you have the skill set to serve on a board?
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 2:27 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 08/07/2021 2:23 PM
Posted By EdwardD4 on 08/07/2021 1:08 PM
Oh by the way, I’m running on the board for the first time to remove the corrupt board who has been serving consecutively for as long as 25 years and caught them on countless shady things going on in our community. Last year even when the new law was passed, the association manager conducted the annual meeting, would not allow members to talk to the inspector of elections and re elected them w out any incumbents being present. We had 5 new members running against the current board. Collusion? Impropriety? More likely…..
You keep raising certain issues that are not against the law or the covenants. Are you sure you have the skill set to serve on a board?



WOW, that was uncalled for.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:8729


08/07/2021 2:29 PM  
Say, Edward, no one is allowed to speak with inspectors of elections while they are tabulating the votes.

Since you're not on the Board, you cannot make a motion at a Board meeting to drop the quorum requirement that's in your Bylaws or any other motion.

If at a meeting of the members, usually an annual meeting, you still could not make such a motion since it wasn't on the meeting agenda that's required in CA. Moreover, even if the board approves dropping quorum requirement, it still must be voted on by Owner. In a situation where you do qualify to make a motion, you do not legally have to use the words, "I move that..," I make a motion to." sometimes directors on our board will accidentally say "I propose that..." and we still second it--or not.

Incumbents, running for the Board or not, do not have to be present at the membership meeting to elect directors. IMO, when they refuse to show up, they are being disrespectful to other owners and to the election process.

I don't know what Max means about paying with his (PM's) account for? the meeting? What costs money?

I also still don't get: "Owners can attend a Annual Meeting and their presence counts towards quorum [even if they don't vote]. They may not vote because the people on the ballots are the scumbags of the earth." Oh, I see. These owners are curious but do not vote. Hmmmm.... It's my understanding that only ballots are counted (and proxies if used ) towards quorum. We do have a check box on our ballot which says "for purposes of quorum only," or some such. and they return their secret ballot.
AugustinD


Posts:1920


08/07/2021 2:36 PM  
Posted By EdwardD4 on 08/07/2021 1:43 PM
Makes sense, and I do recall reading that on the Davis Stirling Act. During last year I did make a motion to drop the quorum, but did not say the term “Motion” or “Move to”. Is that legal jargon necessary as a volunteer. I informed the association manger of our bylaws but disregarded my comment.

-- Do you understand that eliminating the quorum requirement requires an amendment of the bylaws?

-- Was the topic "amending the bylaws to eliminate the quorum requirement" on the annual meeting agenda?

-- Do you understand that many more steps are involved to amend the bylaws than simply voting at an annual meeting?

-- This site says that an amendment to the bylaws has to be initiated by the Board: https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/HOA-Bylaw-Amendments
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 2:49 PM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 08/07/2021 2:29 PM
Say, Edward, no one is allowed to speak with inspectors of elections while they are tabulating the votes.

Since you're not on the Board, you cannot make a motion at a Board meeting to drop the quorum requirement that's in your Bylaws or any other motion.

If at a meeting of the members, usually an annual meeting, you still could not make such a motion since it wasn't on the meeting agenda that's required in CA. Moreover, even if the board approves dropping quorum requirement, it still must be voted on by Owner. In a situation where you do qualify to make a motion, you do not legally have to use the words, "I move that..," I make a motion to." sometimes directors on our board will accidentally say "I propose that..." and we still second it--or not.

Incumbents, running for the Board or not, do not have to be present at the membership meeting to elect directors. IMO, when they refuse to show up, they are being disrespectful to other owners and to the election process.

I don't know what Max means about paying with his (PM's) account for? the meeting? What costs money?

I also still don't get: "Owners can attend a Annual Meeting and their presence counts towards quorum [even if they don't vote]. They may not vote because the people on the ballots are the scumbags of the earth." Oh, I see. These owners are curious but do not vote. Hmmmm.... It's my understanding that only ballots are counted (and proxies if used ) towards quorum. We do have a check box on our ballot which says "for purposes of quorum only," or some such. and they return their secret ballot.



First, this is not a Board meeting!

From www.davis-stirling.com

In the absence of a quorum, any meeting of the membership may be adjourned by the vote of a majority of the votes represented either in person or by proxy, but no other business may be transacted. (Corp. Code §7512(d).) If a quorum cannot be obtained, the chair calls the meeting to order, announces the absence of a quorum, and entertains a motion to adjourn the meeting to a later date with appropriate notice. Members who mailed in their ballots need not be present. A simple majority of those members present in person or by proxy is sufficient to adjourn the meeting to a later date unless the bylaws state otherwise.

Robert's Rules. Under Civil Code §5000(a) membership meetings must be conducted using parliamentary procedures. The most common procedure is Robert's Rules of Order, which allows members to make motions from the floor. In the "old days" a member could make a motion at the annual meeting. Once it was seconded and debated, it could be put to a voice vote or show of hands.


A Membership meeting is not a Board meeting and the Board doesn't run the meeting, the presiding officer does, which may or may not be the president.

An owner can attend a meeting, and choose not to vote, that is their right. If it happens, it is seldom. If your ballot has a checkbox for quorum purpose only, how would anyone know, UNLESS the ballots were opened, which can only occur if quorum is achieved.

If owners could not make a motion, why did the board create a proxy to defeat adjourning the meeting. If what you are saying is true, all they had to do was NOT make a motion, PERIOD. Remember, this is a member meeting, not a board meeting.
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 2:55 PM  
Yes, I have learned a lot the past 2 years. And to be honest I know I can do a better job than the 2 board members that don’t live in the complex, in addition to two board members who are partners residing under the same unit. Using unlicensed vendors, steering contracts to the same vendors, conflicts of interest and many other unethical things going on need to be addressed. When you have board members who lie, have no transparency, deflect and minimize questions, consecutive annual deficits where our operating dues can’t cover our monthly expenses. Then yes, I have what it takes.
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 2:56 PM  
Folks, I don't understand how this is that difficult to understand. Edward used the wrong terminology. That was not a meeting to eliminate quorum, or a meeting to change the Bylaws.

A motion was made, presumably by the chair of the meeting to adjourn the meeting to a later date. The vote failed because the board, on their own, created a proxy whereby members they chose signed over a directed proxy, not to adjourn the meeting.

I had the exact same scenario two weeks ago last Thursday, except it was by voice vote. Eight people showed up to the Zoom meeting and the vote was 8-0. The lone candidate, not a board member never bothered to attend.
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 3:00 PM  
Kerry

I pay for my Zoom account. In case you're interested, here are the different plans available, https://zoom.us/pricing

I actually have the Business Plan. The free account is limited by minutes and more importantly, features.
AugustinD


Posts:1920


08/07/2021 3:08 PM  
Posted By EdwardD4 on 08/07/2021 2:55 PM
Yes, I have learned a lot the past 2 years. And to be honest I know I can do a better job than the 2 board members that don’t live in the complex, in addition to two board members who are partners residing under the same unit. Using unlicensed vendors, steering contracts to the same vendors, conflicts of interest and many other unethical things going on need to be addressed. When you have board members who lie, have no transparency, deflect and minimize questions, consecutive annual deficits where our operating dues can’t cover our monthly expenses. Then yes, I have what it takes.
I am concerned about your continued focus on issues that are lawful. For example:

-- There is no requirement for directors to live on the HOA grounds.

-- There is no prohibition on members who co-own a lot or unit serving simultaneously on the board.

When you harp on those facts, which indicate nothing that is unlawful, I think it subtracts from your credibility.

Regardless, you would be far from the first who "learned on the job" as a director. At least you arrived at hoatalk a few months ago and started asking questions. Hopefully you can get a like-minded majority to run with you and if needed, pursue IDR when you have hard proof that the incumbent board cheated on the election. You do know what IDR is, don't you?
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 3:18 PM  
There is no prohibition on members who co-own a lot or unit serving simultaneously on the board.

Actually, that provision is allowed to be written into their Election Rules while not having to amend their Bylaws.
AugustinD


Posts:1920


08/07/2021 3:27 PM  
Posted By MaxB4 on 08/07/2021 3:18 PM
There is no prohibition on members who co-own a lot or unit serving simultaneously on the board.

Actually, that provision is allowed to be written into their Election Rules while not having to amend their Bylaws.
That's nice but not relevant. Obviously this Board has not and will not change its election rules to prohibit co-owners of a unit/lot from serving on the Board simultaneously.
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 3:36 PM  
Yes I do, but when an IDR was ask to be held with like minded members last year, they would not allow anyone else to join. It’s vague on if more than one member can join or not during an IDR. By the way, I have hard facts on all my findings on what is going on in our community. When the Board put their personal interest before the Association they are in violation of the business judgement rule. Why would anyone want to be on the board consecutively for 22+ years as President in a volunteer position? Two other board members have been serving just as long. Civil code 5100 prohibits 2 members serving under the same parcel to serve together, however this is up to the association to determine. Why not allow an election to occur when we easily met the subsequent quorum. What are they so afraid of? Give others a chance to turn a community around and amend the bylaws that are over 40 years old. You don’t know what is really going on in our community Augustin, so don’t be so judgmental. When 75 members vote out of the 109 required, that is probably better than what most HOA’s can get to have a quorum. By the way, nobody is trying to eliminate the quorum in our HOA, just allow the quorum to be dropped as stated in the bylaws, instead of soliciting proxies to vote against it.
AugustinD


Posts:1920


08/07/2021 4:04 PM  
Posted By EdwardD4 on 08/07/2021 3:36 PM
By the way, I have hard facts on all my findings on what is going on in our community.
Huh. What I see is an awful lot of complaining by you about how unfair the covenants and state law are, mixed maybe with a valid concern or two. (The facts are indeed not all that clear.)
Civil code 5100 prohibits 2 members serving under the same parcel to serve together, however this is up to the association to determine.
The sentence above is an oxymoron and jabberwocky.

This HOA and its board is breaking no law nor bylaw by having two co-owners of a unit/lot serving on the board simultaneously.

I get it: You do not like the covenants. You do not like the statutes. The system is rigged against well-meaning (I hope) HOA owners like yourself. But a deal's a deal. You bought the home having proper notice of the covenants and the statutes. You're stuck with accepting and complying with these statutes and covenants to get a new board.

This brings me to:
Why not allow an election to occur when we easily met the subsequent quorum[?]
Again, I get it: You think ethically the incumbent board should have voted their proxies to adjourn to a later date. But legally, the incumbent board does not have to. For good or bad, maybe it's you they're trying to keep off the board?

I think the only important question here is: Why didn't you pursue what you can control? Namely, why didn't you go gather proxies yourself and throw the bums out?
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 4:32 PM  
Yes, your 100% correct they don’t want me to be on the board because many of my concerns are valid. As far as proxies go, this will have to wait until next year since we failed to meet the quorum and no meeting was adjourned. However, because they mailed out the wrong Meeting ID and Passcode (go figure) to join the annual meeting properly, I believe this should constitutes another meeting to be held to either 1) gather more ballots. 2) Solicit proxies to drop quorum requirements. They have not responded to my email, and I am in the process of requesting an IDR, however as mentioned before they will not allow the other candidates who were running to join.

(B) Through its bylaws or election operating rules adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5105 only, an association may disqualify a person from nomination as a candidate based on any of the following:

(iii) If the person, if elected, would be serving on the board at the same time as another person who holds a joint ownership interest in the same separate interest parcel as the person and the other person is either properly nominated for the current election or an incumbent director.

By the way, Association Manager was the agent to help 2 board members buy two short sale properties in addition to managing their rental properties that allows them to run together. Against the law no, unethical yes putting personal interests before the association. Who knows what kind of financial exchanges occurred, and would probably impossible to investigate.

My question to that is, if the board members were ahead of the game since they new the owners were under water on their property and were able to put in an offer before anyone else. It’s like inside trading in the stock market knowing what’s going to happen before it happens and making a deal before going public.. A lot of questions to consider. Was there a significant amount of HOA dues that piled up? What about real estate fees, commissions, etc between the board members, manager and management property?

AugustinD


Posts:1920


08/07/2021 5:26 PM  
EdwardD4, what you describe with these two directors (working with the manager) buying short-saled properties likely would trouble me as well. I see also your descriptions of diretors' self-dealing at your other thread, started May 19, 2021.

For what it is worth --
If you have not already started reading up on how you can prepare multiple, lawful proxy forms, then I hope you will start. Using the search window at davis-stirling.com and searching for "proxy" instantly turns up some helpful sub-sites. Maybe back up your effort with a thread here discussing how to create a proxy? Followed by checking in with a competent HOA attorney? Then maybe follow with another thread about best planks for your campaign platform, of the several issues you have already mentioned? Use (lawful) subterfuge and (lawful) ambushing techniques where you can, as this board sounds like it may pull every dirty trick it can.

Ideally you have a few others who will run with you and are ready to pound the pavement (put up web sites; make phone calls; et cetera) in the weeks leading to next year's election. Many here have pounded the pavement (myself among them) et cetera at one time or another gathering proxies to cause significant change in a HOA/COA board. I hope you can pull it off.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:8729


08/07/2021 5:37 PM  

Max: First, this is not a Board meeting!

Kerry to Max: Here is Edward's quote: "During last year I did make a motion to drop the quorum, but did not say the term 'Motion or 'Move to.'" It looks like he was NOT referring to a Members meeting, but a Board meeting. At a board meeting, as you know, owners (members) have no standing to make motions.

Max wrote:" Robert's Rules. Under Civil Code §5000(a) membership meetings must be conducted using parliamentary procedures. The most common procedure is Robert's Rules of Order, which allows members to make motions from the floor. In the 'old days' a member could make a motion at the annual meeting..."
Kerry: But the "old days" no longer exist. Matters must be on posted on the agenda way in advance to be motioned BY Mebers at members meetings in CA nowadays. An Open Forum should be conducted.

Max: "A Membership meeting is not a Board meeting and the Board doesn't run the meeting, the presiding officer does, which may or may not be the president." Kerry: I already wrote that. Don't get why you are repeating it?

Max: "An owner can attend a meeting, and choose not to vote, that is their right." Kerry: Of course they may attend. But you stated above the non-voters count towards a quorum. They do not. Ballots that are turned in, even if blank or only have D. tRump written on them, count towards quorum

Max: "If your ballot has a checkbox for quorum purpose only, how would anyone know, UNLESS the ballots were opened, which can only occur if quorum is achieved." Kerry: To repeat: Secret ballots submitted in their double Envelopes count towards quorum in CA. The number of envelopes/ballots is announced at the members meeting and the presider states that quorum has been reached. They certainly are not opened until the appropriate time at the members meeting by the inspectors of election. Of around 100 cast (quorum here is about 56) at our elections, usually 1-2 aren't valid. We generally have way more than 56 envelopes well before the meeting.

Max: "If owners could not make a motion, why did the board create a proxy to defeat adjourning the meeting. If what you are saying is true, all they had to do was NOT make a motion, PERIOD." Well, in our HOA the ballot materials state that if quorum isn't made, the meeting will be adjourned to mm/dd/year. It's also in our Bylaws and election rules. So, it's just like motioning to accept last year's minutes. The meeting either is adjourned, period or adjourned until a certain date.

I did, indeed, not understand Edward's confusion with the language of HOAs. He really was a talking about motions to adjourned to another day not to eliminate quorum. Very confusing writing.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:8729


08/07/2021 5:44 PM  

Max: First, this is not a Board meeting!

Kerry to Max: Here is Edward's quote: "During last year I did make a motion to drop the quorum, but did not say the term 'Motion or 'Move to.'" It looks like he was NOT referring to a Members meeting, but a Board meeting. At a board meeting, as you know, owners (members) have no standing to make motions.

Max wrote:" Robert's Rules. Under Civil Code §5000(a) membership meetings must be conducted using parliamentary procedures. The most common procedure is Robert's Rules of Order, which allows members to make motions from the floor. In the 'old days' a member could make a motion at the annual meeting..."
Kerry: But the "old days" no longer exist. Matters must be on posted on the agenda way in advance to be motioned BY Mebers at members meetings in CA nowadays. An Open Forum should be conducted.

Max: "A Membership meeting is not a Board meeting and the Board doesn't run the meeting, the presiding officer does, which may or may not be the president." Kerry: I already wrote that. Don't get why you are repeating it?

Max: "An owner can attend a meeting, and choose not to vote, that is their right." Kerry: Of course they may attend. But you stated above the non-voters count towards a quorum. They do not. Ballots that are turned in, even if blank or only have D. tRump written on them, count towards quorum

Max: "If your ballot has a checkbox for quorum purpose only, how would anyone know, UNLESS the ballots were opened, which can only occur if quorum is achieved." Kerry: To repeat: Secret ballots submitted in their double Envelopes count towards quorum in CA. The number of envelopes/ballots is announced at the members meeting and the presider states that quorum has been reached. They certainly are not opened until the appropriate time at the members meeting by the inspectors of election. Of around 100 cast (quorum here is about 56) at our elections, usually 1-2 aren't valid. We generally have way more than 56 envelopes well before the meeting.

Max: "If owners could not make a motion, why did the board create a proxy to defeat adjourning the meeting. If what you are saying is true, all they had to do was NOT make a motion, PERIOD." Well, in our HOA the ballot materials state that if quorum isn't made, the meeting will be adjourned to mm/dd/year. It's also in our Bylaws and election rules. So, it's just like motioning to accept last year's minutes. The meeting either is adjourned, period or adjourned until a certain date.

I did, indeed, not understand Edward's confusion with his language use re: HOAs. He really was talking about motions to adjourn to another day not to eliminate quorum. Very confusing writing.
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 5:45 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 08/07/2021 3:27 PM
Posted By MaxB4 on 08/07/2021 3:18 PM
There is no prohibition on members who co-own a lot or unit serving simultaneously on the board.

Actually, that provision is allowed to be written into their Election Rules while not having to amend their Bylaws.
That's nice but not relevant. Obviously this Board has not and will not change its election rules to prohibit co-owners of a unit/lot from serving on the Board simultaneously.



This Board, yes, maybe not the next Board.
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 6:01 PM  
Hello Kerry thank for your responses. Basically, the word “MAY” adjourn the meeting makes this annual meeting complicated. Here you go all to eliminate confusion. Thank you everyone for all the comments and suggestions.


Section 6. Voting Proxies
Voting may be carried on either in person or by proxy.

Section 7. Quorum Requirements for Association Meetings
At all meetings of owners, a quorum for the transaction of business through the presence in person or by proxy of such members, shall be established at fifty-one (51%) percent of the total voting power of the Association which shall be sufficient for the passage of any motion or adoption of any resolution, except in connection with amendment or repeal of this Declaration, as hereinafter set forth under Articles X or XVI. If the required quorum is not present, another meeting may be called subject to the written notice requirements sent to all members at least 10 (10) days in advance of such meeting, and the required quorum at the subsequent meeting shall be one-half (1/2) of the required quorum for the preceding meeting. In the absence of a quorum at a meeting of members, a majority of those present in person or by proxy may adjourn the meeting to another time, but may not transact any other business. An adjournment for lack of a quorum shall be to a date not less than five (5) nor more than thirty (30) days from the original meeting date.

Section 8. Written Notice of Meetings
Written notice of regular and special meetings shall be given to members by the Board at least ten (10) days in advance of any such meeting. The notice shall specify the date, time and place of meeting and in the case of a special meeting, the nature of business to be undertaken. A special meeting of members of the Association shall be promptly called by the Board upon: (a) the vote for such a meeting by a majority of the Board; or (b) receipt of written request thereof, signed by members representing twenty-five (25%) percent of the total voting power of the Association, or by members representing not less than fifteen (15%) percent of the voting power residing in members other than Declarant.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:8729


08/07/2021 6:07 PM  
It was so difficult understanding your writing Edward, because you misused some HOA lingo, which led me and maybe others into the wrong direction. So when Augustine wonders about your "skill set," it's not about your ability to see and understand the very dubious practices your Board seems to engage it. What Augustin is referring to is your knowledge about HOW to--within the complicated HOA statutes in CA--effectively get rid of at least your current board majority at the next election.

There is no insult intended, but you simply must get a clear understanding of the words in your Bylaws and election rules and state statute. You must learn the process by which to gather support and write, drop flyers off at homes, in other words, campaign. This involves working with other like-minded Owners.

It also involves learning the correct HOA language. Look at the front of your CC&Rs for many definitions that might help you. I think there's a vocabulary/definition list at Davis-stirling.com.

Augustin is right: your Board can pass an election rule to prohibit co-owners from serving together on the Board. But it doesn't sound like they're likely to do that. You can ask them at the next open board meeting during Open Forum if they would consider such a rule change. At least this way, other owners will know that it's possible to change it.

You know, Edward? If the way to get on Zoom was wrong due to incorrect ID & account number, so some owners couldn't attend the members meeting, it seems you could make a case against the outcome because not all Owners could attend. This is especially true if your HOA allows nominate s form the floor (no matter how futile). BUT, getting support to push that seems impossible.

Oh, Max. You pay for Zoom, etc., I see. No, I don't want to know anything about it as our MC does all of that. Moreover, our current prez is an IT whiz, who put together the tech for our first hybrid board meeting last week. Directors no longer need our laptops and owners at home & in the meeting room could all hear & see everyone.
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 6:28 PM  
Kerry,

---If your ballot package contains such language that if quorum is not met, then the meeting is automatically adjourned to a later date, why aren't you standing up for Edward. He and his Members got screwed out of a fair election. Yet you stand by Augie while he beats the sh$t out if Edward.

---It appears Edwards solved that age old issue you have with a person showing up at a meeting, Section 7. Quorum Requirements for Association Meetings
At all meetings of owners, a quorum for the transaction of business through the presence in person or by proxy of such members.


---Directors no longer need our laptops and owners at home & in the meeting room could all hear & see everyone. We all should be so lucky!

---In closing, I make a motion and second that you and Augie get a room together.
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 7:13 PM  
Thanks for the support Max, including several members of the Association who want change in our community. I feel sorry for the ones that don’t care or are so afraid to voice their concerns in fear of retaliation by these shady board members, and complain about it only amongst the residents. Last year having 5 new members was a first in countless years to replace the incumbents, and like I said the association manager ran that meeting and did not allow the inspector of election to comment other than the number of ballots casted and failing to meet the quorum during that meeting.

The lack of oversight in non profit HOA/COA’s needs to change, and it should not rest solely upon a number of members that want change to hire an attorney when things happen like this costing upwards to $100,000 easily. Not fair that the board can use our dues to pay for our own attorney to go against us. They have an unlimited civil lawsuit against me that I’m waiting to get served on. That’s what happens when you speak up about everything I mentioned in my postings.

I have no hard feelings, but when tragedies happen like Surfside Florida, maybe more laws will change to protect homeowners in HOA/COA’s
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 7:17 PM  
Edward

Sorry for the two tagging up and beating you up for no apparent reason. While the wording you used might have been confusing to others, someone who conducts elections and been down the same road, it was a no-brainer. Augie has been on a crusade lately to beat up people who don't "write" like him, whatever that means.

The whole issue boils down why do HOA's need quorum? You don't have quorum requirements for electing a president, a senator, your city council, but we for whatever reason require it for HOA's.

Members can amend the Bylaws through a special meeting process. It is exhaustive but it can be done. I realize the lawyer on the www.davis-stirling.com site says the Board must initiate the amendment change, but this is also the same lawyer that said the association didn't have to give candidates equal access to common area and resources and cost the losing association $250K in legal fees. It is merely an opinion not based legal statues or case law.

You need a campaign, not just a few flyers passed around like Kerry suggested. We did it in our community which had 100 more units than yours. We restated the Bylaws, eliminated quorum for certain things, couldn't mess with the language of the CCRs, which had them for special assessments. We eliminated proxies also, again not for special assessments. You need to conduct town hall meeting, some can be done virtually. You'll probably catch some heat, maybe a lot. The association I lived in has open elections for the past 11 years. There ain't any extra expense for another meeting, everything is done at the first meeting. We elect directors annually, so if there is a problem with who was elected, you just have to wait until the next cycle.

Being you're in California, if you need help, let me know. I promise not to beat up on you.


KerryL1
(California)

Posts:8729


08/07/2021 7:34 PM  
Oh, for F's sake, Max. I wrote the word "campaign," and as you well know I've successfully, with the support of many other owners, thrown out 3 incumbent directors due to campaign skills including flyers and direct mailers. And doe to their arrogance and secrecy. But also due to my knowledge of our gov docs & of Civil & Corps code. Augustin also gave some strong positive advice. Yours is actually pretty tardy, Max.

If you'll check Civil 5115, you'll see that it's ballots that count toward quorum not voters. The words attending the meeting in person is also in my 20 y.o. Bylaws and wherever present occurred before mail-in ballots were permitted in CA. As you know some state DO require in-person or proxy attendance to elect directors.

I also wrote our Election Rules last year, which were vetted and approved by our HOA attorney, even though he lost some fees.

I do not at all agree that I or Augustin, either bet up on Edward. I think we both gave positive educational suggestions about how to proceed.

I think he could care less about why there should be no quorum requirement tho' I agree too that there shouldn't be. But his task is to get rid of a majority of the current board. And it has to be done exactly correctly. He and other should band together, all chip in some $$ and d hire a good attorney specializing in HOA or contract law to help them learn what they need to do.

but, uh oh, we now know that the board or someone is doing a lawsuit against him, it seems?
EdwardD4
(California)

Posts:42


08/07/2021 7:49 PM  
No need to make this thread a quarrel about a quorum. Get it…. Haha… If the two members that live offsite cared about the community they would give up their seat to members who see what goes on day to day such as vehicle theft and break ins. Moreover the homeless that practically live in our dumpsters everyday diving through all our trash while other surrounding communities are gated and have cameras.

When you have two members that live together and they got caught with their pants down regarding a guest parking changed to a private spot for personal gain and deny it, what do you think they will do to the member who calls them put on it.

When they use unlicensed vendors where we average approx $50k in repairs yearly, and all of a sudden 2 years in a row it goes over $120k and no building we re plumbed.

There’s more to this, and that is why I’m running even though I may not be as educated on CCR’s like some of you. I’ll tell you one thing, I definitely shinned the light on them.
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1601


08/07/2021 9:54 PM  
Kerry

First, I was never tardy to the party. You guys have no clue what happened in Edward's case. You need to work on your reading comprehension, Civil Code §5115 says ballots count as a person person. So, three things count for quorum, if quorum is required, one, in person, two, if allowed, proxies, and three, ballots.

I would love to see the Election Rules the attorney drafted, because, based on what I have seen here, you don't have the skill set to write them. Sorry, had to get that in.

Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Page 1 of 3123 > >>
Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Problems with Annual Meeting Quorum and Proxies



Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.







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.
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.)

Copyright HOA Talk.com, A Service of Community123 LLC ( Homeowners Association Discussions )   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement