Balloting Procedures (Proxies, Secret Ballots)

[JBJ]

It was pointed out to me last year by poster carolinegraves that the voting process in place for last year's election was not in compliance with the POA constitution. She did point that out and she was indeed correct. We had not mailed proxy forms to be used with the ballots for directors and the proposed constitutional amendment. As a result of this realization, we withdrew the constitutional amendment, but allowed the director election to go forward.

So how did such a mistake occur? About 2 or 3 election cycles ago we switched to a secret ballot format, and somehow in the change-over the proxy language was inadvertently dropped. It didn't really alter the basis process--members indicated their choices and mailed them in--and we went thru two elections without anyone noticing--or at least bringing to our attention. But the constitution does require a proxy ( or an in-person vote) and we will be sure that's done this year.


So thank you Caroline G for keeping us on track

[carolinegraves]

Bruce, I was wondering if you would put the voting procedure that you will be using this year on this forum? Also, you might want to add the copy of the proxy that you will be using for this year’s voting.

I sure hope you are not putting the voting for the Mandatory Dues, the Constitution changes or the question about the deed removal on some secret ballot like you were going to do last year. As I told you last year there can be a lot of abuse to that system. These are too important of changes to the Constitution for any nonsense of a secret ballot. The proxy needs to state how the property owner votes on each of the changes to the Constitution with their signature on the proxy so that the proxies can be kept with the records of the corporation as stated in the Constitution.

[JBJ]

While you are welcome to consider a secret ballot as "nonsense", others consider it a sound and desirable practice.

We will engage the services of an outside election manager this year. Proxies will be sent directly to this agent and none of the board or POA staff will be involved--except to resolve any questions of membership/proxy legitimacy, etc. The board will approve the process to be used and we will share details of that process when it is finalized. But we know at this point that we will have written proxies and we will use a secret ballot system.

[carolinegraves]

So I am assuming from your answer that you are going to put the Constitution issues on the secret ballot. Is that correct. There is no need to put the Constitutions issues on the secret ballot. What needs to be secret about those issues? What are the safe guards in place if someone challenges the vote on the Constitution issues? I hope you are not waiting to the last minute to show the proxy or the ballot.

By the way you have checked the amount of people that need to vote on each issue, haven’t you?

[JBJ]

All votes will be cast by secret ballot--this will assure that no member's voting record will be available for scrutiny by any other member. You may recall some discussion of the issue--and support for the secret ballot--at the last meeting.

I think your last question refers to the required quorum. 250 voting members present in person or by proxy is the required quorum for constitutional amendments.

[carolinegraves]

If someone challenges the vote, how will you do a recount with the names on the proxies?

[carolinegraves]

How will you handle a challenge of the vote by a member of the property owners association, by using the proxy to vote according to the secret ballots? Where will the ballots be sent? Who will have access to the ballots? Why are you going to this extent for voting?

I am really worried that by the you, as president, doing this method of voting, that the Board of directors is setting it self up to a Lawsuit.

[JBJ]

We will engage the services of an election manager this year. All the proxies --and secret ballots--will be sent directly to this agent who will verify the proxies and record the votes, and will be present at the annual meeting to answer any questions about how the process was managed. We will, of course, keep the ballots and proxies and can do a recount if necessary.

[carolinegraves]

Will the ballots have a number on them to coordinate with the proxy? I have heard stories of other home owners associations where the Ballots substituted after they leave the CPA office or the person counting them.

What I am questioning is that the POA voted to only spend $2000 on an audit of the Corporate books because the POA didn't have any money. Now the Board is spending thousands of dollars to have someone count the secret ballots instead of putting all of the Constitution issues on the signed proxy?

Personally, I think it is much more important to check on the financial condition of a Corporation,when it has been questioned, then to spend thousands of dollars, because you don't want anybody to see who you voted . If that is the case you could vote in person. All of this doesn't make sense to me, I feel this is exceeding the bounds of what is reasonable and a total waste of Corporate funds that the POA doesn't have.

[JBJ]

Well it's certainly not unusual for different people to have different views regarding priorities--I doubt we'll ever do anything that makes everyone happy.

But a couple of points re. the election. We are capable of managing the election in house and I predict we will return to that practice in the future. This time, though, I supported the suggestion that we use an outside agent for a number of reasons. There is -regrettably- a level of distrust among some POA members and the outside agent should help assuage that concern. Given the glitches last year, I think it's doubly important that we get it right this time--and we can learn from the professional. We have a unusually complicated election this year with amendments and the deed restriction question in addition to voting for directors.

If the amendment re. dues as a condition of membership passes, future elections will likely be simpler and less costly because we will --again likely--have fewer members and consequently fewer ballots to mail out.

[carolinegraves]

Bruce,

My point was that if you put all of the Constitutions issues on the proxy, there would be no need to pay someone thousands of dollars to count the votes of the secret ballot.

Isn't this the same Board said that there was not enough money to do and audit of the finances of the Corporation. Now the Board is spending thousand of dollars on a something that does not need to be done.

As you know, the Constitution says to vote in person or proxy, not vote by proxy, to vote by secret ballot. The counting of the votes will cost the property owners thousand dollars. Why would anybody want to pay mandatory dues when the Board is lacking or incapable of having limits on their spending?

Also, these are such serious Constitutional issues, with future unknown results for the Island. I am now questioning why the Board is making the voting overly complicated and secret? I feel the Board of Directors need provide a good reason in law, to justify why are handling the voting this way.

[clifffill]

We are new property owners, having purchased during this past fall with plans to begin building our home later this year. Will we be receiving information on how to award our proxy for the coming election or would someone be kind enough to explain how we might make a designation.

[JBJ]

Mar 31, 2011 12:24:00 GMT -6 clifffill said:

We are new property owners, having purchased during this past fall with plans to begin building our home later this year. Will we be receiving information on how to award our proxy for the coming election or would someone be kind enough to explain how we might make a designation.

Send me a PM with your details and I'll make sure you get the election material.

[carolinegraves]

The POA Board once again will not follow the Judge's orders, and give the owners the complete email list to solicit proxies.

The Judge in the last POA lawsuit(2004) fought over the same thing stated that the Board has to supply the owners the email lists.

[amydune]

I don't think so - the orders didn't say anything about emails. Only Mailing addresses. Two different things.

[cliff]

Here is what the Order says verbatim:

The terms of office of these directors have expired and they, in their capacity as the Board of Directors of the Association, are ordered to hold an election for their successors on or before July 20, 2004, in accordance with the Articles of Incorporation as
they existed in 1996, as amended by the amendment recorded on March 31, 2004. Such election shall provide for staggered terms of the directors as provided in the articles of
incorporation. The Association shall prepare and make available to its membership a list of members eligible to vote in the election. Such list shall be provided to any member
upon payment of reasonable costs of reproduction and shall be made available on or before July 2, 2004. This Court had no wish to become involved in the internal affairs of the Association, but was compelled to do so once this proceeding was initiated; and the Court has no intention of presiding over the further business of the Association.

[whistlingdixie]

So, it only says a list must be provided....not that addresses or email addresses must be on it. A list of eligible voters should be names only.....the ruling does not specify what is to be included in the list....Right, sir? Or did I miss something or over-simplify?

Apr 18, 2011 16:51:33 GMT -6 cliff said:

Here is what the Order says verbatim:

The terms of office of these directors have expired and they, in their capacity as the Board of Directors of the Association, are ordered to hold an election for their successors on or before July 20, 2004, in accordance with the Articles of Incorporation as
they existed in 1996, as amended by the amendment recorded on March 31, 2004. Such election shall provide for staggered terms of the directors as provided in the articles of
incorporation. The Association shall prepare and make available to its membership a list of members eligible to vote in the election. Such list shall be provided to any member
upon payment of reasonable costs of reproduction and shall be made available on or before July 2, 2004. This Court had no wish to become involved in the internal affairs of the Association, but was compelled to do so once this proceeding was initiated; and the Court has no intention of presiding over the further business of the Association.

[cliff]

It says what it says. Nothing more, nothing less.

[whistlingdixie]

Correct. Thank you.

Apr 18, 2011 17:22:01 GMT -6 cliff said:

It says what it says. Nothing more, nothing less.

[will]

Reminds me of the old phrase: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts".

[whistlingdixie]

It says what it says and that's all that it says, says PETSM!

Apr 18, 2011 17:22:01 GMT -6 cliff said:

It says what it says. Nothing more, nothing less.

[paulas]

I had access to several emails from a certain group today and some people were upset that they had their email address. They were very concerned about this and did not like the content of the emails either.

[whistlingdixie]

I got one of those myself....

Apr 19, 2011 20:20:17 GMT -6 paulas said:

I had access to several emails from a certain group today and some people were upset that they had their email address. They were very concerned about this and did not like the content of the emails either.

[clifffill]

When will the proxy materials be sent out? We have reached out twice, with acknowledgments, since purchasing our property last year and have not received anything or gotten the emails others are alluding to. Are people falling through the cracks?

[will]

Contact the DIPOA office at 251-861-2433, Vicki, I believe is the gal. When one buys property usually the real estate agent advises the buyer to go to the POA office filling out a form, then you are on the mailing list.

[carolinegraves]

Does anybody know how much the extra cost of the "secret ballot" is costing the POA. I have heard a very large figure. Bruce, do you think you could inform the members of the expenses involve?

Please explain what you said last night about the ballots or the proxy that were bad? What does that mean?

[JBJ]

It's not the secret ballot that is causing the cost-- an election manager would charge about the same amount if we were to have the ballot part of the proxy --i.e. not secret. Now--it is expensive, and one positive effect of the proposed amendment is that those property owners who aren't active, don't pay dues, and don't intend to change, can be dropped from the voting role thus reducing the cost. I would rather have all 3000+ property owners as dues paying members but I don't think that will ever happen.
The cost is around $7,000--around $2000 of that for the election mgr--the rest printing/stuffing and postage.

[whistlingdixie]

If certain factions hadn't griped and threatened to have recounts, we wouldn't have had to hire an election manager to do this one.....some people would complain if they were hung with a new rope! Can't please anyone.....count the ballots ourselves, and people imply that there has been a rigged election. Hire someone to count the ballots, and people gripe about how much it costs....can't win!

Apr 22, 2011 9:05:02 GMT -6 JBJ said:

It's not the secret ballot that is causing the cost-- an election manager would charge about the same amount if we were to have the ballot part of the proxy --i.e. not secret. Now--it is expensive, and one positive effect of the proposed amendment is that those property owners who aren't active, don't pay dues, and don't intend to change, can be dropped from the voting role thus reducing the cost. I would rather have all 3000+ property owners as dues paying members but I don't think that will ever happen.
The cost is around $7,000--around $2000 of that for the election mgr--the rest printing/stuffing and postage.

[Friend of Rhino]

You ain't just whistlin', Dixie!

[whistlingdixie]

May as well be, though! LOL

Apr 22, 2011 17:34:07 GMT -6 Friend of Rhino said:

You ain't just whistlin', Dixie!