Guest Elizabeth Posted January 30, 2012 at 11:33 PM Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 at 11:33 PM Our condominium bylaws say that we must have a 75% of the vote of the owners to amend the bylaws. The board wants to change this number to 66 2/3%. In order to assure that they get the approval from 75% of the owners, they are accumulating the votes for five years. I say #1, that this is not the proper voting procedure; and #2, it is not fair because an owner could sell their unit and there could be two votes per unit, or more.The bylaws say: At any meeting of the members, the owner of each unit shall be entitled to case one vote of each unit he own, which shall not be cumulative.Can you please give me your interpretation? We do follow RR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 30, 2012 at 11:46 PM Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 at 11:46 PM You may think you are following RONR, but your board sure isn't.Chances are, since you are in a condo, proxy votes are proper - those are what have to be collected - NEW ONES - to reach your 75% threshold. Check your bylaws and other condo documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted January 30, 2012 at 11:50 PM Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 at 11:50 PM - NEW ONES -How new? What's to prevent a member from granting a proxy that's good for, say, five years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 30, 2012 at 11:56 PM Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 at 11:56 PM Mr. Stackpole, there are no proxy votes in this case. They mailed out the original yes/no ballot five years ago. The next year they sent out the same ballot to the owners that didn't vote yes the first time. Etc., for FIVE YEARS. And they're adding each years votes to get the 75%. We have an attorney on the board that came up with this voting procedure. No, I don't think they're following RONR, but when I plead my case, I would like to know that I am write in saying this is against RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 31, 2012 at 12:07 AM Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 at 12:07 AM Do your bylaws allow absentee voting? That is what you are describing. If not in the bylaws, then they are completely improper. See p. 423 (or p. 408 in the 10th edition.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 31, 2012 at 12:23 AM Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 at 12:23 AM Our bylaws do allow absentee voting for our annual meeting, and in that case a proxy form is mailed out with the notice of the annual meeting.In this incidence, a proxy was not mailed out. What they are doing is pleading with those who did not give a favorable vote the first year every year for five years thereafter until they finally talk 75% of the owners to vote yes. I have never heard of accumulating votes for five years for any purpose in this condo except now to change the bylaws. Heck, I've never heard of accumulating votes for five years for any situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 31, 2012 at 12:38 AM Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 at 12:38 AM The board appears to be allowing people to vote twice, which is obviously another improper action.I'm afraid there is a bit of confusion here -- absentee voting and proxy voting are not at all the same thing and without reading your bylaws carefully none of here can say what is going on for sure. And we are not in the bylaws business here -- RONR is quite enough, thanks.If you anticipate that you mighthave continuing parliamentarydifficulties or problems youmight want to get in touch witha real live professionalparliamentarian in your area(not virtual ones like us)for consultations.Contact either (or both) the ...National Association of Parliamentarians213 South Main St.Independence, MO 64050-3850Phone: 888-627-2929Fax: 816-833-3893; e-mail: hq@NAP2.org <<www.parliamentarians.org>>orAmerican Institute of Parliamentarians550M Ritchie Highway #271Severna Park, MD 21146Phone: 888-664-0428Fax: 410-544-4640e-mail: aip@aipparl.org<<www.aipparl.org>>for a reference or information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 31, 2012 at 12:49 AM Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 at 12:49 AM Thanks for your help. I will check into these references you have given me. I know If I stood before the board and argued this point, which I intend to do, 6 of the 7 would have NO CLUE what RR is nor would they know what the bylaws say.They aren't allowing owners to vote twice. They are just trying to persuade them to vote yes one time, and if it takes five years for them to persuade them and they finally get enough yes votes, then the fifth year they add up all the yes votes and hope they have 75%, then they can change the by laws to say 66 2/3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 31, 2012 at 02:00 AM Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 at 02:00 AM One of the questions to look into is whether the board has the authority to, essentially, hold the polls open for 5 years!The polls are open for only one day in Florida tomorrow -- seems to me that is quite enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 31, 2012 at 02:12 AM Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 at 02:12 AM They aren't allowing owners to vote twice. So all the owners who didn't vote yes five years ago, or four/three/two ..... how did they vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 31, 2012 at 02:56 AM Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 at 02:56 AM Our condominium bylaws say that we must have a 75% of the vote of the owners to amend the bylaws. The board wants to change this number to 66 2/3%. In order to assure that they get the approval from 75% of the owners, they are accumulating the votes for five years. I say #1, that this is not the proper voting procedure; and #2, it is not fair because an owner could sell their unit and there could be two votes per unit, or more.The bylaws say: At any meeting of the members, the owner of each unit shall be entitled to case one vote of each unit he own, which shall not be cumulative.Can you please give me your interpretation? We do follow RR.The interpretation of your Bylaws is up to your society (see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation), but this is certainly not proper under RONR. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 408-409.One of the questions to look into is whether the board has the authority to, essentially, hold the polls open for 5 years!Well, that would be an interesting question, but it seems that what is happening is far more problematic. It seems the board is not just keeping the polls open - rather, the polls were closed after the initial vote and are then reopened each year, and then only members who did not vote yes are asked if they wish to change their vote (or cast a vote, presumably, for members who had abstained). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted January 31, 2012 at 07:06 AM Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 at 07:06 AM Does the board even have the authority to conduct the vote? Normally, only the general membership has the power to make any decisions regarding votes taken of the general membership, even absentee votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 31, 2012 at 10:13 AM Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 at 10:13 AM And another little question: Were those "old" votes cast via a secret ballot? If so how does the board know who didn't vote "Yes", &c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted January 31, 2012 at 12:52 PM Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 at 12:52 PM The polls are open for only one day in Florida tomorrow -- seems to me that is quite enough!Actually, you can vote in Florida beginning ten days before election day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 31, 2012 at 02:55 PM Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 at 02:55 PM Right, I forgot about that. Still 10 or 11 days is a tad more reasonable than five years, and you can bet that "operatives" for the losers won't come knocking on the doors of nonvoters to get them to go vote -- until next October-November, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted January 31, 2012 at 03:34 PM Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 at 03:34 PM Right, I forgot about that. Still 10 or 11 days is a tad more reasonable than five years . . .But that's only a question of degree, not of kind.There is, for example, no inherent time limit when it comes to States ratifying (i.e. voting for) a proposed amendment to the Constitution (and at least one such amendment is still theoretically open for ratification after more than a century).r7XbM4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 31, 2012 at 03:38 PM Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 at 03:38 PM But that's only a question of degree, not of kind.There is, for example, no inherent time limit when it comes to States ratifying (i.e. voting for) a proposed amendment to the Constitution (and at least one such amendment is still theoretically open for ratification after more than a century).r7XbM4None of this has anything whatsoever to do with Robert's Rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.