Voting and Membership for BoD Eligibility in Bylaws

[Lauriemcg]

According to our current bylaws:

 

Lots held by an administrator, executor, guardian or conservator (hereinafter "representative") may be voted by such representative, either in person or by proxy, without a transfer of such lot into the representative’s name. Lots standing in the name of a trustee may be voted by such trustee, either in person or by proxy, but no trustee shall be entitled to vote lots held without a transfer of such lots into his or her name.

 

I've looked up each of those "representative" types and they make sense to me.  We have a situation where a homeowner has a relative living in the home and she has been given a letter that simply states she can act as his personal representative in matters involving the HOA.  So not a proxy as such. Does this give her "representative" status such that she would not need a proxy form and could act/participate as if she was the homeowner?

 

It is pretty clear that only one or the other can vote, not both.  That isn't the issue at hand. 

 

Where this is going to come up again is when (if) we get the bylaws revised this January, we want to include qualifications in our bylaws for the board of directors, one of which is that the BoD consists members (lot owners, not renters).  Would this entitle her to also be on the BoD if elected?

 

Thanks

Laurie

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Revising your bylaws to remove ambiguities on qualifications for the board of directors seems like a good idea to me.

[Richard Brown]

Laurie, you are asking for what amounts to a legal question and/or an interpretation of your bylaws.  That, unfortunately, is beyond the scope of this forum.  I do agree with Mr. Huynh that removing ambiguities in bylaws is usually a good idea.... just go about it carefully.  Beware "the law of unintended consequences"...  especially when acting hastily!

[Josh Martin]

We have a situation where a homeowner has a relative living in the home and she has been given a letter that simply states she can act as his personal representative in matters involving the HOA. So not a proxy as such. Does this give her "representative" status such that she would not need a proxy form and could act/participate as if she was the homeowner?

It is pretty clear that only one or the other can vote, not both. That isn't the issue at hand.

Where this is going to come up again is when (if) we get the bylaws revised this January, we want to include qualifications in our bylaws for the board of directors, one of which is that the BoD consists members (lot owners, not renters). Would this entitle her to also be on the BoD if elected?

Although you say this is "not a proxy as such," it certainly seems very similar to a proxy, so I would read FAQ #10, paying particular attention to the last sentence.

[Richard Brown]

Although you say this is "not a proxy as such," it certainly seems very similar to a proxy, so I would read FAQ #10, paying particular attention to the last sentence.

I agree with Josh Martin.  It may well be that this document, which perhaps amounts to a power of attorney, also would be valid as a proxy.  It is my understanding that a "proxy" doesn't necessarily have to use the word "proxy" as long as the intent is clear. 

 

I'm going to repeat my earlier statement that this is getting into the area of legal questions and interpretation of your bylaws, both of which are beyond the scope of this forum.

[Lauriemcg]

Laurie, you are asking for what amounts to a legal question and/or an interpretation of your bylaws.  That, unfortunately, is beyond the scope of this forum.  I do agree with Mr. Huynh that removing ambiguities in bylaws is usually a good idea.... just go about it carefully.  Beware "the law of unintended consequences"...  especially when acting hastily!

 

Right, I understand this is not the place to seek legal advice, so if I have slipped over in my questions into that realm, my  apologies.  I'm only looking for sound guidance in RONR to build our base from if it speaks to these questions.

 

Thanks

Laurie

[Gary c Tesser]

Right, I understand this is not the place to seek legal advice, so if I have slipped over in my questions into that realm, my  apologies.  I'm only looking for sound guidance in RONR to build our base from if it speaks to these questions.

 

Thanks

Laurie

 

I'm confident that Richard Brown was not rebuking you.  There is no crime in asking.  And, as the saying goes, if you don't make occasional mistakes, you're playing it too safe. Carpe diem (or, as it is expressed on restaurant menus, "Fish of the Day"), Laurie  McG you puissant paladin, you.

[Richard Brown]

I'm confident that Richard Brown was not rebuking you.  There is no crime in asking.  And, as the saying goes, if you don't make occasional mistakes, you're playing it too safe. Carpe diem (or, as it is expressed on restaurant menus, "Fish of the Day"), Laurie  McG you puissant paladin, you.

Richard Brown was definitely not rebuking Laurie!!!!   I was just pointing out something that many guests and new members don't understand:   Legal advice and interpretation of bylaws (with certain exceptions) is outside the scope of this forum.  As much as we would sometimes like to do it, we try not to "go there".

[Lauriemcg]

Thanks all.  And I don't think I took it as a rebuke as much as a cautionary reminder   I've already picked up good info and fully plan on visiting and asking more questions as I go. 

 

Thanks all! 

 

Laurie