Two Open Board Positions for Annual HOA Election - Only One Candidate on Ballot, Other Write-In space available

[Guest J. Webb]

The Annual HOA election had two open Board positions, however only One Candidate on the Ballot and a space for One Write-in candidate.  At the beginning of the election meeting, the Community Manager who ran the election process, stated a quorum was present including the proxy ballots and those present.  He stated one candidate was on the ballot and asked twice for any nominations from the floor, hearing none he moved to close the election.  Since only one candidate was on the ballot, the Community Manager, immediately announced the candidate on the ballot had won.  The HOA President asked if the Community Manager had any additional comments.  He responded no.  The HOA President stated the same evening, that since a second board member wasn't elected by the evenings voting, the Board will appoint a person to the position.  The person the board selected would be made known at a later date when the board met to determine their appointee.

No review or counting of ballots the evening of the election by the Community Manager or his staff.  A day or so later, the Community Manager or his assistant, reviewed all the ballots submitted and found one write-in candidate had been submitted.  There was no final call for ballots, but residents in attendance were encouraged to turn in their ballots during the election meeting.  Upon review, the Community Manager apparently contacted the President of the HOA to determine what to do with the one write-in candidate?  We (Homeowers) found out the resident who submitted the one write-in candidate did not attend the election meeting as he had submitted his ballot as a proxy vote.  No one at the Election meeting knew a write-in candidate had been submitted since the Community Manager did not tabulate the ballots that night.  For a write-in candidate in our HOA to be elected he must be willing to accept the board position. 

No communication to the Homeowner's was made by the HOA President nor the Community Manager to alert them one write-in candidate was submitted and new elections were not planned until more than five weeks after the first election.  Neither the HOA President or Community Manager immediately after the election, contacted the write-in candidate to ask if he would accept the board position and thereby be the second board member elected.  Instead the HOA President and Community Manager sawt legal counsel to attempt to invalidate the write-in candidate's election.  Only after a few residents were made aware of the properly submitted write-in candidate did a resident ask why the write-in candidate was considered ineligible.  A quorum of votes was present the first time.  It appears the HOA President and Community Manager colluded together to create a second election to cover-up the Community Manager's mistakes in handling the election process by not counting the all ballots submitted on election night.  Also the HOA President should have asked the one write-in candidate the day after the election, if he was willing to accept the board position.

A second election has been scheduled seven weeks after the first election for the single open board position with only write-in candidates accepted.  I believe the first election should count regardless of the legal advice the board received.  The Board's only legal excuse was "there may have been other ballots with write-in candidates that were not turned in since there was no final call for ballots at the meeting."

What are your thoughts?

 

[Joshua Katz]

On 1/3/2024 at 1:53 PM, Guest J. Webb said:

The HOA President stated the same evening, that since a second board member wasn't elected by the evenings voting, the Board will appoint a person to the position.

Is this from your bylaws? In RONR this is an incomplete election, not a vacancy, and in any event, vacancies are filled by the body doing the electing. Unless your rules say otherwise.

On 1/3/2024 at 1:53 PM, Guest J. Webb said:

Neither the HOA President or Community Manager immediately after the election, contacted the write-in candidate to ask if he would accept the board position and thereby be the second board member elected.

The write-in was not elected. He had 1 vote, which is less than a majority (if I understand the facts correctly). 

[Josh Martin]

On 1/3/2024 at 12:53 PM, Guest J. Webb said:

The Annual HOA election had two open Board positions, however only One Candidate on the Ballot and a space for One Write-in candidate.  At the beginning of the election meeting, the Community Manager who ran the election process, stated a quorum was present including the proxy ballots and those present.  He stated one candidate was on the ballot and asked twice for any nominations from the floor, hearing none he moved to close the election.  Since only one candidate was on the ballot, the Community Manager, immediately announced the candidate on the ballot had won.  The HOA President asked if the Community Manager had any additional comments.  He responded no.  The HOA President stated the same evening, that since a second board member wasn't elected by the evenings voting, the Board will appoint a person to the position.  The person the board selected would be made known at a later date when the board met to determine their appointee.

Well, what should have been done is the ballots should have been collected and actually counted. Had this been done, the chair would have (presumably) announced that the one candidate on the ballot had received a majority of the ballots cast, and the one write-in candidate did not. Another round of voting would then be held for that position. Eventually, someone would be elected who may (or may not) have been this candidate.

Since this was not done, the society has a bit of a mess on its hands now.

On 1/3/2024 at 12:53 PM, Guest J. Webb said:

A second election has been scheduled seven weeks after the first election for the single open board position with only write-in candidates accepted.  I believe the first election should count regardless of the legal advice the board received.  The Board's only legal excuse was "there may have been other ballots with write-in candidates that were not turned in since there was no final call for ballots at the meeting."

I think the board is correct that since the President essentially cut short the election, the results should be viewed with some skepticism. But even ignoring that issue, the person who received one vote was not elected, unless your bylaws provide for election by plurality. RONR requires a majority vote for election. What should have been done was to hold a second round of voting - which is (albeit much delayed) happening now.

"In an election of members of a board or committee in which votes are cast in one section of the ballot for multiple positions on the board or committee, every ballot with a vote in that section for one or more candidates is counted as one vote cast, and a candidate must receive a majority of the total of such votes to be elected... Similarly, if the number of candidates receiving the necessary majority vote is less than the number of positions to be filled, those who have a majority are declared elected, and all other nominees remain as candidates on the next ballot." RONR (12th ed.) 46:33

[Guest J. Webb]

Thank you to all the contributors!  I think this is a mess!  We do operate with RONR and require a majority vote. 

However, shouldn't the second election require Three lines on the ballot: 1) The one person, the write-in candidate's name listed (who was voted on in the first election) now be listed and identified by name as a Candidate, 2) provide a line for other "Write-in candidates" and 3) a line "To Be Cast for Quorum Purposes Only."  The second ballot only has the last two lines listed.  Isn't the reason for a second election is to vote on the first named write-in candidate and any other new write-in candidates?  Help!

The second election ballot doesn't identify by name nor has the President or Board communicated/identified in any way to the residents, the one person (winner) of the one write-in vote from the first election.  All the second ballot shows is a line for: Only One Write-In candidate and a line to choose "To Be Cast for Quorum Purposes Only."  By not identifying or communicating the winner of the first write-in vote to the community on the ballot, the President can now campaign (in the neighborhood) for his own candidate and has omitted from the ballot the other candidate's name who got the one vote the first time.

Is this prejudicial ballot tampering by not listing the one write-in candidate's name and not providing another line for any new write-in candidates?

Your thoughts?

[Joshua Katz]

On 1/4/2024 at 2:00 PM, Guest J. Webb said:

However, shouldn't the second election require Three lines on the ballot: 1) The one person, the write-in candidate's name listed (who was voted on in the first election) now be listed and identified by name as a Candidate, 2) provide a line for other "Write-in candidates" and 3) a line "To Be Cast for Quorum Purposes Only."  The second ballot only has the last two lines listed.  Isn't the reason for a second election is to vote on the first named write-in candidate and any other new write-in candidates?  Help!

 

No. C was never on the ballot, and isn't on it now (unless there's a motion to reopen nominations) and 3 isn't a thing. It should just give space for a write-in. 

[Josh Martin]

On 1/4/2024 at 1:00 PM, Guest J. Webb said:

However, shouldn't the second election require Three lines on the ballot: 1) The one person, the write-in candidate's name listed (who was voted on in the first election) now be listed and identified by name as a Candidate, 2) provide a line for other "Write-in candidates" and 3) a line "To Be Cast for Quorum Purposes Only."  The second ballot only has the last two lines listed.  Isn't the reason for a second election is to vote on the first named write-in candidate and any other new write-in candidates?  Help!

There should be a line for write-in candidates, yes, and it sounds like there is.

There is no requirement to print an individual's name on the ballot on the grounds that person received write-in votes previously.

The part about "To Be Cast for Quorum Purposes Only" sounds like a question about applicable law and proxies, not RONR. In Robert's Rules, the only way to count toward a quorum is to actually be present. But I understand this is a thing in organizations with proxies.

On 1/4/2024 at 1:00 PM, Guest J. Webb said:

The second election ballot doesn't identify by name nor has the President or Board communicated/identified in any way to the residents, the one person (winner) of the one write-in vote from the first election.  All the second ballot shows is a line for: Only One Write-In candidate and a line to choose "To Be Cast for Quorum Purposes Only."  By not identifying or communicating the winner of the first write-in vote to the community on the ballot, the President can now campaign (in the neighborhood) for his own candidate and has omitted from the ballot the other candidate's name who got the one vote the first time.

First off, this person didn't "win" the first vote.

It's correct that the President - and anyone else - can campaign for their preferred candidate. That's democracy.

On 1/4/2024 at 1:00 PM, Guest J. Webb said:

Is this prejudicial ballot tampering by not listing the one write-in candidate's name and not providing another line for any new write-in candidates?

No. As I understand the facts, there are no nominees for this office. Everyone is a write-in candidate. And there is only one position. So a single write-in line is entirely appropriate.

Edited January 4, 2024 at 07:27 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

What are my thoughts about what?

[Guest J. Webb]

To all contributors ...... Thank You!!  I'm just trying to be sure we're following correct voting procedures according to Robert's Rules.  I appreciate you taking time to to respond and educate me on the rules!!  

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/5/2024 at 11:21 AM, Guest J. Webb said:

To all contributors ...... Thank You!!  I'm just trying to be sure we're following correct voting procedures according to Robert's Rules.  I appreciate you taking time to to respond and educate me on the rules!!  

I'm assuming that line labeled "To be cast for quorum purposes only" actually a wordy way of voting Present or Abstain, but still counting toward a quorum.  

If this is a correct assumption then by all means count those ballots toward a quorum, but be careful not to count them as "ballots cast" when determining the majority required to elect.  Ballots that do not indicate a preference are ignored, for the purpose of counting votes.

For example, if 49 ballots were returned marked Quorum Only, and one ballot was written in for Juniper Finch, then J.F. is elected unanimously.