proceedure in voting directors of a condo association

[Guest Barbara Kulesia]

We just had an annual Condo meeting. There were two directors up for re- election. When the time arrived to do the elections (we were not allowed to nominate anyone prior to the meeting) nominations were taken from the floor, there were two addition person nominated along with the two up for re election. At that time the ballots were distributed to the member, there was a quorum present. At the time of the voting there were 5 board member although the bylaws allow for a total of 7 board of directors. there was no mention of changing the amount of directors. the ballots were handed out and all members voted. two members were selected to count the vote and announce the two highest vote recepents as being the new members of the board. Once the results were read and one of the members that were up for re election had been voted out(this happened to be the president) another board member made the motion since there could be 7 total that the two lessor vote receipents would be added to the board. My question is if this is truly a correct procedure that just because the vote did not re elect the one person that they can change the rules? I believe that the change from 5 to 7 board member s should hve been made before any voting had taken place and the the voting out of one board member should have stood. this just happened and many of the member are not happy and we need to know whom is correct or what is the corrrect proceedure.

[Josh Martin]

We just had an annual Condo meeting. There were two directors up for re- election. When the time arrived to do the elections (we were not allowed to nominate anyone prior to the meeting) nominations were taken from the floor, there were two addition person nominated along with the two up for re election. At that time the ballots were distributed to the member, there was a quorum present. At the time of the voting there were 5 board member although the bylaws allow for a total of 7 board of directors. there was no mention of changing the amount of directors. the ballots were handed out and all members voted. two members were selected to count the vote and announce the two highest vote recepents as being the new members of the board. Once the results were read and one of the members that were up for re election had been voted out(this happened to be the president) another board member made the motion since there could be 7 total that the two lessor vote receipents would be added to the board. My question is if this is truly a correct procedure that just because the vote did not re elect the one person that they can change the rules? I believe that the change from 5 to 7 board member s should hve been made before any voting had taken place and the the voting out of one board member should have stood. this just happened and many of the member are not happy and we need to know whom is correct or what is the corrrect proceedure.

I'm a little unclear on some of the details here (such as whether there were only five directors because of vacancies or because there is a weird "variable" number of directors in the Bylaws), but it does not appear to me that any potential violations would cause a continuing breach, unless the Bylaws require a ballot vote for elections.

[hmtcastle]

the bylaws allow for a total of 7 board of directors . . . I believe that the change from 5 to 7 board member s should have been made before any voting had taken place

If the bylaws authorize a seven-member board then there's no need to change anything in order to elect seven members. Why you only had five members (custom? lack of volunteers?) is irrelevant.

And it's best not to think in terms of a member as being "up for re-election" or in terms of "voting a member out". Think in terms of open seats that need to be filled. They might be re-filled by the same person who had been sitting there or it might be a different person.

It does sound like there may have been some irregularities in the election process but, as Mr. Martin indicates, they may not have been serious enough to constitute what's called a "continuing breach" of the rules. In other words, you would have had to make an objection during the flawed election process.