Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

bylaws


robert conway

Recommended Posts

Board want's to change bylaws on quorum from 51% to 35% because they always miss 51% by 5-6 votes, they say.

Problem has been the board has not appointed a Teller Chairmen.

The Board now wants to send a mail in ballot to all HOA members to vote on these changes. Fine! We need 67% to pass any bylaw change.

However, the 90 day voting period ending March, 31,2011 does not have a chairmen of Tellers in place.

And ballots are opened at random until the end of balloting by mgr co.

RONR...Help...Marly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Board want's to change bylaws on quorum from 51% to 35% because they always miss 51% by 5-6 votes, they say.

Problem has been the board has not appointed a Teller Chairmen.

Huh? :huh:

Why is this the problem?

And what has the quorum got to do with the rest of your problem?

The Board now wants to send a mail in ballot to all HOA members to vote on these changes.

Fine! We need 67% to pass any bylaw change.

If you say so. :huh:

However, the 90 day voting period ending March, 31,2011 does not have a chairmen of Tellers in place.

And ballots are opened at random until the end of balloting by mgr co.

Oh? At random? :o

THAT is your real problem, it seems to me.

You've got to stop your "mgr co" immediately. He is tainting your election!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh? At random? :o

THAT is your real problem, it seems to me.

Help me understand please why this is a problem. If the ballots were all filled out at the meeting and dropped in a bucket, the tellers would take them out in no special order (not alphabetical by member name, not in order of collection, etc) which would in effect be "at random." So why is this a problem? I'm not disputing your claim, just trying to understand what the problem is, and how it should then be corrected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Board want's to change bylaws on quorum from 51% to 35% because they always miss 51% by 5-6 votes, they say.

I don't understand what you mean. Quorum is based on the number of members present, not the number of votes.

Problem has been the board has not appointed a Teller Chairmen.

Do you mean that there are tellers, but simply no chairman appointed by the board? That's not really a problem. The tellers' committee can simply elect its own chairman.

The Board now wants to send a mail in ballot to all HOA members to vote on these changes.

Do your Bylaws allow for mail voting?

However, the 90 day voting period ending March, 31,2011 does not have a chairmen of Tellers in place.

Well, it seems to me there's plenty of time for either the board or the tellers' committee to elect a chairman.

And ballots are opened at random until the end of balloting by mgr co.

This sounds like a bigger problem to me. Ballots shouldn't be opened or counted until all ballots have been received.

So why is this a problem? I'm not disputing your claim, just trying to understand what the problem is, and how it should then be corrected?

Mail ballots work a little differently. If the ballots are being counted as they come in, it's very likely that the secrecy of the ballots will be compromised. The "at random" part also seems to raise the potential for fraud, as a "random" process would likely not include the systematic cross-checking against the membership list. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 410-411 for the "double-envelope" method which should be used for a mail ballot.

Your analogy is also somewhat flawed. If the tellers' committee started opening ballots before balloting was completed in a vote at a meeting, I would consider that a problem as well. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mail ballots work a little differently. If the ballots are being counted as they come in, it's very likely that the secrecy of the ballots will be compromised. The "at random" part also seems to raise the potential for fraud, as a "random" process would likely not include the systematic cross-checking against the membership list. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 410-411 for the "double-envelope" method which should be used for a mail ballot.

Your analogy is also somewhat flawed. If the tellers' committee started opening ballots before balloting was completed in a vote at a meeting, I would consider that a problem as well. :)

Josh, thanks. I can see counting votes before they are all in as a problem, yes, and it does seem that might be what marly implied by "And ballots are opened at random until the end of balloting..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? :huh:

Why is this the problem?

And what has the quorum got to do with the rest of your problem?

If you say so. :huh:

Oh? At random? :o

THAT is your real problem, it seems to me.

You've got to stop your "mgr co" immediately. He is tainting your election!

Written ballot, is in by-laws for changing by-laws only needing 67% of voting members.

At random was poor choice of words. Ballots are opened by Managment Co as recieved, not at the end of the baloting period by appointed tellers as it should be. Marly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you mean. Quorum is based on the number of members present, not the number of votes. We aloww proxy voting at General meeting.

Do you mean that there are tellers, but simply no chairman appointed by the board? That's not really a problem. The tellers' committee can simply elect its own chairman. No Teller's at present

Do your Bylaws allow for mail voting? YES.

Well, it seems to me there's plenty of time for either the board or the tellers' committee to elect a chairman. We do not have aTeller's committee.

This sounds like a bigger problem to me. Ballots shouldn't be opened or counted until all ballots have been received. Or the after the end of Voting period.

Mail ballots work a little differently. If the ballots are being counted as they come in, it's very likely that the secrecy of the ballots will be compromised. The "at random" part also seems to raise the potential for fraud, as a "random" process would likely not include the systematic cross-checking against the membership list. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 410-411 for the "double-envelope" method which should be used for a mail ballot. Secrecy is not a problem the method of opening ballots b/4 end of voting by a management Company is. And yes the "double envelope" method should be used...I would think...marly

Your analogy is also somewhat flawed. If the tellers' committee started opening ballots before balloting was completed in a vote at a meeting, I would consider that a problem as well. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Help me understand please why this is a problem. If the ballots were all filled out at the meeting and dropped in a bucket, the tellers would take them out in no special order (not alphabetical by member name, not in order of collection, etc) which would in effect be "at random." So why is this a problem? I'm not disputing your claim, just trying to understand what the problem is, and how it should then be corrected?

Ballots are going to be mailed in. As in the past the ballots will be opened as recieved at managment office. So in effect the board members will have access to that information b/4 voting deadline. marly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...