Heard! Can you help me understand what does happen in a Special Meeting when we are still going with a virtual format for all things meeting related?

Rhonda,

First I’m not familiar with the Vote HOA program who built it or who operates it. I’ll just say this that there is noting in statute that allows any HOA or condominium or HOA to use an on-line vote counting system. While there is for non-profit corporations The section in law that allows that is specifically called out as not applicable to these communities. I would never trust any on-line system for HOA voting. Especially if it is operated or created by any community manager. Demand an absentee paper ballot. While the law states specifically that association must conduct all votes by in person or absentee ballot or “other form of delivery like fax and email” this is to allow for the electronic transmittal of hard copy ballots by the association or homeowner. The association attorneys and community manager have distorted the law and claimed that “other forms of delivery” is a blank check to use whatever they want. Including on-line systems without any security and where the association or community manager can dictate the outcome by adding or removing ballots from the count. Insist that an absentee ballot is provided and get everyone you know to do the same. Even the on-line ballot process specified for non-profit corporation have very specific requirement on those systems. I would suspect that any HOA based on-line system cannot and does not comply with those requirements.

Virtual meetings cannot be stopped at least for now, they by their nature limit the voting to absentee ballots. The ballot must contain a yes or no for each individual, if it does not it is invalid and directly violates the law. The majority of all votes cast for any individual determines the outcome.

If the association deviates in any way from this process the election is invalid.

Dennis

Dennis,

Thank you for the response. When something is so unambiguous such as the wording in ARS 33-1248 I find it difficult to understand the issues that arise such as the circumstances I have previously noted. I believe in this case the community manager is acting as a gatekeeper without complete knowledge of the laws governing HOA open meetings.

Today I will respond to her email and encourage her to put this information that I sent to her before the BOD who shoulder the responsibility for the actions.

Considering the fact that closed sessions seem to be common in most condo communities I feel that the transparency required by the open & closed meeting statute is critical.

Dennis, if this situation ultimately goes unaddressed by the BOD, in your opinion would this be worth pursuing and attempting to correct via the AZ OAH. I’m hoping this won’t be the case however I believe strongly that this or any BOD needs to comply with the law especially within this area of open meetings.

Thanks again,

Bob

Barbara,

Which recent ruling?

Dennis

Robert,

You are exactly correct another incompetent community manager has never bothered to actually read the law. I say this with authority because I put that exact provision into statute. While they have satisfied the notice for the closed session. they still have to identify what exact exception to the open meeting law authorizes the proposed discussion to be had in this closed session. Only 5 options and one of those 5 is only if specifically requested by the unit owner.

Dennis

Thank you. It’s been corrected! One minor scrimmage in an ongoing battle!

Mike,

The association has no power to do this unless it is contained in the governing documents. While most have such a provision in their CC&R’s and Bylaws for some this may be specified only in the bylaws. For those later cases, it would depend on the specific language of the CC&R’s for such a provision to be valid and legal.
This requirement is common for all of these communities, some also add the requirement to have no outstanding violations.

Dennis

Dennis,

Thanks again for your response. I agree with your approach regarding total transparency, however in my opinion in the real world for comparison, that is just the starting point to effect change. I am not a board member however as previously noted we are now dealing with a very complacent BOD who have convinced a majority of the members that they will do little to enforce our governing docs. This struggle in our small association has been going on consistently for many many years.

Thankfully we do have the AZ Office of Administrative Hearings to hear and address serious issues when the BOD is negligent or simply will not perform their duty and obligation. Luckily, as you know “”with cause” is critical to those cases as it should be. I do respect your opinion even though we don’t agree totally regarding this issue.

Bob

Dennis, thanks again for the information. I am not familiar with how to address these issues with LD representatives however I will look into it for sure.

In my opinion one of the biggest issues in our governing documents and common in most is the ability to remove a board member or all board members with or without cause. With cause makes perfect sense based on standard fundamentals of enforcement through out most of society. Without cause is ridiculous and doesn’t make any sense in the real world.

My first submission on this forum alludes to the current BOD who are doing little to nothing without a few members strongly confronting them in regular board meetings in regards to performing their duty and obligations to our relatively small association. Add into that mix a management company that is also misleading the board with their own version on how to run an HOA.

This all came as a result of the previous 3 BOD’s who were performing the duties of a responsible HOA board correctly being removed without cause. A few association members who dislike HOA in general solicited and misrepresented information in order to gain a majority vote to remove the entire board. In short Dennis, there is no defense for “without cause”. So now we combat complacency with a board of directors all because “without cause” exist in the ARS as well as our governing docs. The question one would have to ask themselves, why would good intentioned individuals want to serve on an association board when they can easily be removed without cause. If the law and governing documents provided “with cause” now board members would have an opportunity to defend and stand up for themselves. When a board member (s)
is removed it should be for a reason that can be defined by our governing docs or ARS statutes. As our association just proved good people willing to serve on a board and perform that duty in accordance with our governing docs and state statues are in no way protected from frivolous actions from association members who simply don’t want to be governed. There is something very wrong with that concept.

Thanks