With the Creek nine ballot package now delivered to members of the community, serious questions have been brought to the attention of this writer regarding the ballot material found in that package. But first, it must be emphasized that whether one is inclined to vote “Yes” or one is inclined to vote “No” for the initiative, the concerns that will be discussed here regarding our governance, for today and for the future, are alarming and demand our attention.
Required quorum of 35% has been reduced to 25% . . .
The first sheet of the ballot package which is signed by the property owner and used to cast the ballot states that at least 25% of the eligible votes must be returned in order for the measure to be deemed valid. (1) BallotPage That actually is not what the bylaws state as both the 2004 and 2006 bylaws at section 2.4 specify that “thirty-five percent (35%) of the eligible votes must be represented either in person or by proxy at the first call of the meeting.” (2) (3) To paraphrase, if that threshold is not achieved, there is a process whereby a majority can vote to adjourn and reconvene within 45 days using a lessor quorum requirement.
However, there is a second sheet included in the ballot package (4) PageTwo that after acknowledging the 35% requirement, goes on to say “if the number of required ballots are not returned by this date, the afore signed Member hereby votes and agrees that the initial meeting shall be deemed adjourned and reconvened on the same date with a new Quorum requirement as follows:” It then repeats the same verbiage using a 30% scenario, and finally repeats the verbiage utilizing a 25% scenario. In other words, the language specifies automatically dropping the quorum requirement from 35% to 30% and finally to 25%.
It is important to recognize that the “afore signed Member” terminology refers to the member’s required signature on the actual ballot page. Therefore, by virtue of casting a vote, each member is also agreeing to reduce the quorum to 25%.
And further, the existence or content of this agreement or the fact that there even is a page two is not referenced anywhere on the signed ballot sheet.
Each property owner’s right to vote is conditioned on their agreement to reduce the quorum to 25% . . .
In other words, we, as property owners, are being denied the right to vote unless we also agree in advance to drop the quorum requirement to 25%.
Is this not a maneuver that circumvents the bylaws (that ordinarily require a 2/3 vote to change) by establishing an automatic 25% quorum? If that were the intent and desire of the property owners when the bylaws were approved, it would have never been necessary to implement the 35% quorum in the beginning.
Further, it is unclear if this tactic has been utilized in the past as even the November 2019 ballot package (seeking to establish a transfer fee that was thrown out due to another serious error in wording) specified a 35% quorum requirement. (5) November2019Ballot Likewise, the 2016 land deal also required a 35% quorum. What has changed since then other than leadership?
And what about our leadership? . .
Did we all really just elect a board tasked to redefine the governing documents at every available turn or is this simply some type of clerical error? And where does legal counsel funded by our assessment dollars stand on this issue? Did they approve this ballot package? And did they approve this wording?
Perhaps the initial 35% quorum requirement will be met. If so, the issue regarding this ballot will be moot, but what about the next ballot? And the one after that? And will this establish precedent?
For the record . . .
This is the third ballot attempt in less than a year to contain serious questions with two having already necessitated a recall. It really is time that leadership got one right. Will this ballot stand as it is? And will we, as property owners, allow our votes to be conditioned now and in the future on some predetermined agreement? Hopefully not.
. . . . .
Please feel free to contact me at thepcrosses@gmail.com for questions or further discussion. Likewise, should you wish to see additional articles posted in the future, please subscribe for an email notification. Meanwhile . . . take care and stay safe.
Patricia Cross (10438 Big Canoe)
References:
1) BallotPage
2) 2004 Second Amended and Restated Bylaws, Article II, Section 2.4
(POAwebsite>login>POA>documentarchive>BoardofDirectors>10-2004BCPOABylaws)
3) 2006 Third Amended and Restated Bylaws, Article II, Section 2.4
(POAwebsite>login>POA>documentarchive>BoardOfDirectors>Big
CanoeBylaws>112006ThirdAmendment
4) BallotPackage, PageTwo