With 73% of all votes cast supporting the Creek nine renovation, the property owners of Big Canoe have now spoken. While recognizing that a robust debate of the pros and cons of any important issue that affects our community is both necessary and vital to the informed decision making process, it is also acknowledged that once that vote is cast, we come together and move forward as the project becomes a reality.
And now with such a large approval margin, the results can be isolated from the manner in which the recent ballot procedure was conducted that conditioned any member’s vote on the simultaneous agreement to also lower the quorum from 35% to the minimum floor of 25%. (1) Given publication of recent correspondence from the Association’s attorney, it now appears this procedure was initiated by the board with the attorney’s guidance. Whether in counsel’s opinion, it was mandated or simply offered as an alternative to justify an end result will never be known.
While the POA president defended the legality of the ballot information, he also graciously noted that leadership would make the wording of future votes “easier to understand and less confusing.” (2) It is assumed that the president’s promise will include the opportunity for each property owner to cast a yes or no vote regarding the lowering of the quorum on any ballots that are presented in the future.
All for naught . . .
But honestly, given the high level of participation (quorum) in recent ballots, (64% in this ballot and 49% in the February 2020 election), it is interesting that leadership even sought to ensure a quorum by using such drastic measures.
Non-responses from “Ask the POA” . . .
Meanwhile, during the ballot process, a number of questions were addressed to AskThePOA by this writer with many receiving no response. Particularly, pursuant to section 2.6 of the bylaws requiring the production of a list detailing the number and types of votes held by members, a request was submitted on September 27th. AskThePOATicket#1516 (3) And although a bizarre, disconnected response was provided by the general manager on October 5th that appeared to address some other property owner’s questions AskThePOAReplyToTicket#1516 (4), no response has ever been received to this writer’s questions even after submitting a followup/second request.
Please just answer the questions . . .
It is perplexing that management would refuse to respond to these inquiries. What possible reason could leadership or management have for failing to provide this basic information regarding voting rights that is required by both our bylaws and Georgia code? Perhaps some other property owner would be more successful at obtaining a response to these important questions. Most particularly,
-
- How many possible votes (type D) does the developer have as of August 31, 2020?
For historical reference, prior to the 2004 transition documents, the developer was “entitled to the same number of votes as cumulatively held by all Type “A”, “B” and “C” Members plus one”. (5) At the 2004 transition, the developer surrendered the right to a super majority vote. (6) Beyond that amended covenant, no documentation of any Type D voting rights can be found in the governing documents. So,
-
- At the time of the transition, did the developer relinquish all cumulative votes held plus one or did the developer only relinquish the “plus one”?
This is by no means a foolish or insignificant question. Even more confusing, it is learned that during the time period of the 2019 ballot for a capital contribution fee (withdrawn due to serious error in the ballot language), the developer was “asked to memorialize its surrender of its rights to a super majority vote” so that the surrender could be recorded in the public records of Pickens and Dawson counties. ActionInWriting (7) Why this action was requested fifteen years later when that surrender was already documented and recorded in the 2004 amended covenants is unknown.
-
- And does the board have voting power for any non-common property (lots, raw land, commercial, etc.) presently owned by the POA? If so, have those votes ever been cast in any ballot?
Believe it or not, these questions have circled about the community for some time without any concise and authoritative answer having ever been provided. Why not provide the answers and move on?
Let’s clear this up going forward . . .
As members of this Association, rights are much more limited than one might expect or imagine. With a developer in existence for almost fifty years wielding significant powers and rights not fully understood by all property owners, and few member specific protections, it is important that whatever rights we do have be cherished and not allowed to be removed, diluted or misinterpreted by any overzealous board or arguably questionable legal advice.
With more ballots on the horizon, it is assumed that this recent maneuver conditioning each member’s vote on an agreement to lower the quorum will never be repeated. Likewise, information regarding the voting rights of any type or class of member, particularly the developer or the board, should be freely and openly shared.
All that said, perhaps leadership and the community can make it through the next ballot process without unnecessary drama, passing blame, apology letters from our accountants (8) and unpleasant letters from the POA attorney.
. . . . .
Please feel free to share your comments on this site regarding these suggestions or 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) Read the fine print please, September 14th, 2020, bcmatters.org
2) Meeting of the Board of Directors Work Session Video, September 17th, 2020 at 7:54. (POAwebsite>login>POA>Meetings>SubscribeToOurYouTube . . .)
4) AskThePOAReplyToTicket#1516
5) Covenants, March 1988, Article III, Section 2
(POAwebsite>login>POA>governingdocuments>covenants>covenants1988)
6) Covenants, 2004 Transition, Article X, Section 2
(POAwebsite>login>POA>governingdocuments>covenants>2004Transition)
7) Action In Writing, Recorded 12/02/2019, Pickens County, Georgia ActionInWriting
8) Eblast from POA Board of Directors, “Auditors Statement Updated”, October 9th, 2020