Post by BagLady on Nov 24, 2013 5:00:17 GMT -5
When someone makes an obvious and drastically inaccurate statement, I always assume the inaccuracy is "global" and perhaps even fiction spewed by the Queen of Disinformation for self-serving purposes.
The inaccurate statement was: "The Florida homeowner statute controls how elections are run".
This is absolutely UNTRUE. According to FS720.306:
(9)(a) ELECTIONS AND BOARD VACANCIES.—Elections of directors must be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the governing documents of the association.
Despite its recent history of inserting its agenda in HOA business (Ex: fines), Florida's homeowner law defers to the HOA documents--entirely!
This is both good and bad news. Our governing documents have been seriously tampered with by past managers and directors. The current conduct of elections bears little resemblance to the LAW adopted and described in our Redbook before board-desired edits were published. I have previously ranted on this subject and it really ticks me off that one of the very few remedies available to owners to exercise their will has been altered beyond recognition.
The only thing I can think of to add is that I did leave out one point in my rant--one of the effects of changing the two year term to a three year term, which proposal failed the 2007 ballot. This resulted in a staggering of terms, where you have directors serving out 2 year terms and now the initiation of (illegal) 3 year terms. The outcome was a fictitious creation of terms--3 year and 1 year terms.
By passive repetition and pattern, this unlawful practice continues uncH allenged.
This is totally illegal according to our own documents. SLohA has two year terms ONLY. Only by sequencing terms to run in the same time frame can owners reelect a new board and replace undesirable directors with a quorum of new directors.
Beware: Owners will be cautioned against this for various reasons. Management companies would have owners believe that you Must Have Seasoned incumbents on the board. You can believe that if you wish, but I do not. In reality, Management Companies do not want to groom new people to fall into line or risk getting....<gasp>...people who might question the status quo! In the final analysis, these protestations do not matter--at some point--there must be respect for the LAW. Obey it or lawfully change it, but don't make a mockery of it.
Here is the point: by staggering terms, it is virtually impossible for owners to seat a new quorum of board directors. The opportunity presented itself two years ago due to a fluke of timing. Incredibly, even the most popular candidate was mysteriously defeated.
Electing less than a quorum is problematic on many levels; the incumbent board majority can remove directors, sideline them or just make life so miserable that directors quit. They then appoint cronies, thereby perpetuating its control over all association business. We saw an example of this kind of hostile board behavior at the 2011-12 "Meet the Candidates" meeting (which was subsequently renamed "Beat the Candidates"). The sitting board (most of whom continue to serve) publicly orchestrated a gutless and ruthless attack on candidates while a Management Company employee lurked in the audience. This was a ugly warning to all participating or watching.
In the end, it didn't matter. They could have skipped the drama. By having control over the Ballot box, the Board controlled the election outcome.
The inaccurate statement was: "The Florida homeowner statute controls how elections are run".
This is absolutely UNTRUE. According to FS720.306:
(9)(a) ELECTIONS AND BOARD VACANCIES.—Elections of directors must be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the governing documents of the association.
Despite its recent history of inserting its agenda in HOA business (Ex: fines), Florida's homeowner law defers to the HOA documents--entirely!
This is both good and bad news. Our governing documents have been seriously tampered with by past managers and directors. The current conduct of elections bears little resemblance to the LAW adopted and described in our Redbook before board-desired edits were published. I have previously ranted on this subject and it really ticks me off that one of the very few remedies available to owners to exercise their will has been altered beyond recognition.
The only thing I can think of to add is that I did leave out one point in my rant--one of the effects of changing the two year term to a three year term, which proposal failed the 2007 ballot. This resulted in a staggering of terms, where you have directors serving out 2 year terms and now the initiation of (illegal) 3 year terms. The outcome was a fictitious creation of terms--3 year and 1 year terms.
By passive repetition and pattern, this unlawful practice continues uncH allenged.
This is totally illegal according to our own documents. SLohA has two year terms ONLY. Only by sequencing terms to run in the same time frame can owners reelect a new board and replace undesirable directors with a quorum of new directors.
Beware: Owners will be cautioned against this for various reasons. Management companies would have owners believe that you Must Have Seasoned incumbents on the board. You can believe that if you wish, but I do not. In reality, Management Companies do not want to groom new people to fall into line or risk getting....<gasp>...people who might question the status quo! In the final analysis, these protestations do not matter--at some point--there must be respect for the LAW. Obey it or lawfully change it, but don't make a mockery of it.
Here is the point: by staggering terms, it is virtually impossible for owners to seat a new quorum of board directors. The opportunity presented itself two years ago due to a fluke of timing. Incredibly, even the most popular candidate was mysteriously defeated.
Electing less than a quorum is problematic on many levels; the incumbent board majority can remove directors, sideline them or just make life so miserable that directors quit. They then appoint cronies, thereby perpetuating its control over all association business. We saw an example of this kind of hostile board behavior at the 2011-12 "Meet the Candidates" meeting (which was subsequently renamed "Beat the Candidates"). The sitting board (most of whom continue to serve) publicly orchestrated a gutless and ruthless attack on candidates while a Management Company employee lurked in the audience. This was a ugly warning to all participating or watching.
In the end, it didn't matter. They could have skipped the drama. By having control over the Ballot box, the Board controlled the election outcome.
