BOD Election: 4-way tie – FLORIDA

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #377072
    Janet
    Participant
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    An unprecedented event happened during our Annual BOD elections. 10 candidates were running to fill 4 spots. One incumbent BOD
    member decided to ‘retire’ and not seek reelection.

    All three of the incumbents did not receive enough votes to retain their positions. One ‘new’ candidate did receive the highest
    number of votes. Four other candidates all ‘tied’ with the same number of votes. We have 7 BOD members.

    The BOD decided that not until we had a ‘run-off’ election, would the one owner who did win one of the seats, be able to be formally
    ‘recognized’ as a BOD member UNTIL the ‘run-off’ election be held.

    That is going on now. Since ‘secret’ ballots are required, election packages would be sent out via certified mail (2-day) or picked
    up at the Business Office. The Election date established was 15 days from the time of the ‘announcement’ email. Packages were mailed
    out 4 days AFTER the announcement notice (due to a weekend) shortening the TAT for those who are not there and/or live out of state.

    We are now offering a ‘proxy’ voting process which keeps the vote ‘secret’ which will help owners who have not yet received their packages. Seems to be a 2-day turnaround if you live in Florida 5-7 days or more if you are out of state. The BOD is not flexible in moving out the February 3rd election date, but the proxy alternative is a solution.

    Now the question I have is: Should not the person who did win the highest number of votes be recognized as being on the BOD now? Especially in light of one BOD director who ‘retired’ and did not run? ┬áThe Election was held on January 18.

    As always, I value your opinions.

    #377080
    chrstphr58
    Participant
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    The situation you’ve described involves a unique set of circumstances in your Annual BOD elections. It appears that there’s a need for a runoff election due to tied votes among four candidates and the decision to replace an incumbent BOD member who decided not to seek reelection.

    Regarding the person who received the highest number of votes, it’s not uncommon for different organizations to have specific rules and procedures outlined in their bylaws or governing documents regarding the recognition of elected officials. In some cases, the official recognition may not occur until after any necessary runoff elections have taken place.

    In your specific scenario, the BOD has decided to conduct a runoff election before formally recognizing the winner. This decision might be based on the need to ensure a fair and conclusive outcome, especially considering the tied votes among other candidates. The timing of the runoff election and the utilization of proxy voting to accommodate various circumstances demonstrate an effort to uphold the democratic process.

    While it might seem logical to recognize the candidate with the highest number of votes immediately, the decision to wait until after the runoff election may be guided by the organization’s established procedures. It would be advisable to review your community’s bylaws or governing documents to understand the specific rules governing election processes and the timing of recognizing elected officials.

    If there’s ambiguity or if you believe there are concerns about the fairness of the process, it might be worthwhile to seek clarification from your association’s legal counsel or raise the question at a BOD meeting for further discussion and clarification. The primary goal should be to ensure transparency, fairness, and adherence to the established rules during the election process.

    #377115
    Charles Wright
    Participant
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    The person that had the highest total of votes, should have been placed on the Board that evening unless it presented an even number of Board members, and the rest of the positions determined after another vote. The State does look into election improprieties, you might want to seek their advice, however the fact remains that another vote process is necessary for the other positions.

    #377122
    Janet
    Participant
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Thank you for your reply. Considering one of the BOD members who was up for election opted to ‘retire’ it would make sense to have had
    the newly elected BOD member to assume that position right away. The re-run election is now over and we are awaiting the voting results.
    The process itself was plagued with missteps given a short 15-day turn-around time and issues with members not receiving their ‘2-day’ USPS voting packages after 6 days or more. Sadly, there were ‘potential’ improprieties due to ‘sloppy’ administration. The new proxy statement referred to the original meeting held in January versus the new day/time of when the re-run votes would be counted. Unless you received the new voting package or had attended the original meeting, owners were not made aware of the names of the 4 run-off candidates, which caused confusion with one proxy vote. When asked if that proxy vote had been returned – the response was ‘I don’t know’. Luckily, if the election turns out the way the majority hopes, this issue will be resolved by looking into an on-line voting system.

    #377123
    Janet
    Participant
    Up
    0
    Down
    ::

    Sorry for the late response. I appreciate your comments and insights. Sadly, BOD meetings have not been ‘open’ to owners but with the anticipated results of the re-run election which will be announced today, that will soon change.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
company logo
company logo
company logo
company logo
company logo
company logo
company logo
company logo