UPDATE - Current un-elected Directors deciding YOUR VOTE WON'T MATTER
On Wed., Feb 12th Special Board meeting, current Directors are stating that voting isn't by membership and Directors are automatically on the Board simply because they are unopposed. This means membership votes don't matter.
If there are 100 residents who vote on a candidate, and 1 resident says Yes and 99 say NO, that candidate is on the Board because of this 1 vote. The current un-elected Directors believe they cannot be voted out or "not ratified" by the membership. Hence only current Directors are controlling who is on the Board.
Does this sound like a fair voting system we've had in place for 40+ years?
The current Directors are missing the point that being unopposed doesn't preclude a mechanism for removing them through a vote of No confidence if a greater number of members vote against them at an Annual meeting.
Speak UP - Blog a comment
Bylaw section 6.6 state: "New Directors shall be elected by the Association members at the annual meeting,..."
Bylaw section 6.6 state: "Directors shall be elected by a plurality of votes cast by the members."
Bylaw Section 6.6 uses the word "plurality" instead of "majority" in the election of directors. This is an important distinction. A plurality means that the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they don't receive more than 50% of the total votes cast. This is different from a majority, where a candidate must receive more than 50% of the votes to be elected.
While a plurality determines the initial election, it's important to note that this doesn't preclude a mechanism for removing a director through a vote of no confidence if a greater number of members vote against them. The use of "plurality" for election simply means the person with the most votes wins the seat, but they are still accountable to the membership and can be removed if sufficient opposition exists at the Annual meeting.
Bylaws vs. Practice: The bylaws clearly state that "Directors shall be elected by a plurality of votes cast by the members." This means the person with the most votes wins,but it doesn't mean a person cannot be voted out. However, the Board is claiming that unopposed candidates are automatically elected, regardless of the actual vote count.
Disenfranchisement: This interpretation effectively disenfranchises the members. Even if a candidate receives overwhelming "No" votes, they can still win with a single "Yes" vote if they are unopposed. This makes member input meaningless.
Board Control: This un-opposed idea allows the Board to control who is on the Board, rather than the members. This undermines the democratic principles of the organization.
A plurality vote is a voting system in which the candidate or options with the most votes wins, regardless of whether they achieve an absolute majority, i.e., more than 50% of the total votes. In a plurality vote, the winner is simply the candidate who receives more votes than any other candidate, even if their share of the total votes is less than 50%. This system is best used when the team is choosing from among two or more options.
A plurality vote bears some similarities to a majority vote, but there’s one crucial difference between the two systems: In a majority vote, the winning option must secure at least 50% of the votes to be verified. Majority voting works best when you have an uneven number of board members.
Directors that have not been duly voted on by the membership
VOTE NO
Jim Stewart
Eric Faulring
Charles Ewing
Kathleen McCaughy
Stan Davis
Phil Krehbiel
Terry Walker
Larry Dragan
VOTE YES
Heidi Komkov
Cathy Yandell
Anderson Kressy
Larry Layne
Other Directors
Randy Tripp
Claudia Mitchell
Arthur Romero
Martin Kirk
VOTE NO for these reasons
The Directors continue with non-transparent intentions and withhold information. Click workshop campaign.
Directors have stated they work to protect the corporation, SHHA, not the residents.
At Board meetings, Directors ignore and will not communication with residents.
The Directors for the past year have conducted business without being voted in.
The Directors are maneuvering around the NM HOA Act in defiance. DIRECTORS KNOW SHHA is NOT an HOA. They have refused to provide independent legal opinions and skirt around the truth.
Directors state “our neighborhoods will fall apart if we don’t have SHHA”. There is no data to show a “growing trend” of violations.
Board members abuse position to police the neighbor and send reminders of the covenants, instead of actual complaints and following their own process.
Executive committee, a standing committee, does not to keep minutes. This is not the executive session which is different.
The collective actions are out of line with the spirit of Sandia Heights history and residents.