Voting/Electronic Voting

Surfside HOA, Ocean Park, WA.

Many of the members of Surfside HOA feel that a small “Elitist Faction” controls the Board. The Board controls the voting and holds the votes for the Independent Voting company that counts the votes. Some feel that some of those votes are lost or miscounted. Some have proposed electronic voting in a manner that all could see the results and the results could be audited. Deb Blagg proposed a software program that cost less than $1000 per year that could achieve this. What would you suggest as a solution to this problem?

12 thoughts on “Voting/Electronic Voting

  1. Surfside is under WA RCW 64.38. WA RCW 64.38 does not state any requirements for an Annual Meeting other than at least one is required per year.

  2. When I was in the Surfside Board, I was looking for ways to increase member participation in voting and overall governance. The majority (70-75%) of property owners in Surfside do not reside there full-time. They own vacation homes, RV lots used for seasonal camping and undeveloped lots used primarily for weekend camping. These members are tremendously underrepresented in the elections and on the Board, which is precisely what the full-time minority of residents want.

    The only way to bring about true change in Surfside – such as fair & reasonable covenants, consistency in enforcement, transparency in finances, improved security, etc. – is when the composition of the Board reflects the community. To do this Surfside owners need to take control of the annual meeting (this is a “Member” meeting, not a “Board” meeting as those on the Board would have you believe. The Members should be able to place items on the Agenda, make floor motions, vote and take action without being impeded or blocked by the Board. The Board’s only purpose would be to facilitate the meeting – not manipulate its outcome.

    While electronic voting may help this – it is inexpensive, reliable and effective – Surfside could just as easily switch to 100% mail-in ballots for elections. Members would mail-in their ballots to be tallied in advance of the Annual Meeting. Those who come to the Annual Meeting (or participle online through Zoom or any other meeting software) would immediately find out who the new Board Members are (perhaps even have Members vote for who they want to be their officers).

    As soon as the Board is introduced, the member meeting would commence, facilitated by the Board, but the members would have the primary role of conducting the meeting. Members could make motions and vote on proposed changes to the Governing documents and Restrictive Covenants. The entire membership should not be dominated by a few Board members who represent the minority of full-time owners.

    Mail-in ballots will be effective only if the HOA office and General Manager do a complete update and validation of mailing and email addresses to be sure they are being received by ll members. Each member would receive a ballot and vote for the Board candidates of their choice and simply mail ballots in to an independent 3rd party who would tally votes and present them to the members at the annual meeting. There would’ve no need for proxies in electing the Board.

    Proxies would only be needed for conducting floor business. Members unable to attend would designate in writing any person they choose to be their proxy and represent them at the Annual Meeting. Proxies would be counted along with members in attendance to establish a quorum and vote on any floor motions.

  3. Sometimes, change is slow but I feel this is a start. It’s an electronic ballot of sorts and to me that’s progress and it’s the first one so time will tell if they will continue with these types of voting processes. This is quite possibly a test of sorts, hopefully? I am happy they seem to be trying but am unhappy you felt the need to pick apart my optimism. It’s quite possible the person doesn’t know how to write program for the form and I really don’t care if there’s a “NO” option. Majority should rule in all voting, period. If they don’t get 51% then out it goes.

    I was asked to come join this blog instead of the one moderated by George Miller but I see how this is going to work. Just another naysayer place to land and I’m not about that at all. We the members voted for the BOT so I’m not sure why there’s such fierce discord. I simply am not about finding ways battle my neighbors on opinions and your reply, right from the start, has irritated me.

    >>Heavy sigh<<, guess I'll just go back to minding my own business. I thought this was going to be positive and refuse to hang out anywhere negative. You boys have your fun with blog fighting, I just can't hang……Bye!

    1. Ha. That was cute. I like the “>>Heavy sigh<<". Sorry, but you can't expect people to agree with you when you are saying things that aren't true. The document you are calling an electronic ballot is not a ballot. It is a petition. There is no place to vote on anything, it is a petition. If you fill out the document you are voting in favor of paying a fee for a Sheriff. Linda, it isn't a ballot. If 10 people sign the petition, the HOA will send it to the Sheriffs office and all they can see is that 10 people want it. It has nothing to do with 50% voting.

    1. Linda,

      Thanks for joining HOA-Review and expressing your opinions. We would love to hear you opinions on some of the other topics also.

      If you take a close look at the form on the Surfside, Ocean Park website, you will see that it is not a voting form, it is a petition. This form only allows you to vote FOR having the continued police service that Surfside property owners pay for, NOT AGAINST it. There is no place on this form to vote against it. Unfortunately, this is the way this board operates, they don’t care about what the members want. They run Surfside purely for the benefit of a small elitist group. It has been like this for years.

      They would not listen, they’re not listening still, perhaps they never will…

  4. I prefer to opt in to Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act WA RCW 64.90. 64.90.455 is very good.
    I’m flexible though. That is probably a lift we can’t get done until down the road.

  5. The Coast Village Bylaws Section 4.3 doesn’t tell their whole story on voting.
    For everything related to voting, see Article 1 Section 1.5, Article 2, especially Section 2.3.d, Article 3, especially Section 3.2, Article 4 Section 4.3, and Article 8 both Section 8.1 and Section 8.2.

    They have pretty good Bylaws.

  6. I found a homeowners association with some pretty good Bylaws voting language. Check out Coast Village Bylaws Section 4.3.

Comments are closed.