After my Message yesterday, I received several comments and questions from residents. So, I am sending this message to clarify my message sent on Monday.
First, I need to correct an error in my message. I stated that 1,761 votes were required to pass a change to the By-laws. The correct number is 1,760. This represents 51% of our 3,450 homes.
The main question that I received was, why doesn’t 50% +1 of the votes received constitute a win for the yes or no vote?
Hopefully this will clear up the confusion:
The current By-laws require 51% affirmative votes of all the homes in the HOA to change a By-law. We have 3,450 homes in the HOA. Therefore, 51% of 3450 homes means we need 1,760 votes in favor of a change no matter how many people vote. If only 1,759 people voted, the measure would be defeated no matter how many of these people voted to pass any By-law change. If 100% of all 1,759 had voted in favor it would still be defeated.
There were 2,123 ballots properly cast. In order to get 1,760 votes to be affirmative, it would mean 82.9% of the 2,123 ballots would have to have voted in favor of any of the four Measures presented. Thus, a large number of votes is required to pass a change in our Bylaws requiring substantial voter turnout. That is why the Board made great efforts to insure as large a turnout as possible. It is to our HOA’s great credit that we had a voter turnout of 61.5%, which statistically is a high voter turnout. National elections range from 40-60% voter turnout. We sent out three mailers and then called every person in the complex to ask them to vote if we had not received a ballot. HOA Elections records show the highest voter turnout in the last 3 years for our elections was 2156, or 62.5%.
That is why I am asking the Board to consider petitioning the Court to pass the measure. The California Corporations Code permits Court Action suspending the percentage of votes needed for approval imposed by Bylaws when it can be demonstrated that obtaining such consent is unduly difficult. The Board will vote at the next meeting to decide if we should petition the court to pass Measure 3, respecting the removal of cumulative voting.
Hopefully this explains the situation, if not let me know.