If it’s not too late, can we halt, nullify or disregard voting on the proposed amendment to the community club’s covenants and restrictions?
The balloting is seriously flawed.
It’s not hard to imagine that some members might be casting their votes based on erroneous information they received with their electronic ballots by email and their paper ballots by regular mail.
The error is in an accompanying letter from the board of directors explaining its support of the proposal, which would allow the declarant to directly bill property owners for his costs in developing their lots with roads and water lines.
The incorrect information involves so-called B lots, which are partially developed with no more than two of the three components of roads, water lines and sewer lines. The letter states that if a property owner has a lot with any of those components, the amendment “does not financially impact you.”
That assertion could influence how property owners might vote.
In fact, if the declarant further develops B lots, he would bill the owners for the component(s) their properties lack, with the exception of sewer lines. The community club installs sewer lines and assesses property owners for those costs.
Board President Greg Jones said the error involving the B lots was unintentional, that it was based on an outdated position statement of the board’s. OK. We understand that everyone makes mistakes.
But the kicker was an email message that was sent to the general membership last week as damage control. While it drew voters’ attention to the correct information that is in the board’s fact sheet on the community club’s website, it did not disclose that the letter of support contained that major error.
That is unfortunate because acknowledging the error through direct communication with the membership at large would have gone a long way in helping to ensure that voters were informed of it.
Jones said owners of 264 B lots could be affected by the amendment. He said a separate email was sent to as many of them as possible to draw their attention to the fact sheet. He would not say whether it included a reference to the erroneous letter.
But he said emphatically that “we got the facts out” with those two email messages.
Not quite. The membership at large was not informed of the fact – the fact – that significant, erroneous information accompanied their ballots. The link to the faulty letter on the electronic ballot remained as of the Glade Sun’s press time Tuesday, more than two weeks after voting began.
The link also remained on electronic ballots that were sent a second time to members who had not yet voted, reminding them to do so.
So, on the one hand, members received an email message directing their attention to the online fact sheet that has the correct information. On the other, those who had not already voted received their electronic ballots again and still with a link to the erroneous letter.
This is bewildering.
Jones said removing the link would be “very difficult” because balloting is conducted by a third-party company, Survey & Ballot Systems of Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
I called the company to find out how difficult it would be to remove the online link from the electronic ballots. I was told that, for confidentiality reasons, someone in authority from the community club would have to make that request.
It did not appear such a request would be coming from the community club because Jones said keeping the letter visible – again, the letter containing the incorrect information – was important so that voters could know the board’s position on the amendment issue.
All of this leads me to conclude that the results of the amendment voting should be ditched, if that is possible, in fairness to all voting members.
What then would become of voting for the one seat on the board of directors? Perhaps that could continue, and voting on the proposed amendment could be rescheduled once all eligible property owners are armed with correct, clear, nonconflicting information from those in the community club who are responsible for providing it.
There would be an additional cost for a new vote. We, the community club, would bear that cost.
But if the amendment is so important, then so be it. That is the price we would pay for that error.