Nothing is more important to our community than the upcoming elections for Board and Covenants Committee, except conducting the election process correctly. That means following the Covenants and Bylaws. Failure to follow the established procedures could disenfranchise some owners and subject future decisions by the Committee or Board to challenge on the basis of an unfair election. The last thing we need is to lose another case based on not following our own rules.
The Covenants, which run with the land and are largely independent of the HOA, provide for the creation of the Covenants Committee to enforce them (Covenant #1). Therein, the election rules are established for the Committee. Dues payment is not mentioned in either candidacy or ability to be a Committee member. Committee members must be elected, not appointed (even to fill vacancies), by a simple majority of the lot owners present at any meeting of the owners. And, the COVENANTS CANNOT BE CHANGED, EXCEPT BY A VOTE OF THE LOT OWNERS. The logic behind these eligibility criteria is likely based on the fact that the Covenants encumber all owners, and so all owners must be eligible to vote for the Committee in a democratic process.
The Bylaws govern the conduct of the HOA Board, which administers the non-Covenants related activity of the Association (dues, meetings, elections, etc.), except that the Bylaws cannot encumber owners with requirements not addressed in the Covenants and do not run with the land. THE BYLAWS CANNOT BE USED TO CHANGE THE COVENANTS, which have a separate purpose. However, the current Bylaws do allow the HOA Board to change the Bylaws without consulting or a vote of the Owners.
This separation of the two groups is important because the HOA can be dissolved and cease to exist, as has been recently proposed, but the Covenants run with the land in perpetuity, and therefore, must be self-sustaining.
Under the Bylaws, Regular Members pay dues and are eligible to vote for Board positions and Associate Members do not, although both are Owners. Candidacy for Board positions must be from among the Owners (not Regular Members). Further, Section 4.02 of the Bylaws also addresses the creation of the Covenants Committee, but is in conflict with the same under the Covenants. And, since the Bylaws cannot change the Covenants, the Covenants must prevail.
In the website announcement of the elections, all candidates must be dues-paying members and only dues-paying members will be allowed to vote, without distinction between Board and Covenants Committee. While there is some logic to allowing only those who pay dues to be eligible to run for these positions or vote, that is not entirely consistent with either the Bylaws or the Covenants. The election must follow the established rules and that is not what is stated in the announcement.
Of particular import is that if the candidacy and voting criteria for the Covenants Committee remain as announced, it would be tantamount to changing the Covenants by a simple vote of the HOA Board. But, the Board cannot unilaterally change the Covenants, which requires a majority vote of the lot owners.
Therefore, the election process, as noticed, is in error. At its April 19 meeting, the Board decided to change the election process to be inconsistent with the established rules. Wouldn?’t it be easier and more clear to simply follow the established rules?
The Covenants, which run with the land and are largely independent of the HOA, provide for the creation of the Covenants Committee to enforce them (Covenant #1). Therein, the election rules are established for the Committee. Dues payment is not mentioned in either candidacy or ability to be a Committee member. Committee members must be elected, not appointed (even to fill vacancies), by a simple majority of the lot owners present at any meeting of the owners. And, the COVENANTS CANNOT BE CHANGED, EXCEPT BY A VOTE OF THE LOT OWNERS. The logic behind these eligibility criteria is likely based on the fact that the Covenants encumber all owners, and so all owners must be eligible to vote for the Committee in a democratic process.
The Bylaws govern the conduct of the HOA Board, which administers the non-Covenants related activity of the Association (dues, meetings, elections, etc.), except that the Bylaws cannot encumber owners with requirements not addressed in the Covenants and do not run with the land. THE BYLAWS CANNOT BE USED TO CHANGE THE COVENANTS, which have a separate purpose. However, the current Bylaws do allow the HOA Board to change the Bylaws without consulting or a vote of the Owners.
This separation of the two groups is important because the HOA can be dissolved and cease to exist, as has been recently proposed, but the Covenants run with the land in perpetuity, and therefore, must be self-sustaining.
Under the Bylaws, Regular Members pay dues and are eligible to vote for Board positions and Associate Members do not, although both are Owners. Candidacy for Board positions must be from among the Owners (not Regular Members). Further, Section 4.02 of the Bylaws also addresses the creation of the Covenants Committee, but is in conflict with the same under the Covenants. And, since the Bylaws cannot change the Covenants, the Covenants must prevail.
In the website announcement of the elections, all candidates must be dues-paying members and only dues-paying members will be allowed to vote, without distinction between Board and Covenants Committee. While there is some logic to allowing only those who pay dues to be eligible to run for these positions or vote, that is not entirely consistent with either the Bylaws or the Covenants. The election must follow the established rules and that is not what is stated in the announcement.
Of particular import is that if the candidacy and voting criteria for the Covenants Committee remain as announced, it would be tantamount to changing the Covenants by a simple vote of the HOA Board. But, the Board cannot unilaterally change the Covenants, which requires a majority vote of the lot owners.
Therefore, the election process, as noticed, is in error. At its April 19 meeting, the Board decided to change the election process to be inconsistent with the established rules. Wouldn?’t it be easier and more clear to simply follow the established rules?
