Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Quorum

[Mabel Liang (mabel]

Hi!

While Phil is correct that we are trying to escape proxies, there are some
in the community who are rather upset with this idea.  And there are those
who are unhappy with the quorum of 14 - most of those prefer something
higher.   So this is not a done deal.

We are currentlky in a period where we have been using an experimental
process with a quorum of 14 and no proxies.

Our _recorded_ process, and the one that we must use right now to change
our decision-making process

1) has a quorun of 2/3, or 22 of our 32 households.
2) when we are trying for unanimity, only allows proxies to be in favor of
a proposal.  In other words, you cannot block by proxy
3) allows proxies to be "no" or "use your judgement for me" if we actually
go to any kind of majority vote

Memories differ - we have gone to the majority vote method either 1 or 0
times in our history of development (started in 1993) and living here
(first move-ins were November 2001).

To amend our bylaws we need 75% by percentage interest to sign a document
which will be recorded.  In the past we have first reached consensus, then
collected signatures.  I'm not sure if the 75% is a state requirement for
condo associations - if it's something that we can change or not.  I _am_
under the impression that certain things are required to be done by
percentage interest, rather tahn by household.

-- Mabel :-)

Mabel Liang
mabel [at] twomeeps.com
Software Engineer turned Gardener
Cornerstone Village Cohousing
Cambridge, MA

On Mon, May 13, 2013 10:11 am, R Philip Dowds wrote:
>
> Useful information; thank you.
>
> At our 32 unit urban coho, at any point in time, we find that some portion
> of the units are occupied by tenants, or that some owners are away in
> extended travel, or that the unit is vacant and on the market.  We chose
> the number 14 units as minimum because it seemed like about half of all
> the units that might reasonably be expected to participate.
>
> We are trying to escape proxies in order to encourage more face-to-face
> interaction, and to benefit from the flexibility of being able to amend
> proposals on the spot, rather than re-issue them to another meeting
> because of an amendment.  Our interpretation is that proxies are good only
> for the exact proposal as published prior to the meeting, and are void if
> the proposal is changed on the fly.
>
> RPD
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 12, 2013, at 11:58 AM, David Clements and Evan Richardson
> <evdavwes [at] aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Our Quorum (at Westwood Cohousing) is a majority of households (owners).
>>   We have 24 owners, so 13 owners must be present in person or by proxy
>> for decisions to be made.
>>
>>
>> To amend the declaration (similar to your CC&R) requires 75% of the
>> owners present at a legitimate meeting.  So, 10 members voting yes (in
>> person or by proxy)  out of 13 present (in person or by proxy).
>>
>>
>> To amend our bylaws we require consensus in a legitimate meeting (ie 13
>> members present in person or by proxy).  If consensus fails, 75% vote is
>> the alternative (ie, 10 members (in person or by proxy) out of 13
>> members present (in person or by proxy).
>>
>>
>> I stress the proxy because that is the standard way Homeowners
>> Associations (HOA) make sure there are enough members at a meeting to
>> make decisions.  Proxies are especially important if there are owners
>> who do not live in the community or who choose not to participate.
>>
>>
>> Proxies can be just for the purpose of establishing a quorum or for
>> votes for or against a measure.  In North Carolina's "standard" proxy,
>> an owner will give another person the authority to vote on their behalf,
>> and is valid for 11 months ( ref
>> http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bychapter/chapter_55a.html
>> ).  The proxy can direct the other person to vote in a particular way,
>> but does not need to.   HOA's are free to establish other rules for
>> proxies (such rules would be found in the bylaws-- for example, not
>> allowing proxies at all, or allowing proxies only to establish a quorum,
>> or requiring that the Board "vote" all proxies).   Our HOA has
>> established no rules for proxies, so the NC law requires us to honor all
>> proxies that conform to the "standard" rules.  (I note that some of our
>> members think that we shouldn't allow proxies or should allow them only
>> for quorum, not for voting.   However, this has never been brought up or
>> decided in our communi
>  ty
>> )
>>
>>
>> In North Carolina, the "standard" quorum for HOA member meetings is 10%
>> of members (ref
>> http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_47f.html
>> ).  HOA's are free to  choose any other quorum (by specifying this in
>> the bylaws).    The "standard" is in no way a "best practice," but is
>> the default if nothing different is specified.
>>
>>
>> One suggestion for amending the bylaws in minor ways would be assemble a
>> collection of minor proposed changes and have a special meeting, for
>> which proxies are solicited.  Those who might otherwise hesitate to give
>> someone else the right to vote on their behalf might be willing to give
>> a proxy for this one item.
>>
>>
>> Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer, but have researched what the rules are
>> in NC.  Other states may be different.
>>
>>
>> David Clements
>>
>>
>>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
>
>
>