If you vote “FOR” the new 0.75% Capital Initiation Fee, you most likely won’t get to vote “against” any future percentage rate increases.
The Covenants and Restrictions CIF Amendment is more than what it seems:
Facts:
From the POA Board’s distributed copy of the Covenants and Restrictions CIF Amendment (upon which we will vote for or against), the Covenants and Restrictions Amendment states that:
“Any change in the rate [0.75%] of the Fee [CIF] shall require the approval of a majority of the votes cast by the members at a meeting or by written ballot in lieu of a meeting.
NEED I SAY MORE?
The POA Board’s attorney has written the Covenants and Restrictions CIF Amendment so that they can change the CIF percentage rate without another “written” ballot.
Solution:
If you want to be able to vote by “written ballot” on any future CIF rate increases, you must vote AGAINST the new CIF.
Ask the POA Board to reword the Covenants and Restrictions CIF Amendment to make sure that a “written ballot” is required for CIF percentage rate increases. To do otherwise, may remove you from these important future decisions.
17 users commented in " Voting “FOR” the Capital Initiation Fee? — BE AWARE !!!! "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackBig Canoe POA CEO Bob Crouch’s challenges don’t go unanswered, see the http://responsiblepoa.com/ website.
Therefore, I challenge Mr. Bob Crouch to reply to this post.
In other words, the Capital Initiation Fee Amendment is similar to a new credit card.
If I approve the CIF Amendment, unlike the credit card, I can’t easily stop the CIF increases or make the CIF go away.
The proposed fee is an amendment to our Covenants. The Covenants can only be changed by a vote of the MEMBERS. That vote may or may not include a duly called meeting of the MEMBERS. This vote does not include a meeting. Past votes–for Directors, for the Special Assessment have included MEMBER meetings. The propsed 3/4% could only be changed by a vote of the MEMBERS.
Thanks Bob (Bob Crouch, POA Board CEO) for the true statements:
I agree, it is true that: “The proposed fee is an amendment to our Covenants.”
True: “The Covenants can only be changed by a vote of the MEMBERS. That vote may or may not include a duly called meeting of the MEMBERS.”
True: “This vote does not include a meeting.”
True: “Past votes–for Directors, for the Special Assessment have included MEMBER meetings.”
True: “The propsed [proposed] 3/4% could only be changed by a vote of the MEMBERS.
Even though you tried to spin an answer without addressing “written” ballots, I’m going to let you off the hook.
If you will read the Big Canoe By-laws and C&Rs, you will see that the POA Board is not required to go out with a “written” ballot to get property owner approval on any changes to the By-laws or C&Rs; a rather frightening authority for a POA Board to have.
Thanks for your reply.
You are incorrect. The POA Board CAN take action to change the By-laws without a vote. They CANNOT change the Covenants.
The CIF is an amendment to the Coventants which CANNOT be changed by the Board.
Again, Bob thanks for your reply.
Sorry, but let’s not play word games.
We are talking about the two methods used for getting a vote of the property owners. One is “by a meeting” in which a percentage of the property owners approve the change to the Covenants, and one is where “ALL” of the property owners get to vote “by a “written” ballot.”
In other words, the Board does not have to use a “written” ballot for getting the approval of changes to the Covenants. It says so in the new CIF Covenant Amendment (please read it): “Any change in the rate [0.75%] of the Fee [CIF] shall require the approval of a majority of the votes cast by the members at a meeting or by written ballot in lieu of a meeting.
And more:
This past week, I talked to two members of your committee that makes the changes to Big Canoe’s By-laws and Covenants and Restrictions (You know, the committee that is not on the published list of POA Board committees.).
To keep it short, I asked them if the POA Board could increase the ¾% Capital Initiation Fee higher in the future without sending “written” ballots to each and every property owner; after much discussion, they both replied YES. One of the members did point out that it would be difficult to get the votes needed for changes in a meeting.
Therefore, if a property owner doesn’t want to create a fund in which they may not get to vote, yes or no, on a future rate increase “by a “written” ballot”, they should vote “Against” the new Capital Initiation Fee Covenant Amendment.
If you have any more questions, please ask your By-laws and Covenants and Restrictions Committee.
The Board cannot change the 3/4% fee if approved by property owners. PERIOD.
Thanks, Bob. I never said they could; it never was the issue.
You wrote “The POA Board’s attorney has written the Covenants and Restrictions CIF Amendment so that they can change the CIF percentage rate without another “written” ballot.”
You also wrote “If you vote “FOR” the new 0.75% Capital Initiation Fee, you most likely won’t get to vote “against” any future percentage rate increases.”
And you wrote to “BE AWARE!!!!”
Be aware of what?
If the Amendment were to be voted on via a meeting what is the notice required to property owners?
Is a quorum of property owners required at the meeting?
What percent of property owners need to be present to enable a quorum?
How many property owners need to be present to constitute a quorum?
When you provide these answers it will be apparent that there is the same opportunity to vote at a meeting or by written ballot. There is no need for concern.
As I have said (no matter how you spin your answers), this post is all about ever having another “written” ballot on this CIF.
Please read Promise Number One at http://www.thesixpromises.blogspot.com
Thank you for the spin………….
There is nothing for property owners to BEWARE of.
The only thing to be aware of is that EACH AND EVERY property owner would have full opportunity to vote for any proposed change to the CIF.
Thanks, Bob. I will let the property owners read this post/topic and decide the issue for themselves.
As for the new CIF, all of my neighbors and I have voted NO.
You ask for the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth but are reluctant to provide answers to basic questions regarding your concern over meetings.
The answers are:
There are strict guidelines regarding notice to property owners of a meeting.
These guidelines provide all property owners the opportunity to cast their vote.
A quorum is required.
50% of that quorum must vote in favor of any proposed change to Big Canoe C&R’s.
Only a vote of the propertry owners can change our C&R’s.
The question of a written ballot, or a called meeting, is who can / will vote.
Many BC full-time residents travel, and may not be able to attend a called meeting.
Seasonal residents could be in Florida or elsewhere.
Part time residents could be close enough to attend a called meeting, or they could be out of state. It may be neither practical nor convenient to attend a called meeting.
Lot owners could be anywhere.
My issue is that a called meeting to change the C&R’s disenfranchises a significant number of property owners.
This is wrong!
There are two different procedures for voting on an increase in the Fee.
One is at a meeting. Notice will be given and members can attend and vote in person or they can designate a proxy to vote on their behalf at the meeting.
The vote can also be taken be written ballot without a meeting. That is where a ballot will be sent to all members. The ballot will give a person a choice of voting for or against the increase. Ballots are returned to the accountants and tallied. The results are then announced.
Both procedures give every member the ability to vote. One is at a meeting, in person or by proxy and the other is without a meeting by written ballot.
Bob: “It can be changed in a meeting, or by a written ballot.”
Pete: “I think he’s got it. I think he’s got it.”
A written proxy and a meeting or a written ballot. Every opportunity for every property owner.
Got it?