ONE VOTE PER UNIT

Questions/Concerns regarding “One Unit, One Vote”

I have listed two versions of the "One Unit, One Vote" proposal

1.(The Messenger, #46, March 2019, pg. 3 [https://centuryvillagemessengerclub.com/] )

'The Proposal

One vote for every unit owner is not as difficult or expensive as the administration claims .

Olga Wolkenstein submitted a proposal to institute one vote for each unit/owner. Her bid was met with excuses about the difficulty and the expense of conducting an election where all unit owners have the opportunity to vote. She responded with instructions that show just how simple and inexpensive it could be : Editor

Purpose of of petition: One resident unit owner to be allowed to vote in UCO elections for officers. The person voting must be an owner with a Resident pass and live in the unit — full or part time. Voting will take place one day each year in the clubhouse party room. Approximately 25 — 30 volunteers will be set up at tables with the building signs posted for the buildings they will sign in to. Each volunteer will have a sheet with the name of the building, and a lined list of each unit number. The voting person shows their ID, prints and signs their name next to their unit number. The volunteer then hands the person a ballot. When 2 or more people occupy a unit, the first person to sign in gets to vote. Owners who rent their unit do not vote because they do not live in the unit and have an ID. I do not believe that we need to make ONE VOTE complicated."

2. From the UCO Reporter, May, 2019 (lightly edited):

"Residents have asked ME [Olga Wolkenstein] to expand on the meaning of “ONE VOTE”. Presently, only Delegates are allowed to vote for UCO Officers. “One Vote” is a proposed bylaw change that will allow one resident owner in each unit the right to vote for the officers of UCO. When two or more residents occupy a unit, only one of them will be allowed to vote, hence ONE RESIDENT UNIT OWNER. The voter must be in possession of a Valid Resident ID - an occupant or renter ID does not qualify. A unit with two or more occupants must decide which one will cast the vote for their unit. If a resident owns more than one unit, lives in one, and rents the others out, he will be eligible to vote for the one in which he has a valid resident ID. .... Eligible voters present on the day of election who choose to, will vote. ….The by-law change I have submitted will allow one resident unit owner to vote for UCO Officers in the yearly elections."

Questions/Concerns

1. I do not think a dues-paying owner/titleholder/member should be summarily disenfranchised because of their choice of residence. Why cannot any owner also vote by either proxy or absentee ballot? 

2. That neither the renter nor the non-resident owner of a unit can vote seems to contradict the “One Unit, One Vote” premise: That unit will not have a vote. The solution, again, proxy or absentee ballot. The owner could authorize and direct the vote of his tenant, or mail an absentee ballot.

3. Why must the owner possess a “Resident” pass? The ID office issues “Non-Resident Owner” passes for those titleholders for whom Century Village is not their primary residence. Yet, irrespective of their place of abode, these owners pay all financial costs associated with their condo. As Aldous Huxley wrote, “You pays your money and you takes your choice.” (Brave New World)

4. Given the demography of Century Village, what if, on that “one day of election”, the owner is (a) physically or geographically unable to get to the clubhouse, or (b) depends upon bus, taxi, Palm Tran, friends, etc. to do so? Solution: Again, absentee or proxy alternative voting.

5. Who votes for a unit held by an “artificial entity”? {UCO Bylaws, Definitions, N.: "'Members' (also 'Membership') of UCO shall mean the natural person or artificial entity record title holders of condominium housing units in Century Village....An artificial entity shall include a corporation, partnership. LLC., trust or estate. The terms 'Member(s)' and 'Unit Owner(s)' shall be interchangeable.”} An empowered representative – lawyer, partner, officer, beneficiary, caregiver, etc. - of an "artificial entity" should be able to present legal authorization to vote.

6. Why should owners who rent their units not be eligible to vote in person? UCO ByLaws, Article IV: “MEMBERS: The membership of UCO shall consist of the owners of housing units in Century Village, West Palm Beach.” Many owners purchase their condos for future, not present, occupancy. Until then, rental income helps offset Century Village monthly COA fees and expenses (taxes, maintenance,[state mandated]insurance,) all of which the owners pay. (see Huxley, above)

7. For health and financial reasons, many units are owned by family members (children, siblings, etc.) of/for the occupants. Who votes for these units, which are occupied but not rented? Solution: again, proxy or absentee ballot.

8. How will the 7800+ titleholders be informed of the voting day and procedures?

9. “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (“Who will guard the guards?”) How will the “20 – 30 volunteers” be vetted? And the ballots handled, then counted? In March, the “actual voting process and the tabulating of ballots was handled by R & H, an outside firm which in no way is connected to, or associated with, UCO”. (UCO Reporter, April, A2). Century Village's elections must avoid the appearance of impropriety.

10. And finally (whew) some logistics. The clubhouse parking lot has approximately 350 spaces, including 18 handicapped. In the March election, 55% (191 of 349) delegates voted. To achieve the same level of participation using the One Unit, One Vote system, more than 4000 resident owners would have to appear that one day.

To summarize: As presented, the "One Unit. One Vote" proposal appears to be "One informed, able-bodied, self-driving, resident owner able to get to the clubhouse on a designated day, One Vote." As suggested above, solutions could include, but not be limited to, absentee ballots, proxy voting, several days of voting, early voting by mail, transportation for the mobility challenged, and an outside professional firm handling the process.

Comments appreciated.

Richard Handelsman