The Devil is in the Details
I have watched the committee considering One Vote per Unit
on video on this blog and am impressed with the way the committee members have
been methodically considering what would be involved. One vendor explained how
she would manage this. It wouldn't come cheap--$33,000, I believe, PLUS the
cost of mailings.
The devil would be in the details, it seems. Beyond price,
how do you physically arrange for 7850 unit owners to vote? "Require them
to come to the Clubhouse," I believe one person said. When it was pointed
out that many owners would be coming from out of state, and that the Clubhouse
parking lot was overflowing with only the usual number (250-plus?) of
association delegates (never mind 7850), this was brushed off by a proponent as
"no problem." Really?!
Another sticking point was: Who gets to vote when two (or more)
persons own a unit? How do we keep track of this (for legally we must, I believe), bearing in mind that unit
ownership is constantly changing? All of this can be done, I suppose, but it gets very expensive the more that is
piled on.
Apparently One Vote per Unit would apply to all UCO
officers, not just the president. If so, we would have to go through this
procedure every year, not every other
year, because the vice presidents are elected on a staggered-year basis.
Finally, has any
thought been given to how election by a popular vote of 7850 versus election by
the 309 delegates could be used by any small group wanting to take over the
running of UCO? It would be easy, as I see it. They simply mount a campaign
secretly, gathering enough supporters to all vote the same way. Finding supporters
would come easy, being no longer limited to the 309 delegates, who, though in
many cases are only partially informed on the Village goings-on, at least have
some interest and savvy concerning Village affairs. Support, instead, could be
drawn from any of the 7850 unit owners, many of whom know almost nothing about Village affairs and would be easily persuaded
by a smooth-talker. Not knowing what was afoot until it was too late, we could
be witnesses to just such a small group taking over the Village. And the group?
It could be a political group, a religious group, a group favoring a particular
project—any kind of group.
Lanny, I am also not in favor of one vote per unit. Most of the unit owners in my building besides the board have little knowledge of what is going on in the village. They listen to rumors and gossip and tell me about it but I tell them to read the UCO paper to educate themselves or attend the Delegate meetings. It may seem to be easy to have a one vote per unit but it would be a total disaster financially which I knew from the beginning when this subject was brought up. Unfortunately, I am not able to come to the delegate meetings on Friday but I do bring up the blog and view it when I am able. When it's time for the Presidential election for UCO, I do make it my business to vote.
ReplyDeleteOn May 1, I posted the following concerns this proposal.
ReplyDeleteThe actual proposal: 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."
Ten Questions/Concerns
1. A dues-paying owner/titleholder/member should be summarily disenfranchised because of their choice of residence. Solution: 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. Investigations Committee statistics show that 38% (about 3,000) of CV's units have been leased from 2015 – 2019. Solution: proxy or absentee ballot.
3. Why must the owner possess a “Resident” pass? “Non-Resident” owners pay all financial costs associated with their condo. “You pays your money and you takes your choice.” (Brave New World)
4. Demography: 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?
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 ...”} A repr3esntative of an "artificial entity" should be able to vote.
6. Why should owners who rent their units not be eligible to vote in person if able? . 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 a family member but occupied by another, Who votes for these units, occupied but not rented? Solution: again, proxy or absentee ballot.
8. “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (“Who will guard the guards?”) Who vets the “20 – 30 volunteers” ? Handles, then tabulates, the ballots? In March, “....R & H, an outside firm which in no way is connected to, or associated with, UCO” did so. (UCO Reporter, April, A2). Century Village's elections must avoid the appearance of impropriety.
9. Perhaps violating UCO Articles of Incorporation. (Article III: Purposes. F. “UCO shall not interfere with the internal affairs of any condominium association....” ), the current proposal decrees that an association which allows non-owner occupancy loses that unit's vote.
10. And finally (whew): The clubhouse parking lot has approximately 350 spaces, including 18 handicapped. In the March election, 55% (191 of 349) delegates voted. Under this proposal, to achieve that level, 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.
Richard Handelsman
ReplyDeleteIF it were feasible to overcome all the obstacles that Old Nassau '67 has brought up twice now on this blog (and in the committee meetings), then AFTER TIME I can see how One Vote per Unit might make some sense. Why do I say only "after time"? Because in the short run the extreme danger I alluded to in this post, of a small self-interested group taking over all the UCO officer positions in one fell swoop, would remain a grave danger. In the long run, voting open to all owners (one per unit), might result in a more educated ownership and therefore a more interested ownership and more volunteers. But how get past all the short-run difficulties and dangers that cry "Don't go down this road!"
Do not think that some of those claiming to have only long-run Village interests at heart are not without their own avid short-run interests, their real motivator. It is interesting that as soon as OVPU seemed on the ropes at the committee meeting, Term Limits was then immediately brought up again for the umpteenth time! Not to mention a request for THE ADDRESSES OF ALL CV OWNERS, heretofore legally not allowed, I understand. What is the real motivator here? I think many blog readers know: Oust Dave Israel, the most competent UCO president we have ever had. The cat—if ever wholly in the bag—is out of it now.
For some time, One Vote per Unit would make it ten times easier for ANY self-interested group to take over UCO.
One Vote per Unit...We MUST look into how this could be accomplished. Most bldgs. don't get a designated voting certificate from their owner, which they should. This would show the one person able to vote. As far as price we have more investigating to do as far as options. talking about self-interested groups, yes maybe they would get a few but most people would make their own mind up. Maybe our owners would want to become a little more interested in our village if they felt they had a say in who was being elected. We owe to our RESIDENTS to at least look into this and not knock it down before we have checked every thing out>
ReplyDelete