Why The Fuss?...

Let me start with something that may surprise some people:

I do not necessarily oppose a Special Assessment. If all other collection avenues have been initiated and implemented. We all understand that Fontaine West needs additional revenue. The community has significant maintenance, repair, infrastructure, and financial obligations that must be addressed, and those obligations require money. In fact, my personal preference would have been to consider an increase in the regular monthly assessment so that the additional financial burden could be spread over time, rather than requiring Owners to absorb an additional $1,080 obligation in four relatively large payments.

But reasonable people can disagree about the best way to generate the revenue the Association needs.

That is not why I am raising this issue.

My concern is what happens after this Special Assessment if the method used to declare it approved becomes the accepted interpretation of our governing documents.

The Board reported that:

• 57 ballots were received;
• 48 ballots were determined to be valid;
• 25 voted in favor; and
• 23 voted against.

The Board then calculated 25 out of 48 as 52.1% and declared that the Special Assessment had been approved.

The arithmetic is not in dispute. 25 is 52.1% of 48. The question is whether 48 was the correct denominator. That is where my concern begins.

The governing documents define “Majority” by reference to more than fifty percent (50%) of the applicable total eligible number.

That makes one number extremely important: How many Owner votes were actually eligible? Not how many turned in a ballot. If they are eligible then their non vote is essentially a no vote as far as being counted as the Majority.

Fontaine West contains 184 units. I acknowledge that the eligible voting population may have been substantially lower than 184 because some Owners may not have been entitled to vote.

But whatever that eligible number was, it should be identifiable from the Association's records.

Whether the eligible number was 150, 100, 75, 60, or 49, the answer materially changes the number of affirmative votes required. The answer matters.

With 25 affirmative votes, the mathematical result changes dramatically depending upon the denominator.

If 49 Owner votes were eligible, 25 affirmative votes would constitute more than 50%.

If 50 Owner votes were eligible, 25 affirmative votes would not.

That is why the total eligible voting population is not a minor detail.

It could determine whether the Special Assessment passed or failed.

I am not asking the Association to disclose private information about individual Owners.

I am not asking for anyone's account balance.

And I am not suggesting that Owners who were legitimately ineligible should have been permitted to vote.

I am asking for the numbers.

184 total unit votes
− ineligible votes
= total eligible votes
Total eligible votes → applicable Majority required
25 affirmative votes received
Passed or failed?

If the governing documents instead permit the Association to use only the 48 valid ballots returned as the denominator, then identify the provision authorizing that calculation and explain how it applies. Either answer resolves the question.

Because voting rules matter most when we disagree about the outcome.

If establishing quorum also has the effect of reducing a separately stated approval requirement to a majority of only those who participate, then the practical consequences extend beyond this particular assessment.

Today, the result is a $1,080 Special Assessment.

A future vote could concern another financial obligation, a change to the governing documents, Association property, or some other matter carrying significant consequences for Owners.

Different actions may have different voting requirements, and I am not suggesting that the voting rules governing this Special Assessment automatically apply to every other type of Association action.

My concern is more fundamental:

Whatever voting standard our governing documents establish for a particular action should be applied as written and should be capable of independent verification.

That principle should apply whether we agree with the outcome or not.

Fontaine West also has significant concentration of unit ownership.

Under our governing documents, an Owner may have a vote associated with each Unit for which that Owner possesses the required ownership interest. But concentrated ownership makes transparency concerning voting thresholds especially important. When relatively few individuals control multiple unit votes, a low participation requirement can allow a comparatively small number of people to have substantial influence over Association decisions.

That makes it even more important for every Owner to understand:

How many votes were eligible?

How many were required for quorum?

How many affirmative votes were required for approval?

How many affirmative votes were actually received?

Those should be numbers the Association can readily provide.

That is ultimately why the fuss. I am not asking Owners to oppose necessary repairs. We all can see it is needed. I am not suggesting that Fontaine West does not need additional revenue.

I am not arguing that delinquent Owners should be counted as eligible if the governing documents say otherwise. And I am not claiming that the Special Assessment has definitively been proven invalid. I am asking something much simpler: Show us the calculation.

If 25 affirmative votes satisfied the approval requirement contained in our governing documents, show Owners how. Tell us the total number of eligible votes. Tell us the number required for quorum. Tell us the number of affirmative votes required for approval. And identify the provisions used to make those calculations. If those numbers demonstrate that 25 affirmative votes were sufficient, then Owners can see that for themselves.

If they do not, then the Association should explain the basis upon which the Special Assessment was declared approved.

The issue is not whether I agree with having to perhaps use the Special Assessment.

The issue is whether the process used to approve it can be demonstrated from the governing documents and the numbers. Because whatever interpretation of those documents we accept when we agree with the outcome is an interpretation we may have to live with when we do not.