Cumulative voting for board seat distorts process

Q: I enjoyed your response to the association with a “bully problem.” Our homeowners association has a similar problem, only the individual is on the HOA Board. The individual has a following that is catered to, responding to their desires to ensure their continued support. The individual controls the board through timely appointment, and through the elections. Elections are controlled through collective voting by the select few, knowing the majority of association members do not get involved in the association or are afraid to speak out.

Those who have opposed or voiced opposition to the board’s actions have received the association’s wrath, in the form of violations and fines that appear to be issued selectively.

A: The board of directors can appoint a director to replace one who has prematurely vacated a term. The replacement director can serve only until the next scheduled election. The appointment requires a formal vote by the directors at an open board meeting.

I do not support the cumulative form of voting, which is a legal form depending upon your governing documents. How does it work? If you have three vacant board seats, a homeowner is allowed three votes but can cast those votes in multiple ways: Use all votes for one candidate, use two votes for one candidate and one vote for a different candidate; or use one vote for each candidate.

You are correct that cumulative voting can distort voting.

As to the claim that those homeowners who speak in opposition to the board are “rewarded” with violations and fines, the reader must be able to substantiate this claim, along with the homeowners who believe that they were unfairly treated. Homeowners would need to contact the Nevada Real Estate Division to file formal complaints, including documentation that would support their claims.

Q: I have a question on HOA dues being charged for services not received. I own a town home in Flagstaff, Ariz., in addition to my principal residence in Henderson. The town home is one of nine units built by the original developer before the economic downturn in 2007-08. When his funding source went bankrupt, he abandoned the project and it remained in limbo until recently. A new developer took over the project and completed the rest of the 55 units originally planned. Our HOA dues have remained steady at $150 per quarter since the day I closed on my unit in 2008. Back then, only nine units were paying dues, now all 55 are paying them.

The new developer included the addition of frontyard landscape watering systems in the new units, connected to the common area watering systems so as to be supported by the HOA dues. All units are paying the $150 quarterly dues, which includes support of the watering systems.

However, the original nine unit owners are not receiving the benefit of the included water systems. We are, in effect, subsidizing the water costs of the 46 newer units.

I have contacted the property manager and requested a reduction in the dues for the nine units not receiving the water service. The property manager is requiring that all correspondence with the HOA board be sent through her, effectively blocking our ability to take this issue directly to the board.

What recourse do we nine unit owners have under Arizona law to receive a reduction in HOA dues commensurate with the lack of water service and possibly a refund for excess dues paid over the period of this discrepancy?

A: I do appreciate that you have sent me this email, but I am not familiar with the Arizona laws. It would appear to me that you have a legitimate issue. Contact the Arizona Real Estate Department for advice on this matter. Good luck. You may need legal counsel.

Barbara Holland, certified property manager, broker and supervisory certified association manager, is president and owner of H&L Realty and Management Co. Questions may be sent to the Association Q&A, P.O. Box 7440, Las Vegas, NV 89125. Fax is 702-385-3759, email is support@hlrealty.com.