Elections - MVF Ballot Change for 2011 Board Election a Bad Idea

Consolidated ballot option for multi-family apartments In his January 20th memo to the MVF Board of Directors Dave Humpton proposed that each of the 5 owners of Apartment Communities submit 1715 individual ballots equal to ½ a vote each for the upcoming MVF 2011 board election instead of using one consolidated ballot for all units in each apartment community worth one vote per unit. Dave explained by “removing the consolidated ballot option and make individual option available the ‘secrecy” of the multi family vote would be preserved and the ‘blame’ could not be attributed to any individual”.

Humpton’s recommendation has little to do with “secrecy”, “privacy”, and “anonymity of-the-voter” but a deliberate attempt to discourage prevent and make it difficult for Apartment Community owners to exercise their voting rights in MVF board elections.

Secrecy To protect the privacy of individual voters in Common Ownership Communities Section 10B-17 (c) Absentee ballots, of the County Code requires voting unsigned ballots to be received in a signed sealed envelope, bearing the identification of the dwelling unit and any proportional voting on the outside of the envelope. When this is done, as it is in all Annual Board of Directors elections in the Village including the MVF annual board election, those designated to tabulate the election results are unaware of the who voted and for whom. Their responsibility is to validate the number of votes each candidate received, which candidates where elected and the term of each winning candidate.

The privacy of the 2010 MVF election results was not compromised by the use of consolidated ballots but as a result the March 10 2010 “Election Results and Statistical Summary Report” included in the March 2010 Executive Committee report stating “Cider Mill was the only Multi-Family that opted to vote, and they choose to vote with a block vote. The other Multi-Family dwellings declined ”.

Consolidated Ballots Section 10B-17(a) Election date and procedure, of the County Code states “The governing body of the association must notify all members of the association procedures and the date of the election not less than 10 nor more than 90 days before an election of the governing body. Article SIXTH of the Articles of Incorporation states members shall be entitled to (a) Two (2) votes for each Private Dwelling Unit, and One (1) for each Multifamily Rental Unit in which they hold the interests. The County Code requires that all property owners be notified and provide absentee ballots with election notifications that includes the number of votes on the outside of the ballot envelope and on the ballot. The MVF Articles of Incorporation Homes Corporation and Condominium private property owners’ ballots would have 2 votes and the Apartment owners votes equal to “One vote for each Multi family Rental unit in which they hold interests”.

The County Code and MVF Articles of Incorporation requires that all property owners be notified and provided with absentee ballots with election notification that includes the number of votes on the outside of the ballot envelope and on the ballot. Homes Corporation and Condominium owners’ ballots are tabulated as 2 votes each and Apartment owners’ ballot should be equal to “One vote for each Multi-Family rental unit”.

This precludes multi one-half (½) vote ballots for apartment owners, one-vote ballots for private property owners, Apartment owners “opting out” of voting, or specifically requested consolidated ballot as an alternate ballot. Absentee ballots indicating the total number allowed votes must be sent to all property owners with the annual election notification, whether for private property or apartment owners.

Action The MVF Board of Directors should reject the proposed MVF staff resolution Consolidate ballot option for multi-family apartment owners dated January 20, 2011. The staff should be instructed to redraft the MVF Board of Directors voting procedures to confirm to Section 10B-17 of the Montgomery County Code and Article SIXTH of the Montgomery Village Foundation Articles of Incorporation including a standard Absentee voting ballot and mailing envelope for Homes Corporation, Condominium and Apartment property owners voting which indicates the authorized number of votes for each ballot for use for the 2011 Board of Directors election.

Recent MVF Board Elections In past elections these Apartment communities seldom participated in the MVF Board elections. Only twice have apartment community owners voted in an MVF Board election, in 2008 when Cider Mill and one other Apartment owner cast a consolidated ballot and in 2010 when Cider Mill voted.

2008 Election Ten candidates filed for 3 positions and engaged in a spirited campaign that divided first time reform candidates against long time board incumbents and community leaders. This was the first election where candidates actively solicited Apartment owners’ votes and formed slates of candidates. Five (5) candidates, including the 3 incumbents had previous MVF board experience.

First time candidates Jim Deye, Pamela Bort and Mark Firley campaigned on a reform ticket that called for restoring MVF financial health, fully funding of reserves, a more transparent and routine review of the monthly financial statements; a reinvigorated and expanded communications with Village residents; streamlining MVF website and electronic communications, enhancing the Foundation’s imagine as well as addressing safety concerns.

Whetstone’s Homes Corporation President and former MVF board member joined with incumbents Toni Negro and Scott Frohman formed an alliance that supported continuing traditional approach to MVF governance and finances.

The Results Jim Deye (1,436-18.1%) and Pam Bort (1,478-14.8%) lead the field as Linc Perley (1208-11.9%) edged out Mark Firley (1120-11.0%). for the final position. The results signaled for the second year in a row homeowners’ dissatisfaction with the board leadership as incumbents Jerry Donegan (766-7.6%) and Scott Frohman (742-7.3%) ran 8th and 9th.
.
Cider Mill with its 864 votes to cast for three (3) candidates and one other unidentified Apartment community voted. However, However, Cider Mill’s ballot was one of four (4) eligible voters declared invalid for having a delinquency of over $25 whose ballot was not counted. Cider Mill’s delinquency was disputed late charges from 1990 that was never resolved. If Cider Mill’s votes were counted it would determined the outcome of the election except for Jim Deye who would have won with or without Cider Mill’s support. One other Apartment community that cast a ballot, (Breckenridge Apartments (178), Sunrise (147) or Walker House (211)), and voted for Jim Deye, Pam Bort and Linc Perley providing Perley his 72 vote margin over Firley.

2010 Election There were only 4 candidates for the 3 vacancies for the 2010 board election new comer Scott Dyer, a member of the East Village Homes Corporation employed by JP Morgan and 3 incumbents Mark Firley, Scott Johnson and Jim King.

The Foundation mailed 10,642 ballots to Home Corporations and Condominium private dwelling units plus a consolidated ballot from Cider Mill. There were 1,716 ballots or 16.1 percent returned representing 12,834 potential votes, 40 ballots were declared invalid. There were 11,778 actual votes tabulated with Mark Firley, Scott Dyer and Scott Johnson elected to 3-year terms. Interesting enough Cider Mills’ 2538 votes (864 x 3) representing 21.5% total tabulated votes (11,778) cast for the 3 incumbents, did not affect the outcome of the election.

Future relationship with Apartment owners The Apartment owners pay close to $400,000 a year in MVF assessments, are self contained and sufficient communities and impose a minimum financial or service burden on the Foundation. Village apartment resident are citizens of Montgomery Village support the Village economy. The Apartment owners have major investments in the Village and should be recognized as equal stakeholders, with on going relationships and collaboration with the MVF staff and board rather than be marginalized or feared because their votes could influence an election.