Illegal Proxies

[NY_NJ_Resident]

What is the name of your state? NJ

I live in a HOA of approximately 40 homes. It is a fee simple structured community ... we all own our own free-standing homes and property and are share holders in the corporation consisting of private community roads and communal property.

We had our annual meeting in December 2007 where 4 motions were raised, but we never had the time to discuss or vote on them. No one made a motion to continue/postpone the meeting to vote on these 4 motions and the annual meeting was adjourned. We had a Roberts Rules arbitor present at that meeting and he stated that we needed to call a special meeting to vote on the 4 motions, which we have scheduled. He clearly stated that this special meeting was NOT a continuation of the annual, but a separate new meeting.

Now the board has stated that proxies from the annual meeting can be carried over to this special meeting. This is clearly a violation of Roberts Rules. New proxies must be solicited as this is not a continuation. We are getting pushback from the board. How do you suggest we deal with this issue short of disrupting the meeting and stopping the votes from being counted?What is the name of your state?

[Avalon]

Don't you have Bylaws that state the proxies are valid only for the meeting for which they're given? This has been stated in the Bylaws of both condo associations I've lived in in NJ, and the proxy forms clearly list the date of the meeting for which they are valid.

[NY_NJ_Resident]

This is not stated in our bylaws ... which is why we run our meetings according to Roberts Rules. It IS stated in our bylaws, however, that Roberts Rules will be followed for all board and community meetings.

Our community was started over 50 years ago and while the bylaws have been amended over the years, it was never amended to add proxies only being valid for the meeting issued.

I have spoken to an attorney because now the president and board have further violated several bylaw provisions regarding shareholder eligibility to vote. It appears we have a case against the board and will be pursuing this.