What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? montana
i am on a homeowners association board. one of the covenants seems somewhat vague and the board is very divided on what the interpretation should mean. we divided into 2 committees to work on wording for clarification for the covenant.
-originally we had agreed to present both versions to all 100 homeowners. all 100 could vote on option A, and if 90% voted to amend with this version, the covenant would be formally be amended. however if option A did not get 90% approval, then on the same ballot, we would ask all 100 homeowners to vote on option B. if it got 90% approval, the covenant would formally be amended. this ballot would go out with a pro and con argument on each version, like a voters pamphlet, so people could make an informed choice.
-now, the committee with the larger number of board members suggests that only one version should go out for a vote. only positve things should be said about this one version so it encourages homeowners to vote for it. if it passes, we are done. if it fails, they will consider sending out the other committees interpretation in a separate ballot. if that fails, we are back to square one. (maybe the best way is for a homeowner sue an offender and see which covenant interpretation the court sides with? if it is somewhat grey, interpretatio by the courts generally goes to the person doing the illegal thing or affected by the illegal thing?)
-so is there precedent for sending out 2 alternatives on the same issue on the same ballot? ie, covenant X is somewhat vague. the board is divided on what the interpretation should be. all homeowners vote on option A- if 90% approve, we are done. if option A does not get 90%, then all homeowners vote on option B- if 90% approve, we are done. or should we just try to send out option A ballot, if it fails, the board agrees to send out a seperate B ballot. any suggestions?
i am on a homeowners association board. one of the covenants seems somewhat vague and the board is very divided on what the interpretation should mean. we divided into 2 committees to work on wording for clarification for the covenant.
-originally we had agreed to present both versions to all 100 homeowners. all 100 could vote on option A, and if 90% voted to amend with this version, the covenant would be formally be amended. however if option A did not get 90% approval, then on the same ballot, we would ask all 100 homeowners to vote on option B. if it got 90% approval, the covenant would formally be amended. this ballot would go out with a pro and con argument on each version, like a voters pamphlet, so people could make an informed choice.
-now, the committee with the larger number of board members suggests that only one version should go out for a vote. only positve things should be said about this one version so it encourages homeowners to vote for it. if it passes, we are done. if it fails, they will consider sending out the other committees interpretation in a separate ballot. if that fails, we are back to square one. (maybe the best way is for a homeowner sue an offender and see which covenant interpretation the court sides with? if it is somewhat grey, interpretatio by the courts generally goes to the person doing the illegal thing or affected by the illegal thing?)
-so is there precedent for sending out 2 alternatives on the same issue on the same ballot? ie, covenant X is somewhat vague. the board is divided on what the interpretation should be. all homeowners vote on option A- if 90% approve, we are done. if option A does not get 90%, then all homeowners vote on option B- if 90% approve, we are done. or should we just try to send out option A ballot, if it fails, the board agrees to send out a seperate B ballot. any suggestions?