njhoacondo
New member
We are an owner run association and the board is attempting to modify our bylaws.
The stated goal is to bring our bylaws in line with NJ law but the amendments go much further with some controversial clauses.
Our bylaws stipulate:
“…the By-Laws may be modified or amended by the affirmative vote of at least 75% of all the votes eligible to be cast by all the Unit Owners (whether or not present) at a meeting of Unit Owners duly held for such purpose.”
The board has opted for NJCA 5:26-8.13(h) to amend the bylaws (the Radbun Method).
I have two questions regarding the use of this method:
Question #1. It would seem that the Radburn method applies to PRED or developer run associations (isn’t what NJCA 5:26 is about?) Is it right to interpret that this method also applies to owner run associations and trumps existing bylaws? Is this distinction relevant?
Question #2: While the Radburn amendments claim to increase democracy in NJ associations, the method seems to have the opposite effect when the 66% threshold is breached.
Has the Radburn method effectively outlawed bylaws requiring more than 66% of the votes without considering the anti-democratic implications and the contradictions of the proposed remedies?
How should NJCA 5:26-8.13(c) be interpreted?
For example, the Radburn method does away with any debate between owners that would occur in an open meeting before a vote taking place. This gives the board undue power to control the outcome of the vote. In an association with a fair number of absent owners renting their property, it also makes it harder for the remaining owners to reach out to those absent owners and present counter arguments before they vote (the board does not provide a directory of owners). The Radburn procedure is also hard to audit. Notices are delivered by the board by mail with no records of them being sent and received by the recipients (our bylaws require certified mail). It also fails to maintain voting anonymity by virtue that rejection ballot are not anonymous as required by the same amendments. There is also no guarantee that all rejections ballot will be counted as required as the process is not transparent.
Has the use of this method ever been challenged?
Thank you,
The stated goal is to bring our bylaws in line with NJ law but the amendments go much further with some controversial clauses.
Our bylaws stipulate:
“…the By-Laws may be modified or amended by the affirmative vote of at least 75% of all the votes eligible to be cast by all the Unit Owners (whether or not present) at a meeting of Unit Owners duly held for such purpose.”
The board has opted for NJCA 5:26-8.13(h) to amend the bylaws (the Radbun Method).
I have two questions regarding the use of this method:
Question #1. It would seem that the Radburn method applies to PRED or developer run associations (isn’t what NJCA 5:26 is about?) Is it right to interpret that this method also applies to owner run associations and trumps existing bylaws? Is this distinction relevant?
Question #2: While the Radburn amendments claim to increase democracy in NJ associations, the method seems to have the opposite effect when the 66% threshold is breached.
Has the Radburn method effectively outlawed bylaws requiring more than 66% of the votes without considering the anti-democratic implications and the contradictions of the proposed remedies?
How should NJCA 5:26-8.13(c) be interpreted?
For example, the Radburn method does away with any debate between owners that would occur in an open meeting before a vote taking place. This gives the board undue power to control the outcome of the vote. In an association with a fair number of absent owners renting their property, it also makes it harder for the remaining owners to reach out to those absent owners and present counter arguments before they vote (the board does not provide a directory of owners). The Radburn procedure is also hard to audit. Notices are delivered by the board by mail with no records of them being sent and received by the recipients (our bylaws require certified mail). It also fails to maintain voting anonymity by virtue that rejection ballot are not anonymous as required by the same amendments. There is also no guarantee that all rejections ballot will be counted as required as the process is not transparent.
Has the use of this method ever been challenged?
Thank you,
