The vote numbers provided to Property Owners are not adding up. The POA has provided conflicting sets of Vote Count Numbers that offer radically different vote tallies, and leave us wondering what is causing a clear discrepancy of 1,741 missing Eligible Voters as reported by the POA?
1st Data Point: The recent Creek 9 Initiative Ballot gives us exact Voter & Quorum numbers :
“…twenty-five percent (25%) of the eligible votes (1,432)…”
- -> if 25% of the Votes = 1,432, then 100% of the Eligible Votes = 5,728
(THE MATH: 25% x 4 = 100%; and 1,432 x 4 = 5,728)
2nd Data Point: The POA Board announced the results of the Vote in an Email dated Friday Oct 2, 2020. In that announcement they wrote:
The Big Canoe Board of Directors and management team would like to thank the Property Owners who voted in the Creek 9 Initiative – with a 49 percent quorum, 72 percent of the votes were in favor of the plan to rejuvenate the Creek Golf Course.
- -> 49% of the Eligible Votes (5,728) = 2,806 Votes Cast
(THE MATH: 0.49 x 5,728 = 2,806)
3rd Data Point: A Property Owner (the Publisher of this Newspaper) submitted some questions to “Ask the POA” on October 4, 2020, Ticket # 1581. The questions were in regards to some specifics of the Vote Count, and included a request for exactly how many “Yes” and “No” votes there were. The POA General Manager, Scott Auer issued a Response to Ticket # 1581 on October 5, 2020 which stated in full the following:
Hello David. As prescribed in Procedure 103.2(c): Election Results Reporting as outlined in the Big Canoe Policies and Related Procedures manual, Mauldin & Jenkins provided us with the following Big Canoe POA Creek 9 Initiative voting results:
All votes were Class A
2652 votes Yes
1008 votes No
28 votes that “did not complete the voting process”That is the information that our attorney committed to providing. Thank you for your concern.
And this brings us to the confusion. It has been previously established by the POA that a 49% Quorum was met. But 2,652 (Yes Votes) + 1,008 (No Votes) = 3,660 Total Votes Cast.
If 3,660 Votes Cast represents a 49% Quorum, then the math dictates that 100% of the Total Eligible Votes would equal 7,469.
(THE MATH: 0.49 x 7,469 = 3,660)
Yet the Math previously provided, based on Ballot + POA Announced Quorums indicates Total Eligible Votes would equal 5,728.
Both can’t be correct. We have a discrepancy of 1,741 missing total eligible votes between the 2 versions. I don’t understand, and the POA won’t explain.
Can any property owner provide an explanation for these discrepancies that myself, and others, may have overlooked?
While we are at it, Scott Auer’s Response to Ticket # 1581 has raised other questions to which I also have No Explanation for, when he stated “All votes were Class A”. Below is the direct language from the bottom of the Creek 9 Initiative Ballot that showed the various Voting Member Types. Are we being asked to believe that NONE of these other Classes of Members participated in this recent Vote?
Type A Member – Lot (Blue Ballot)
Type A Member – Family Dwelling Unit (Pink Ballot)
Type B Member (Orange Ballot)
Type C Member (Purple Ballot)
Type E Member (Green Ballot)
I think the community needs some clarity as to the following:
- (1) Did NO Class B, C, D, or E Members actually vote? Or is the POA saying that they were not eligible to vote? If not, then by what Covenant or By-Law section was this exclusion authorized?
- (2) How many votes do these Member Classes even have? Were their Possible Votes included in the math used to come up with a “Total Eligible Vote” count from which to establish a Quorum? Why is this treated as Top Secret Information?
- (3) What about all the other questions in the Ask the POATicket # 1581, the vast majority of which went unanswered? All of the unanswered questions are marked as such in that link.
If anyone has an answer for any of this I would love to hear it. I Appeal to all property owners who may have thoughts on this, to try and help the Community to understand all of these “New POA Voter Math” discrepancies, and all the other open questions.
With that said, a new Facebook Group has recently launched “For Property Owners ONLY”, a private group safe space to discuss these matters, without fear of being banned for unpopular opinions. So far over 200 Property Owners have joined. All Property Owners are vetted before being approved.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/bigcanoega/
Looking forward to some smart Big Canoer being able to explain all of this to the rest of us.
Peace,
– david / publisher
Focus on Big Canoe, GA
* a publication of The Mountains Voice
RESEARCH ASSISTANCE:
For legal definitions of how the various Member Categories are defined, see Pages 12 – 14 of this searchable version of the 1988 Declarations & Covenants. For legal definitions and voting rights of Class E Members, see the June 9, 2001 Covenant Amendment that added Class E as a Member Category. I have also uploaded a searchable version of the POA By-Laws.
Be the first to comment