Surfside Washington News: Election Integrity Concerns Raised

During the recent Surfside Board meeting, a board member who was president last year  voiced legal concerns regarding the legitimacy of the latest election, pointing out two key issues that undermine its integrity: non received ballots and proxy instructions that may have been illegible for some elderly members due to font choice. We commend the board member for raising the issue.

Ballot Distribution Problems

The first issue involves the failure to deliver ballots to several members, including the board member and others he knows. Some other members did not receive ballots, forcing them to request replacements, while others may not have voted at all due to not receiving a ballot. This same issue occured during the budget vote, many members also reported missing or late  ballots and the problem seems unresolved.

The board members property is in a trust. There are over 200 properties in Surfside held in trust, and ballots may have gone to the wrong trustees, leading to further confusion. The board needs to address whether one trustee or multiple trustees can vote on behalf of a trust, a legal question requiring clarification.

In 2018, a committee recommended electronic voting due to its overwhelming benefits, including avoiding the disenfranchisement of part-time and remote members. The results of this election highlight the committee’s concerns. ElectionBuddy software could have solved many of these issues, but trust property owners and others may  appear to be left out.

For remote members, the lack of a ballot left many unaware of how to participate in the election. Some members who did receive replacement ballots had to manually write in their candidate choices on a ballot with 7 ” Candidate” listed, while others abstained from voting entirely. The process of issuing replacement ballots that differ from official ones raises further questions about election integrity.

Proxy Information and Transparency

The second issue relates to proxy information printed on ballots in a small, nearly illegible font, making it difficult for some seniors to submit their proxy ballots. The board’s decision to discuss this matter privately only deepens suspicions about the election’s validity.

Additional Concerns raised by other members

The election committee was also criticized for misspelling a candidate’s name and sending out replacement ballots with no candidate names at all, only the word “candidate.” This lack of oversight and reviewing ballots seriously undermines the election process.

Furthermore, the lack of candidate information on the ballots—no statements, biographies, or resumes—further weakens the election’s legitimacy. Imagine receiving a november presidential election ballot with only a list of positions and no candidate details. This flawed process could lead to many ballots being left unfilled, as voters struggle to choose from a random set of names.

Campaign and Voting Block Concerns

The newly elected board members benefited from a brochure sent out by Surfside Preservation, a group that has cultivated a member list over the years. This advantage was evident in the voting totals, raising questions about coordination between the group, the website author, the president, and an election committee board member. Publishing proxy information on the website and unavailable to other members or not on the HOA web site is a major concern

Private Collaboration and Lack of Transparency

The president and an election committee board member intended to meet for lunch after the second member meeting about motions , but left when they saw me and another member. Such private meetings, especially without other board members present, raise serious transparency concerns where things are discussed and decisions made..

Unified Voting Block and Democracy Issues

This year, four candidates aligned with the president and his group were put forth, ensuring a unified voting block. The president’s handpicked candidates received nearly identical vote totals, raising significant concerns about the legitimacy of Surfside’s democratic processes.

Legitimacy and Integrity Questions

The close vote distribution among Surfside Preservation candidates suggests coordinated voting efforts, sidelining genuine competition. The coordinated block voting fails to represent diverse candidates, compromising the integrity of a genuinely democratic process. Mathematically, candidates in an election would have a wider distribution, indicating fair selections by voters. Board members who choose this way to get elected have very little election integrity. They should run independently and get elected on their merits like the other candidates. It delegitimizes their independence when representing members on the board.

Despite widespread member support for electronic voting, the board has not adopted it, likely because they know they can win ballot-only elections with their voting block. The lack of electronic voting raises serious concerns about election fairness.

Given the multiple errors and lack of a proper review process, an independent election expert should conduct a full review of the HOA election process. The board member raising these legitimate election questions is right but a thorough, independent review is necessary to ensure the integrity and fairness of Surfside’s elections going forward..

Conclusion

The board’s refusal to adopt ElectionBuddy as a proven  electronic voting option, despite overwhelming member support, only highlights their desire to preserve the status quo. It’s time for Surfside to adopt fair elections and electronic voting, ensuring that all members have an equal voice in the election process.