Due to my remote location in the Great White North, I’m probably one of the last owners to receive mail notifications from the Hawks Nest (except Canadians, of course).

So I suppose that most everyone else has gotten their notification regarding the annual meeting, along with several proposed emergency by-law amendments that have to be approved right away. WHY??

There are three amendment proposals: A-1, A-2, & A-3.

A-1: This is really two amendments. Part 1 amends the by-laws to say that “A majority of the members vote cast shall decide any question. Removed from that particular article is wording that originally exempted a limited number questions, most importantly, sale or liquidation of the property, which required a super majority of all owners to be approved. We’re at a point right now where the sale or liquidation of the property isn’t just an abstract or distant concept. I don’t know about you, but if the all-too-real possibility of the property being a total loss comes to pass, I don’t want to have the terms of disposal of the property to conceivably be made by a yes vote of 144 weeks, no matter how unlikely that may be.

Part 2 of This proposal amends the portion of the by-laws which ironically deals with the process of amending them. Presently, the by-laws provide that if the amendment has the unanimous approval of the board, it will pass if it receives a majority of the votes cast. If the amendment does not have unanimous approval, it will require a majority of total ownership voting interests. This amendment changes all that to say that the proposed amendment only needs a majority of votes cast, even if the board approval is a majority, but less than unanimous. I don’t particularly have much of an opinion on this part of the proposal, but my general feeling is that if it isn’t causing a problem, why change it, and why in such a hurry?

What I don’t understand is why both of these changes were put onto one ballot. If you’re in favor of one, but not the other, you have to either approve both or reject both.
I’m voting “NO”.

A-2: This amendment is pretty straightforward on its face. It changes the requirement for a quorum for an owners meeting from 50% of the total ownership to 20%. Sounds reasonable since by Rosemary Smith’s admission, we haven’t had a quorum in years. My problem is that once again, this amendment deletes the phrase “Unless otherwise provided in these by-laws”. Once again, there may be situations where a higher quorum level is preferable.
I’m voting “NO”.

A-3: This amendment provides for a reduction of the size of the Board of Directors from seven members to five. The only thing this will accomplish is to put the affairs of the Hawks Nest into the hands of only three people. No thanks. And even worse, the amendment calls for only one of the three seats open this year to be filled, which means that going forward, four seats will expire one year, and then only one the next, and on and on. This is a lousy idea.
I’m voting “NO”.

I don’t appreciate it when a bunch of by-law amendments come out of the blue with a relatively short deadline for returning the ballots, and with no previous explanation or discussion of them. This isn’t the first time this has happened, and I didn’t like it before then either. My question to the board is “What’s the hurry?”


  1. 2Gingers

    I have to say, under the present circumstances and condition of the property, I see no reason to make any of these changes. I’m hoping we don’t all face some really difficult decisions in the future, but if so I think all owners should be involved in them, and not just a select few.

Leave a Reply