Voting system discussion needs members’ opinions

Dec. 19, 2019) While considering voting system vendor options last week, the Ocean Pines Elections Committee concluded that gauging community sentiment and assessing HOA bylaw requirements should occur prior to adopting revised balloting systems for future OPA Board of Directors elections.
OPA

Ocean Pines Association IT Manager Steve Grabowski, left, and Ocean Pines Elections Committee board liaison Steve Tuttle delve into cost points for voting system options during the committee meeting last Friday.

followed up on discussions the month before by returning to the committee meeting last Friday with additional data regarding voting systems. He also included a price quote for online or telephone elections.
While awaiting further price quotes, Grabowski said it appears evident that retaining the current paper ballots would be problematic if contracting for updated voting systems.
“That limits us quite a bit because a lot of these places are just online,” he said. “If we’re not going to go completely online, our only option is to go online and telephone [so] we would have to eliminate paper ballots completely.”
Grabowski said combining paper balloting with online or telephone options would be challenging to accurately track.
“You almost have to take a vote,” he said. “Send out a ballot to see which way people want to vote and then send them out the ballot for voting.”
Reviving a point from the group’s November meeting, committee member Mark Heintz asked if the additional insight would negate the idea of a “hybrid” voting system.
Grabowski said it appears the only fiscally feasible option would be a hybrid of online and telephone voting.
“If you’re going to do paper, I think our only option is to do all paper,” he said.
Based on a price quote from vendor Simply Voting, of Montreal, Canada, the cost to manage elections would include a $1,695 base charge, with another mandated $850 fee to manage the contest and $859 to include a telephone option.
Although the vendor does include an option for paper ballots, at $2 per vote, the cost would be exorbitant, Grabowski said.
“Those are basically our two choices,” he said. “We either update our old system … or we do online/telephone.”
Committee member Bob Windsor said combining paper ballots with other options appears difficult.
“It seems like it would be an administrative nightmare to keep track of who has a ballot and who doesn’t have,” he said.
Grabowski said return on investment should be weighed if pursuing the online or telephone options.
“If you want to do this as a service, it’s best to start that now,” he said.
By comparison, if the option of developing revised paper ballots is preferred, it would likely take a couple of years to recoup the initial investment, Grabowski said.
Grabowski also noted the newly adopted Northstar financial software has a potential option that was deemed insufficient after further investigation.
“Basically, it’s more of a survey than it is an election,” he said.
Windsor asked if handing election oversight to an outside vendor could elicit criticisms.
“If the electronic election process is managed by someone here, then somebody would say it’s not independent,” he said.
Grabowski said those sentiments could be widespread and agreed contracting for services also surrenders control.
“It’s completely out of our hands if we do the service,” he said.
Elections Committee Chairman Steve Habeger said there could be general community sentiment in favor of retaining paper balloting.
“The acceptance of the process by the community is overwhelming unless there’s some incredible cost challenge,” he said. “It’s become an accepted way of doing business here.”
Grabowski said the community should be polled prior to abandoning paper ballots.
Habeger said an inquiry could be included in the 2020 election mailing to gauge interest in the change.
“A separate piece of paper that would say, in the future, we are considering going to online and possibly telephone,” he said.
To help inform voters before they respond, Windsor suggested providing a detailed picture of associated costs.
To further muddy the waters, Habeger noted specific requirements in the OPA governing guidelines outlining election procedures.
“According to the bylaws, we are required to inform every member for the upcoming annual meeting,” he said. “No matter how we conduct the balloting and the election, we’re into that mailing.”
Habeger also said during the group’s November meeting, Bylaws and Resolutions Committee Chairman Jim Trummel explained that abandoning paper ballots might require amending related resolutions.
Grabowski concurred there are potential legalities in play.
“We need to get a definite understanding of the bylaws because it mentions paper, but it doesn’t mandate paper,” he said.
Echoing those bylaws concerns was Windsor.
“It was written toward that, but it doesn’t mandate that it has to be paper,” he said. “It says there has to be a mailing … of election materials to members eligible to vote and a procedure for safeguarding and tabulating returned ballots.”
Grabowski said if a resolution amendment is required, additional time would be involved.
“If that has to be changed, and has to be done by referendum, then we’re not making that this year,” he said. “The good news is a new paper balloting system gives us 2-3 years to get all this stuff under our belt.”
Habeger proposed developing a new paper balloting system for the 2020 election, while continuing to research future options in terms of costs, community sentiment and bylaw requirements.
“We need a system that looks a lot like what our previous system has been … for the coming election,” he said.