In Colorado, use of proxies by owners must be permitted by associations. Therefore, associations in Colorado must allow owners to attend meetings and submit their vote via proxy. But is the use of proxies a good or bad thing?
The Chicago Tribune recently posed this question in an article and received more than 120 responses from its readers that span the country. As one might suspect, the responses came down on both sides of the issue.
Individuals favoring the use of proxies brought up such positives as: 1) proxies afford owners who do not live near the community the opportunity to still have a say in association issues; 2) proxies save money; and 3) proxies allow communities to have elections where most owners attend by proxy—otherwise there would not be quorum or the opportunity to elect directors.
Opponents of proxies, however, were more concerned with the possible abuses that come with proxy use, such as forgery and alteration. Additionally, opponents felt that proxies allow some owners to push their personal agendas by collecting large numbers of proxies.
So what’s the solution? Is there a way to use proxies and still address both sides of the issue? Some readers recommended use of absentee ballots, quorum-only proxies, or limiting the number of proxies that may be held by a single owner. What do you think about all of this? Are proxies really evil, or need to be further controlled? Do you have a horror or happy ending story that involves proxies? If so, please share!