Board rejects ballot review complaint

Some procedural changes may be adopted for future Cove elections

By TOM STAUSS Publisher

The Board of Directors has formally rejected a Nov. 23 complaint from a group of property owners unhappy with the way a review of ballots in the 2022 Board election was handled. A hearing on the complaint was held during a Jan. 23 Board meeting, with no final decision issued at that time.

The Board dealt with the complaint as a consent agenda item Feb. 6, deciding “not to accept or implement the actions requested by the complainants in the manner stated in the complaint.” Property owner F. Barrett Magrogan was the spokesman for the group during the Jan. 23 Board meeting.

Consent agenda items are those addressed via email or other electronic means between regularly scheduled Board meetings.

The complaint alleged that there was a prior lack of instructions by reviewers as to the ballot inspection process.

The complainants said they were unable to ask questions prior to

To Page 48

CAPTAIN’S COVE CURRENTS Ballot complaint

From Page 46 the review or to secure the mailing list of ballots.

They were not given direction on to how the ballots should be displayed during the review, nor was there a code of conduct in place during the review, the complainants said.

In a Feb. 9 letter to Magrogan in accord with Captain’s Cove Golf and Yacht Club governing documents, General Manager Justin Wilder on behalf of the Board countered allegations contained in the complaint.

Wilder’s letter said that Cove association members were provided instructions at the beginning of their review session, “and if they desired an additional time to review the ballots, that was available to them. Lists of members not eligible to vote and a mailing list of members [were] already available to members per the VAPOAA [Virginia Property Owners Association Act] and CCGYC processes.”

The letter indicated that the Cove property management team determines the display of ballots during the review process, and those members inspecting the ballots “are required to not relocate the ballots into other segments, or separate the ballots from their envelopes, as was attempted by one of the complainants.”

With respect to complainants’ contention that certain Board members should not have been allowed in the room during the review process, Wilder’s letter said that Virginia non-stock corporation law “indicates that new directors are immediately seated after the announcement of election results. The ballot review occurred well after the election result announcement. Board members observing the ballot review are acting within their fiduciary duties,” he said.

According to the letter, the property management team allowed for ballot review groups of up to five members at a single time to review ballots.

“When the larger numbers occurred, it was deemed appropriate to have multiple observers present to ensure the integrity of the process,” the letter said, adding that CCGYC employees operate under a code of conduct within their employment agreements, and Board board members do so under the CCGYC bylaws.

To Page 50

If you are I nterested I n g I v I ng r I des to I nd I v I duals I n the capta I n’s cove commun I ty, get to doctors, grocery shopp I ng or appo I ntments, please reach out to e I leen kl I nefelter at