For those who have not logged into the forum, this is Neil Canter writing. I am treasurer of Vecinos, a member of the board, a member of the election nominating committee, and manager of this website. 

The Vecinos board publishes its meeting minutes in the Member Area of this website (login required), as required by the bylaws. This level of disclosure is usually sufficient, but in this situation, where the director of elections and the board have made a controversial decision affecting all members, and no confidential member or partner information is at risk, minutes are not enough. Respect for the members we serve demands that those of us involved behind the scenes be fully transparent about the positions we took and why we believe those positions best benefit our association. This will allow members to evaluate our positions and our performance (five board members are standing for re-election this month), and decide whether to exercise their right under Vecinos bylaws to vote to void any decision they disagree with. 

Jon Kantor, our director of elections, was nominated by Ricardo Mangione, our president and approved by the board. Jon made a decision to disqualify Scott Brown (whom I have never met) as a candidate for vice president. Jon knew his decision would be controversial, so before finalizing it, he asked the board for its view. By a 7-2 vote, the board agreed with Jon that Scott is not qualified to serve as vice president, and Jon then communicated his decision to Scott. As a result, Scott is currently listed as a candidate for vocal, not vice president. I was one of the two dissenting votes on the board and I would like to explain why in detail.

At issue is a bylaws requirement that the president and vice president must be “full-time residents of Akumal”, language that has applied to those positions without interruption or change since 2013. But the bylaws have never defined what “full-time resident” means for this purpose, and it was not clarified in the last revision of the bylaws in 2023, despite six months of work by the Charter Committee. In the past, the elections director and the board have interpreted the requirement flexibly, recognizing that its purpose is to ensure these positions are only filled by members who can be physically present in Akumal Norte on a daily basis year-round. 

In 2022, for example, our current vice president, Helmie Atarie, was allowed to run and serve despite maintaining a family residence outside Akumal. I believe this was the right decision for Helmie (who is retiring from the board) because he is obviously a full-time members of our community willing and able to be physically present whenever needed, regardless of where he sleeps. Helmie has served our community well and deserves our thanks.

But this year, Jon, with the board’s concurrence, has changed the interpretation of the residency requirement to match the Mexican definition of a tax resident, based solely on the postal code of the member’s residence of 183 days or more per year. He ruled that Scott Brown, who grew up in Akumal Norte, owns two properties in Akumal Norte, and is in Akumal Norte almost every day for his job, is not qualified to be VP because he sleeps just up the road in Puerto Aventuras. 

I spoke against this decision at the board meeting on January 29th (the minutes have not yet been published) because I see no reason to change the rules and disqualify a member who is obviously willing and able to do the job on the ground in Akumal Norte on a full-time basis. More importantly, neither Jon, Ricardo, nor the board has any authority under the bylaws to rule on the eligibility of candidates who submit their names for board positions except checking for unpaid dues. Jon’s job under the bylaws is to solicit candidates, present them to the members, and ensure the election runs smoothly and fairly, not to decide who he thinks should be on the ballot. The rest is up to the members.

Our association is better off when it is inclusive and when its representatives do not try to assert authority that our bylaws do not assign to them. Members should decide for themselves how to interpret their bylaws and decide who should be officers of their association through their votes. The decision Jon made to block Scott from the vice president ballot with the support of the board represents both a change in precedent with no discernible benefit to the association and a significant overreach of both Jon’s authority and the board’s. 

In my opinion, Scott should never have been disqualified. Hopefully, Jon will end this needless controversy and quickly move to put Scott's name on the ballot for vice president, for the good of the association and as required in our bylaws. But if he does not, I believe the members should exercise their right under the bylaws and vote at the Annual Meeting on February 22nd on voiding Jon’s disqualification decision. In that situation, members who want Scott Brown to be their vice president should both vote for Scott for vocal (in case the vote to void Jon's decision fails), and write in Scott’s name on both paper and online ballots for vice president.

That’s my view. I apologize for the length of this, but I wanted to be thorough. I welcome member comments on it, both pro and con. In the interest of transparency, I encourage Jon, Ricardo, and the rest of my fellow board members to post their views on this topic thread, as well, explaining their positions in detail and why they believe they are acting in the best interest of the association.

I do not want to engage in a conflict with other members but I was the chair of the charter committee in 2022-23 that brought forward the changes to the Bylaws and the creation of internal regulations and some clarifications to Neil Canter’s comments are required. For those who were not involved in the 2022 election, it was the first time Vecinos had had a contested election and there were no guidelines concerning how to proceed. With the agreement of those involved (particularly Dan Freeman and Terry Richardson), I subsequently undertook to set up a Charter review committee with special emphasis on creating the role of an independent Director of Elections and a nominating committee.

Article 12 of the Regulations adopted by Vecinos at the February 2023 meeting state:

The board may appoint a member of “VECINOS” who is not a candidate for election as Director of Elections.

The Director is responsible for all actions preceding the election.

The Director of Elections will also be the organizer of the calls and the election procedure in accordance with the rules established in the Election Policy Manual.

Unfortunately, the Manual has not been completed but guidance exists in the minutes of the committee meetings.

Clarifications

It is incorrect to say that Ricardo appointed Jon Kantor, the authority for the appointment of the Director of Elections is the board

It is incorrect to say that residency for the secretary was not removed until 2023, Vecinos approved the removal in the special meeting in 2022 which meant that Monica was eligible .

It is incorrect to say that Helmie was not eligible to be VP in 2022, his residence in 2022 was stated as Akumal

It is incorrect to say that the Board of Vecinos disqualified Scott Brown, the decision was made by the Director of Elections and Nominating committee. Aware of the possibility that some members would have concerns about the decision, Jon Kantor sought the board’s confidence in his independent position.

Issue

The facts are not in dispute, Scott is a member who owns property and works in Akumal Norte. But the bylaws state he needs to be a fulltime resident of Akumal. The issue has nothing to do with the definition of “fulltime” (for which we use the standard tax definition of 6 months plus a day). Scott doesn’t live in Akumal he lives in Puerto Aventuras, which is part of the municipality of Solidaridad. Vecinos removed the residency requirement for the Secretary in order to broaden the opportunities for non-residents to take on additional board responsibilities but the Charter Committee specifically chose not to remove residency for the President and Vice President since they are our representatives in front of municipal and other government authorities.

While I agree that article 11 of the Bylaws states the membership is the supreme authority, that does not mean that the membership in a general meeting can override the express wording of the bylaws. Vecinos minutes have to be protocolized and the notary will not “accept” decisions that are contrary to the Bylaws.

Thank you for your post, Tandy. This is the discussion we need to be having for all to see.

To your points:

• I stand corrected on the details of the appointment of Jon as Director of Elections. Ricardo proposed Jon, the board approved, and Jon subsequently accepted the appointment. I will edit my post to reflect this.
  
  
• Regarding the timing of the change in the requirements for becoming secretary, you're right: the change was made in 2022, an hour before the election, to allow Monica to run and to create four new votes by creating a new, "converted honorary" voting membership category. Setting aside the propriety of rushing through such moves at the last moment of a close election (the changes were not even sent to the members to consider until the day before the vote), it nonetheless happened in 2022 and not in 2023, so the residency requirement did not apply to Monica. I will also make this correction.
  
  
• The bylaws do not define a "full-time resident of Akumal" as a "tax resident of Akumal", which is a definition used for an entirely different purpose in an entirely different context. It is not relevant to a non-profit Asociación Civil that pays almost no taxes and would not be an issue for protocolization unless we make it an issue.
  
  
• I understand that Helmie's residence was stated as Akumal in 2022, but I am not aware of the details of his personal living situation and how much time he spends where, nor do I think they matter, which is the crux of my position.
  
  
• I agree that Jon, not the board, decided to disqualify Scott after getting a concurring opinion from the board - that's what my post says.
  
  
• There is no Election Policy Manual, regardless of what may have been discussed but not enacted. As a result, Jon's authority as Director of Elections is limited to what is stated in the bylaws, and that does not include ruling on the eligibility of candidates beyond being current on dues. Article 13 of the regulations states (emphasis added):
  

Article 13.  Candidacy for the Board of Directors.

Within the period established by the Bylaws of the Association, the application forms to be a candidate for the Board are to be sent in a timely manner to the President of the Board of Directors or to the person designated by him, with the data and complete information of the person and proving that they are up to date in the payment of their dues.

The profiles of the candidates will be published on the Association's website and the formal invitation to the meeting will be attached.

• No one has proposed that the members have the right under article 11 to ignore the bylaws and that's not what they are being asked to do. They are being asked to exercise their right to interpret their bylaws in the manner that best meets the needs of their association. That said, in the past, when it was pointed out that many members (including me) had originally been admitted without being asked to provide required ownership documentation and suggested that we go through a regularization process with all existing members, the response was that once the members voted to admit an owner, it became legal because of article 11.

Neil has every right to share his opinions.  Neil has done a great job on the Vecinos Board, as have all of the other board members over the years.  Volunteering for an HOA is often a thankless job, so I thank you all for your hard work and dedication.  

Many of us in the Akumal community feel that Vecinos is steadily losing community support.  I’ve watched it rise and fall and rise again over my lifetime and it all comes down community participation.  Many prominent members have left.  It barely has the budget to cover expenses for security and the National Guard, much less larger ongoing projects like sewage and privitization.  

It needs community support to survive and thrive, but in order to do that, it needs to better represent its members.  Most owners feel that that is not happening, therefore they’re not participating.  I hear it all the time.  

I have more history in Akumal than most.  It’s my home town.  Most people in town know me, and many have known me since I was a kid (that was a long time ago).  Those who do know me, I feel, know that I have the ability and willingness and patience to work together with just about everyone in town, regardless of their views on issues in Akumal... which is something I (and many others) feel is seriously lacking in the leadership of Vecinos.  

I'm pushing this issue of who can run for President and VP because it needs to change (and there's no time like the present!).  Currently, I can count the number of people who can hold those positions on one hand, and most of them have been serving on the board for years.  Most of the rest of the full time residents in Akumal have all but abandoned Vecinos.  

If Vecinos doesn’t change, it will fade away.  If it dies, it will be replaced.  I’ve seen it before.  

I’m already volunteering on various other community projects and organizations.  I don’t HAVE to run for Vecinos, but I strongly feel it needs to change in order to survive, and I’m encouraging as many owners as I can to continue supporting it as well.