| TABLE 3: ENACT HOA ELECTION REFORMS IN LINE WITH CONDOMINIUMS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| KEY FINDINGS: |
1 |
Overall 89.3% of respondents want HOA election practices reformed to
conform to the same rules as Condomiums. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
The
boldfaced values in the row of column YESes differ significantly from the
overall average as they are at least 3 standard deviations away from that
value. The disparity between Owners'
views |
|
|
|
and other Interest groups is statistically
significant and thus quite strong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
The percentage YES and NO responses of
non-owner interest groups are very consistent and |
statistically significantly far less
favorable than the corresponding ones of Owners and Overall. |
|
|
4 |
Some percentage YES and NO responses in
the Gender, Region [Central, West Coast, and South] and Additional Remarks
Made sections also differ significantly from the figures Overall |
|
|
|
|
and for Owners. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Similarly, CCFJ members are significantly more in favor of election
reforms than either non-members or the Overall average. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
Four
of the five respondent traits apparently have causal relationships with their
answers to this question; only Additional Comments was independent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * * * * * * * |
* * * * * * * * INTEREST * * * *
* * * * |
* * * * * * * * * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * *
REGION [8] * * * * * * * |
|
* *
ADDITIONAL REMARKS MADE * * |
|
|
|
|
|
BOARD |
|
|
|
|
|
* * * GENDER [5] * * * |
|
CCFJ
MEMBER [7] |
|
|
WEST |
EAST |
|
|
PRIORITY |
COMMENT |
|
|
| OVERALL TOTALS |
|
OVERALL |
OWNER |
MEMBER [1] |
LAWYER |
C.A.M. [2] |
OTHER [3] |
N.A. [4] |
|
MALE |
FEMALE |
D.K. [6] |
|
YES |
NO |
|
NORTH |
CENTRAL |
COAST |
COAST |
SOUTH |
|
ONLY |
ONLY |
BOTH |
NEITHER |
| % WITHIN CATEGORY |
|
1033 |
|
740 |
130 |
7 |
13 |
8 |
135 |
|
584 |
389 |
60 |
|
196 |
837 |
|
35 |
202 |
156 |
137 |
503 |
|
176 |
131 |
418 |
308 |
|
|
100.0% |
|
71.6% |
12.6% |
0.7% |
1.3% |
0.8% |
13.1% |
|
56.5% |
37.7% |
5.8% |
|
19.0% |
81.0% |
|
3.4% |
19.6% |
15.1% |
13.3% |
48.7% |
|
17.0% |
12.7% |
40.5% |
29.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ADJUSTED # [9] |
|
1024 |
|
737 |
131 |
7 |
12 |
7 |
130 |
|
584 |
388 |
52 |
|
196 |
828 |
|
35 |
202 |
155 |
132 |
500 |
|
174 |
130 |
417 |
303 |
| # OF YESes |
|
920 |
|
713 |
93 |
5 |
10 |
6 |
93 |
|
536 |
352 |
32 |
|
190 |
730 |
|
32 |
187 |
146 |
122 |
433 |
|
160 |
109 |
386 |
265 |
| # OF NOs |
|
104 |
|
24 |
38 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
37 |
|
48 |
36 |
20 |
|
6 |
98 |
|
3 |
15 |
9 |
10 |
67 |
|
14 |
21 |
31 |
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| COLUMN % YES [10] |
|
89.8% |
|
96.7% |
71.0% |
71.4% |
83.3% |
85.7% |
71.5% |
|
91.8% |
90.7% |
61.5% |
|
96.9% |
88.2% |
|
91.4% |
92.6% |
94.2% |
92.4% |
86.6% |
|
92.0% |
83.8% |
92.6% |
87.5% |
| t-Test on %
YESes [11] |
|
|
7.3 |
-19.9 |
-19.5 |
-6.9 |
-4.4 |
-19.4 |
|
2.0 |
0.9 |
-29.9 |
|
7.5 |
-1.8 |
|
1.7 |
2.9 |
4.6 |
2.7 |
-3.4 |
|
2.2 |
-6.3 |
2.9 |
-2.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| COLUMN % NO [10] |
|
10.2% |
|
3.3% |
29.0% |
28.6% |
16.7% |
14.3% |
28.5% |
|
8.2% |
9.3% |
38.5% |
|
3.1% |
11.8% |
|
8.6% |
7.4% |
5.8% |
7.6% |
13.4% |
|
8.0% |
16.2% |
7.4% |
12.5% |
| t-Test on % NOes [11] |
|
|
|
-7.3 |
19.9 |
19.5 |
6.9 |
4.4 |
19.4 |
|
-2.0 |
-0.9 |
29.9 |
|
-7.5 |
1.8 |
|
-1.7 |
-2.9 |
-4.6 |
-2.7 |
3.4 |
|
-2.2 |
6.3 |
-2.9 |
2.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 STD.
DEVIATION [12] |
0.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| % YESes Row [10] |
|
100.0% |
|
77.5% |
10.1% |
0.5% |
1.1% |
0.7% |
10.1% |
|
58.1% |
38.1% |
3.5% |
|
20.6% |
79.1% |
|
3.5% |
20.3% |
15.8% |
13.2% |
46.9% |
|
17.3% |
11.8% |
41.8% |
28.7% |
| % NOs Row [10] |
|
100.0% |
|
23.1% |
36.5% |
1.9% |
1.9% |
1.0% |
35.6% |
|
69.6% |
52.2% |
29.0% |
|
8.7% |
142.0% |
|
4.3% |
21.7% |
13.0% |
14.5% |
97.1% |
|
20.3% |
30.4% |
44.9% |
55.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Calculated
Chi-Squared Value [13]: |
0.4136*10^-31
[14] |
|
|
|
|
|
0.3111*10^-12
[14] |
|
0.0003 |
|
|
|
0.0087 |
|
|
|
|
0.0105 |
|
|
|
| Implication of
Chi-Squared Test |
|
RELATIONSHIP FOUND |
|
|
|
|
|
RELATIONSHIP FOUND |
|
RELATIONSHIP FOUND |
RELATIONSHIP FOUND |
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 ROWS x 4 COLUMNS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
© 2008 Cyber Citizens for Justice, Inc. Deland, FL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|