TABLE 5: REQUIRE DIRECTORS TO BE DEEDED HOMEOWNERS & LIMIT THEM TO A 2-YEAR STAGGERED TERM ENDING AT ANNUAL MEETINGS PLUS OTHER RESTRICTIONS
KEY FINDINGS: 1    Overall 94.6% of respondents want HOA directors to meet explicit eligibility standards, serve subject to term limits, etc.
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.
3    Most of the percentage YES and NO responses of all but one of the non-owner interest groups are statistically significantly different from the corresponding ones of Owners and Overall figures. 
             Non-owner Interest groups consistently are less favorably disposed to requiring directors to meet explicit eligibilty standards. 
4     The same four non-owner interest groups were less favorably inclined than CCFJ members, respondents in the Northern region or those making a comment.
5     The YES and NO percentage responses of CCFJ members did not differ significantly from either the Overall figures or those of Non-members save when members voted NO. 
6    There is a potentially causal relationship between respondents' Interest and their response to this question.
 
* * * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * *  INTEREST * * * * * * * *   * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * *  REGION [8]  * * * * * * * * * ADDITIONAL REMARKS  MADE * * 
BOARD * * * GENDER [5] * * *  CCFJ MEMBER [7] WEST EAST PRIORITY COMMENT
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
OVERALL TOTALS 1033 740 130 7 13 8 135 584 389 60 196 837 35 202 156 137 503   176 131 418 308
% WITHIN CATEGORY 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] 1028 738 131 7 12 8 132 581 388 59 191 837 34 201 156 134 503 174 131 416 307
# OF YESes 973 708 116 6 11 7 125 553 369 51 188 785 34 189 150 127 473 166 120 396 291
# OF NOs 55 30 15 1 1 1 7 28 19 8 3 52 0 12 6 7 30 8 11 20 16
COLUMN % YES [10] 94.6% 95.9% 88.5% 85.7% 91.7% 87.5% 94.7% 95.2% 95.1% 86.4% 98.4% 93.8% 100.0% 94.0% 96.2% 94.8% 94.0% 95.4% 91.6% 95.2% 94.8%
t-Test on % YESes [11] 1.8 -8.7 -12.7 -4.2 -10.1 0.1 0.8 0.6 -11.6 5.4 -1.2 7.6 -0.9 2.1 0.2 -0.9 1.1 -4.3 0.8 0.2
COLUMN % NO [10] 5.4% 4.1% 11.5% 14.3% 8.3% 12.5% 5.3% 4.8% 4.9% 13.6% 1.6% 6.2% 0.0% 6.0% 3.8% 5.2% 6.0% 4.6% 8.4% 4.8% 5.2%
t-Test on % NOes [11] -1.8 8.7 12.7 4.2 10.1 -0.1 -0.8 -0.6 11.6 -5.4 1.2 -7.6 0.9 -2.1 -0.2 0.9 -1.1 4.3 -0.8 -0.2
1 STD. DEVIATION [12] 0.7%
% YESes Row [10] 100.0% 72.8% 11.9% 0.6% 1.1% 0.7% 12.8% 56.8% 37.9% 5.2% 19.3% 80.7% 3.5% 19.4% 15.4% 13.1% 48.6% 17.1% 12.3% 40.7% 29.9%
% NOs Row [10] 100.0% 54.5% 27.3% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 12.7% 50.9% 34.5% 14.5% 5.5% 94.5% 0.0% 21.8% 10.9% 12.7% 54.5% 14.5% 20.0% 36.4% 29.1%
Calculated Chi-Squared Value [13]: 0.0021 [14] 0.0155   ? 0.7763 0.4154
Implication of Chi-Squared Test RELATIONSHIP FOUND INDEPENDENT CELL < 5 INDEPENDENT INDEPENDENT
2 ROWS X 3 COLUMNS 2 ROWS X 3 COLUMNS
© 2008 Cyber Citizens for Justice, Inc.   Deland, FL