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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|