Advisory letter and Esignatures

We got a letter (actually an Eletter or Email) from the chair of the Advisory Committee notifying us that they wouldn't accept electronic signatures on petitions to amend the bylaws. There's no good reason for their  refusal, the signatures are all verifiable, complete with phone numbers and addresses. Their reaction is not unexpected as we know that any attempt to change things for the better of the residents to the perceived detriment of the administration is going to be met with unreasonable and obstinate obstructionism.  Here's the letter and our response below From: "Anita Buchanan"  To: "olga wolkenstein" ,  To "MARILYN" (Pomerantz)  (email addresses removed for privacy considerations) Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 9:41:34 AM Subject: Electronic Signatures Marilyn and Olga, Sorry, but the Advisory Committee isn't yet ready to accept electronic signatures on petitions. Under the law (see below) all parties have to choose to use electronic signatures), meaning that we'd have to include acceptance of e-signatures in the bylaws so all sides -- party petitioning and party receiving (UCO) -- would be in agreement. Electronic signatures are an idea whose time has come, but we're just a bit ahead of ourselves. We need a bylaw change and can address this at the July 11 meeting. Here's the explanation: The ESIGN Act is a federal law passed in 2000. It grants legal recognition to electronic signatures and records if all parties to a contract choose to use electronic documents and to sign them electronically. ... No contract, signature, or record shall be denied legal effect solely because it is in electronic form. Attorney language supporting this: "The current electronic petition by the 'Justice for Residents' does not meet the requirements of the Bylaws because the petition must be “signed” by at least 25 members. This means a hand written signature. The Bylaws do not provide for electronic voting or electronic signatures. Ch 718 has provisions for electronic voting but as we know UCO is not a condominium association and thus not subject to Ch 718. " We want to let you know before you work on other proposals and you might want to redo the one you just submitted for one-vote. Thanks, Anita Buchanan Here's our response; In re: The letter from Anita Buchanan, the chair of the UCO Advisory Committee rejecting E ( electronic) signatures as a legitimate way to propose amendments to the UCO bylaws. Anita refers to the Esign Act as a basis for denying the use of E signatures as a vehicle for petitioning the UCO administration. The assertion that the Esign Act prohibits the use of electronic signatures in this instance  is invalid .The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN, Pub.L. 106–229, 114 Stat. 464, enacted June 30, 2000, 15 U.S.C. ch. 96) is a United States federal law passed by the U.S. Congress to facilitate the use of electronic records and electronic signatures in interstate and foreign commerce by ensuring the validity and legal effect of contracts entered into electronically. . Unilaterally generated electronic records and signatures which are not part of a transaction also are not covered by this Act. The general intent of the ESIGN Act is spelled out in the very first section(101.a), that a contract or signature “may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforcability solely because it is in electronic form”. This simple statement provides that electronic signatures and records are just as good as their paper equivalents, and therefore subject to the same legal scrutiny of authenticity that applies to paper documents. The Scope of this Act is inherently limited by the fact that it only applies to transactions related to business, commercial (including consumer) and governmental matters. Consequently, transactions with no relation to business, commercial or governmental transactions would not be subject to this Act.The proposing of an amendment to the bylaws of UCO does not fall into the framework covered by the act. The Esign Act is intended to be used as a tool for consumer protection in contracts and transactions and to facilitate commerce. Our petition is a request, not a contract or transaction.  The further assertion that electronic signatures are not permitted under UCO bylaws is also challenged on the basis that the UCO bylaws do not specifically or in general prohibit Esignatures. The bylaw simply says "signatures" No reference is made in the bylaws to the nature of the signatures other than they must be verifiable. We challenge the statement that "attorney language" supports the position of the committee. we question the existence of such an opinion and would like to respond to the attorney who stated it, if such an attorney exists,  so that we can challenge his opinion and defend our position.  For the above stated reasons we respectfully request that the committee reconsider their position on this matter and do the right thing in accepting E signatures as a valid means to make proposals and present petitions to the administration  of Century Village