The Association's Nomination Committee is currently seeking interested candidates for the open Board of Directions postitions. Anyone wanting to serve in this capacity can submit their names for consideration to John Branthoover. You will be provided with a questionnaire and will be interviewed by the Nomination Committee, which consists of two home owners and one board member on the review committee.
As this seems to be our season of examining the way we do things here in Gleneagle, are there ways we could make this process better? More thorough? More official?
Here is the opinion of one resident on the matter:
Psychology shows us that people tend to gravitate toward like-minded thinkers when in small groups, so three people are not enough to provide objectivity when interviewing candidates. Instead of an interview, the following would be a better, more objective, indicator of suitability:
- Criminal Background Check
- Proof of Citizenship
- Letters of Recommendation from at least three homeowners residing in Gleneagle
After submission of these items, a committee could convene to review and verify these items.
Since this condensed from the original, I you are interested in reading the whole argument for this new way of selecting Board of Directors candidates, click here.
What do you think about this? Do you like it the way it is just fine? Would you like to see something totally different?
The job of the nominating committee is to recruit homeowners to run for the open board positions. They are not selecting the next board member nor can they disqualify any homeowner in good standing from running. Our governing documents do not require a criminal background check, proof of citizenship, or letters of recommendation so they really can't ask for them since that might be seen as discriminatory and make the HOA a defendant in a lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteI do think that our CC&R's should be updated to disallow anybody that's been convicted of certain crimes (such as embezzlement) from serving on the board.
I also think that there should be a question and answer period at the annual meeting to ask anybody that is running about where they stand on the issues. All the annual meetings I've been to just have the candidates give a speech which might not address all of the homeowners concerns.
Another thought is that going forward, the elections include three (3) alternates willing to serve upon a vacancy. The Board may select from those three.
DeleteTerm limits for all Board members limited to Annual Meeting dates (March to March) with all being allowed to seek re-election should they desire.
Just to clarify: seeking to fill an unexpected vacancy is *not* to be confused with seeking election to a seat.
ReplyDeleteThe requirements this current Board has elected to use to fill an existing vacancy is an ‘at pleasure’ decision.
Future Boards may desire another method to better suit it’s purposes.
Big time confusion recently that the Board’s method to fill existing vacancies are the process Homeowners were to follow when seeking election to fill a expiring term.
I have a few issues with the current method of Board election / and Board appointments.
ReplyDeleteFor a number of reasons I believe that all Board members should be elected during each Annual Meeting and that all terms end at the next-held Annual Meeting, with the understanding that those Board members currently serving may seek re-election should they so desire.
I also believe it to be in the best interests of the Association for the Homeowners to also elect no less than three (3) alternates, willing to serve a remaining term should a need arise.
(The Boards may appoint one of those alternates should an appointee be required.)
Further, I believe it is (should be) the responsibility of the Homeowners to determine which Board member shall hold which office, and that that decision, and responsibility, not be granted to the Board.
The problem with all Board members being elected every year, is that there is no continuity what so ever. That is why there are staggered multiple year terms. Having 3 alternates is a great idea but there is so much apathy in Gleneagle, that to get people to even be on committees is difficult !
ReplyDelete