Debating prospective new board member - open or closed session?

We had a resignation on our Board and the remaining Board members have the opportunity to vote a homeowner on to the Board.

I'm trying to envision the conversation. Initially, I think it would make sense to ask the remaining Board members if they had any names that they'd like to see considered, and then Board members could go ask these homeowners if they are interested. If a couple of people are interested, we might discuss the merits and pro/cons based on what we know about the homeowners to decide if they should be on.

I think that by law this is an open session topic, but I am very uncomfortable leading a discussion about homeowners and our take on how they may or may not make a great board member in open session, especially since we have random homeowners present at every meeting. It seems like discussing the pros/cons of non-Board homeowners in front of other homeowners would be a faux pas.

Wondering how other Boards handle this? I definitely want to follow the law, but also want to respect the privacy of folks that are not currently on the Board.

This is an open session discussion. If you can't lead, why are you still the president?

When I was on the board, I recall us having a conversation like this one time or two - it wasn't a huge issue because we were the only ones there (which happened most of the time), and no one said things like "I would hate for so and so to be on the board because he's lazy". I do agree with Max that there are times when you have to have uncomfortable conversations in open board meetings - better to have them there, as opposed to the rumor mill cranking up. That said, I don't think this would be a problem here, provided everyone focuses on what makes a good board member as opposed to personalities.

Why not ask your colleagues to think about people who would be a good fit? If they know someone, they can talk to that homeowner about the position and invite them to the next board meeting to discuss what's required, their backgrounds, why they'd like to serve, etc. The conversation may prompt some folks to drop out and whoever the board feels comfortable with after that could be appointed. Take a vote to make the appointment official as of the next meeting date - and in the meantime, someone (preferably the person who did the referral) should orientate the new board member so he/she will know what to expect. If you'd rather take the vote in executive session, go ahead and do that.

It's simply my opinion, but I'm with AugustinD on this: discuss during closed executive session at an open meeting. I can easily see this kind of discussion surfacing private / personal information that could be problematic in front of an audience. For instance, in Texas a Board member can be dismissed if they've committed any "crimes of moral turpitude"{1} in the past 20 years. Even if technically the law was on my side, this isn't something I'd discuss at a public session. It might not be a "personnel" issue, but I thought executive sessions were also for "sensitive or private information"?

BillD

{1} https://versustexas.com/blog/crimes-of-moral-turpitude-texas/

I've reached my decision. We will talk about the process of how we want to go about drumming up prospective Board members in open session. We will discuss the names, qualifications, and our knowledge of the prospective Board members in executive session.

Homeowners who are upset are welcome to file a lawsuit, but I think most courts would agree that is a reasonable decision for us to make.

You sound like a homeowner, one who doesn't have the time to be on the board or take an officer role.

Michael,

Actually, I served on a board, as president, as a matter of fact. I was personally attached by two management companies and two law firms, one that we mention here all the time, for 6 years, until I said enough is enough. After that, I started a HOA management company to make sure other homeowners don't get treated the same way. So far, so good.

Ah, good citation. Our Board has probably filled 6 vacancies over a dozen years. But we never have interviewed candidates for these vacancies. Perhaps our assn is unusual? I wonder what's typical.

Obviously, you can certainly do as you desire.

In my opinion, choosing to ignore applicable statutes or governing documents (regardless of the reason) indicates a bad board that may have issues in the future (if they don't already do). Based on posted comments, I believe many on this site would agree.

However, as I posted, the choice is yours and your boards to make.

Your decision is made - so there is no need to keep kicking a dead horse.

I do have one suggestion - some may not recall what State the HOA you are asking about is in. If, in the future, you could provide that in your questions, it can help to receive more applicable advice/opinions (as some may look up the statutes for the correct State) and help those who simply might browse the threads who may take action based on incorrect info (thinking it's for the State you have listed with your name, vs. the one the HOA is in).

I wish you luck.

Michael's neighborhood landed near Roswell, New Mexico sometime in the 1970s. They've since managed to repair their antigravity drive and have resided in several states - Oregon, others? And Rhode Island is the latest. I'm guessing they'll pass on Texas - many people here have 'issues' with, well ...

I thought everyone knew this?

BillD