interviews

Initial interviews have been done by the president, and several interviews with two other board members have been scheduled.
Should the president discuss his findings with the others, ie his 1,2,3rd choices, and why, before the others meet with the prospects?

Two board members have longer terms than a third, but all 3 want to be part of that interview process. Seems that the 2 who have the longest terms remaining should interview, but that's not necessarily so. Suggestions?

Only 2 at a time can meet with a prospect, so the plan is to have 2 meet with some, and the other 2 meet with others. (ab, bc, ac,) Then results discussed.

Since the president will be the one working closest with the mc, should not he make the final decision if there is not a clear choice, even if it is not one of the others' choice?

Though the president had not named our mc to any prospect, during an interview, a prospect offered information regarding our present management person and company that was not known to us previously. (He knew it because a former employee was now working for them)
He said that he expected our mc to be out of business soon, that his company had just been hired by 3 of their former clients, and he knew of at least one other hoa that just left them.
His "out of business soon" was responded to by the question, "Two years or less?" The prospect's ressponse was he didn't think they would be in business 5-6 months from now. That's important because though 4 members are in agreement to change management company, it's still not definite, or how many more "events" they want to take place first.
He offered other information, too, that would help our board decide on a course and possibly speed of action.
Should the president inform the other board members of this before the coming interviews or after, and should he tell which prospect offered the info so the board members could ask more questions of that prospect?

I disagree: Initial interviews do not need to be part of the public process, and maybe not the secondary interviews.
We did not want a quorum because we did not want this part--the possibility of change--to be public yet. Only 2 members because we did not want a quorum. The other members had already decided they did NOT want extra board meetings and were emphatic about it.
All board members will vote on both the decision and the candidates in an open meeting.

If we have a quorum, we are required to post notice and have a meeting, whether public (open) or not, executive. We have to follow open meeting laws, and the board already decided against that.
So no quorum, no meeting, no public. At decision time, then we have the open meeting.

What about the other questions?

Thanks, Donna.

Hey Gerald,

I tried to remember if any of my associations ever has a meeting that would be open at all to the membership in regards to hiring a new M.C. and they never have done that. I think that hiring of a M.C or any other employee of the association would strictly be Board business and therefore considered non meeting business. Just my opinion. I am asking why this would be considered a binding vote? Just curious to know. I believe that the Board should be required to make a statement at a Board meeting, saying that so and so M.C is now working for the association.

If the bylaws or other documents give the Board the power to hire and fire the MC, then that's it. General membership input is not needed.

DonnaS - Nowhere did I state that a meeting should be open for a board to decide on the MC, so don't want you to get that impression. However, it is my opinion that a board must vote on the MC, a decision that requires formal ratification to the membership. Perhaps one of the most important formal decisions a board can make regarding who manages the association. Decisions that require ratification more often than not, if not all the time, must be voted upon in an open meeting. That's what I'm saying. Not that the board has to invite everyone in on the interview process. That could be a disaster. In regards to JC3 I believe that the board should meet as one group with the prospects being interviewed. Otherwise it is a meeting of sorts of less than a quorum of the board, and to be quite frank, kind of an odd way of doing things. Unless of course conflicting schedules are the reason.

PaulM - who said membership needs to be brought into the actual process and sight that statement.

DonnaS - The interview can and should happen in executive session. If the association is such that the board members choose to open that executive session to the community, provide an agenda of that interview meeting, etc. than so be it, that's their choice. However, I believe 100% that the decision of THE BOARD ratifying an MC should be placed in an agenda, the agenda should be posted and all that good stuff, and the entire membership should have access to that agenda to attend the meeting. Why do I believe this you ask? To hear their elected officials vote formally on the new MC, and in an open owner forum session have the opportunity to ask all questions to the board. For example, because it will affect them in communication, who handles what, who to contact in the case of an emergency, the list goes on, and on, and on. I'll even go as far as saying that the board should provide an inquiry to the entire membership seeking their input on the role of management, what they would like to see improved. And oh, novel idea, how about inquiring about it before the interview process, rather than after. Anyone on a Board that does not agree with communication to owners, owner inclusiveness, and all that good stuff needs to look at their method of governing to the lowest acceptable standard as the primary reason for apathy.

JC3 - MicheleD's post hit upon something that I did not think of. Yes, in the case of trying to switch management I do understand the need for privacy with the intent of protecting the association. In that way I could understand why you may Think you have to conduct interviews with less of a quorum of the board. But that decision to hold interview meetings with just 2 board members was made By The Board, i.e. Quorum of the Board!!! Your words, "We have to follow open meeting laws, and the board already decided against that. So no quorum, no meeting, no public. At decision time, then we have the open meeting.". How did your board "resoundingly" decide against it? At a board meeting, with a board quorum, via email, were there minutes, will there be? I'm still unsure why it is, or what document is guiding your belief that that a quorum of the board meeting requires it be open to everyone?

My reason for thinking that it's best if your board meet with all the board members is so there is no here-say, everyone has a set list of questions, etc.

You asked, since the president will be the one working closest with the mc, should not he make the final decision if there is not a clear choice, even if it is not one of the others' choice? NO. All board members should make a final decision and whichever way it goes, it goes.

What role do you play if any on the board, or in your association? Are you the president of the board? If you are a board member, you are writing about yourself in the third person. For example, you wrote, "Two board members have longer terms than a third, but all 3 want to be part of that interview process. Seems that the 2 who have the longest terms remaining should interview, but that's not necessarily so. Suggestions? Only 2 at a time can meet with a prospect, so the plan is to have 2 meet with some, and the other 2 meet with others. (ab, bc, ac,) Then results discussed."

Regarding this "other information" that a prospect offered the president, you wrote, "Should the president inform the other board members of this before the coming interviews or after, and should he tell which prospect offered the info so the board members could ask more questions of that prospect?" How did you find this information out if your not on the board? Is the interview process already over, has a prospect already been chosen?

You are saying that
the gathering of members had to be a quorum,
had to be discussing HOA business,
and that business had to be part of a future meeting agenda.
If that's the right memory, then your board may be off the hook for one of the reasons or another

I just don't see that. If we have a quorum and are discussing hoa business, that's a meeting, and required to be posted. Don't mean to be dense here, but that's the way I understand the law.