Suggested/recommend board member term (s)

I have, as you maybe aware, have been thoroughly reviewing the governing documents from a newly formed sub-division in Franklin County, Pa. I understand the reason for staggered term, makes sense, but, IDK, about you, a three year commitment is a bit absurd. Unfortunately, I feel that getting volunteers with be tremendously, difficult. I PERSONALLY HAVE DECIDED THAT I WON’T VOLUNTEER TO BE A BOARD MEMBER. I’ll be involved, but NOT as board member.

Are there any stipulations to having a “member at large” position? I feel it the builder doesn’t address my concerns, that I will suggestion as a last resort.

I‘ve attached the wording found in the covenants concerning the elected position please review and let me know if I’ve misinterpreted them.

Thanks once more.

Chuck W.

Charles,

Although you say "covenants", did you really mean this article is in your bylaws? However, it is pretty much standard fare. Many assn's have staggered terms and a 3-yr term is not unusual. THe term could be reduced to 2 years. At the first meeting 1 person is elected to a 1-yr term and 2 are elected to a 2-yr term; thereafter each member is elected to a 2-yr term. Many assn's provide for a 5 member board meaning 4 officers and 1 member at-large. Depending upon the size of the assn, a 3-member board may be sufficient. Oftentimes the bylaws will stipulate 3-5 members. Some assn's even allow for larger boards -- I've heard of 7 and even up to 10 members. However, the number of members s/b stipulated in the bylaws.

Here is the relevant section from our Bylaws. I'll post without comment for now.


"Term of Office" - At the first annual meeting of the Association, Members shall elect three (3) Directors. Each Director shall be elected for a term of one (1) year and at such annual meeting of the Association thereafter, the Members shall elect three (3) Directors, of which at least two (2) are incumbents, for a term of one (1) year.

DwightT,

I’m going to attempt to interpret what you have written. I would appreciate it if you would verify, whether I’m correct or not.

Your By-laws states “Term of Office" - At the first annual meeting of the Association, Members shall elect three (3) Directors. Each Director shall be elected for a term of one (1) year and at such annual meeting of the Association thereafter, the Members shall elect three (3) Directors, of which at least two (2) are incumbents, for a term of one (1) year.” Which is very similar to ours currently.

I believe it is saying that three directors will be elected at the first annual elections, each serving a one year term, and every year thereafter three directors (of which two MUST committee to a one year term also, I don’t understand?!

Interpreting the governing documents is like reading a medical dictionary. I read what is written, but can’t always understand what is actually being said.

Chuck W.

I will agree that it is a rather bizarre way to to handle staggered terms, but it shouldn't cause any more "longevity" problems than other staggering methods.

Basically, assuming that all of the incumbents are running for re-election plus some "new blood", the way it works is once all the votes are tallied, the two incumbents with the highest number of votes are re-elected. Then whichever person of the remaining candidates has the highest number of votes gets the third seat.

If only two incumbents run for re-election, then they are re-elected.

If only one (or none) of the incumbents run, then there will be multiple seats open. We can't force somebody to server if they decide to "retire" - indentured servitude is frowned on in this country.

It's actually not as bad as it appears at first blush. If a total bobbling fool manages to get elected one year, we should only have to tolerate him for one year before he can be replaced.

Granted there could be problems if the entire Board needs to be replaced, but it's no more of an issue than if the terms where for staggered two or three years.

Charles,
This may be just semantics but we have five Board members with the Board option to add "Officers" that are not members of the Board. All though our Boards have never appointed an officer I think it could be productive, if used wisely. The need for special expertise that an owner has comes to mind, as well as any special project that would require a report be made before the Board. First draft of covenant changes proposed, association history compilation, photographic history of property, photographic record of major improvements; all this could be handled by an owner "officer" appointed by the Board. Another is recycling efforts in the association. A whole bunch of stuff. This may take a load off the Board and stimulate more interest in the place.

Mary,

How true. The S/T position has by far the most work to do, which is why only superb individuals should be blessed(?!?) with serving in that position!

I so agree with you! :-) BTW when my term was ended and I chose not to run again, the assn was forced to contract out for a bookkeeper. So, what does that tell you? LOL