FrankD2 (New Jersey)
Posts: 58
Posts: 58
Posted:
DOES ANYONE HAVE BY LAWS RESTRICING BOARD MEMBERS OR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FOR VOTING FOR RELATIVES OR FRIENDS.
MEMBERS FOR VOTING FOR RELATIVES OR FRIENDS.
A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
🎁 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! →
NEPOTISM/CRONISM
Started by FrankD2 • 7 replies • 1423 views
💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.
Create Free Account →
⚡ Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in
SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202
Posts: 5,202
Posted:
No - members can VOTE for any qualified candidate whose name is on the ballot, or nominated, or even written in (depending on your own documents)
Can you be more specific about your issue?
After friends, who would be left to vote for? Enemies?
Can you be more specific about your issue?
After friends, who would be left to vote for? Enemies?
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Frank,
I would be asking "WHY?" if there was such a prohibition in my assn. Why can't a member vote for a friend or relative? Are you saying I shouldn't be able to vote for my husband and my best friend, Sally, who are both running for a board position? Ludricrous, to say the least!
I would be asking "WHY?" if there was such a prohibition in my assn. Why can't a member vote for a friend or relative? Are you saying I shouldn't be able to vote for my husband and my best friend, Sally, who are both running for a board position? Ludricrous, to say the least!
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Sorry, I hit "send" prematurely.
Another point I want to make is that cronyism (favoring close friends) and nepotism (favoritism granted to relatives) both mostly apply to making appointments not to voting. When voting for a friend or relative you have only one vote which does not quarantee that person being elected. But if you have the authority to make appointments then you may be accused of either cronyism or nepotism, especially if the appointee is unqualified for the position.
Another point I want to make is that cronyism (favoring close friends) and nepotism (favoritism granted to relatives) both mostly apply to making appointments not to voting. When voting for a friend or relative you have only one vote which does not quarantee that person being elected. But if you have the authority to make appointments then you may be accused of either cronyism or nepotism, especially if the appointee is unqualified for the position.
FrankD2 (New Jersey)
Posts: 58
Posts: 58
Posted:
THIS CAME UP AT OUR MONTHLY MEETING. ONE RESDENT CHALAGED THE
PRESIDENT FOR VOTING FOR HER HUSBAND TO A COMM. HE IS LOOKING FOR THE
BOARD TO MAKE A RULING AND NEW BY-LAW ON THIS MATTER. COULD BE SOME
PERSONAL FEELINGS. THE BOARD SAYS THEY WILL LOOK INTO IT
PRESIDENT FOR VOTING FOR HER HUSBAND TO A COMM. HE IS LOOKING FOR THE
BOARD TO MAKE A RULING AND NEW BY-LAW ON THIS MATTER. COULD BE SOME
PERSONAL FEELINGS. THE BOARD SAYS THEY WILL LOOK INTO IT
FrankD2 (New Jersey)
Posts: 58
Posts: 58
Posted:
MARY
YOUR POINT ON VOTING IS WHAT I ALWAYS FELT WAS THE CASE
YOUR POINT ON VOTING IS WHAT I ALWAYS FELT WAS THE CASE
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
IMO, if none of the other board members objected to the Pres' husband serving on a committee, I see nothing wrong with the appointment. To kow-two to this one member's challenge, is ridiculous. The BOD should just tell this person that they will not consider a new rule addressing this topic as they feel it is uncalled for. Matter closed!! Do you have an over abundance of members wanting to serve on the board and committees, or is your assn like most where it's akin to pulling teeth to get people involved.
MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
There should be no new "by law" if the governing documents are already silent on the issue, then it's allowed.
If it weren't allowed, the documents would clearly say so (somewhere).
The member can question it all he wants, but he would be questioning a negative, something that doesn't exist.
It's pointless to create the by-law at this stage.
But if it makes someone "feel good" I guess it has it's purpose.
I wouldn't do it, though.
There really are way to many real things to get yer panties in a bunch over besides whether or not a family member can exist on a COMMITTEE when there is no obvious restriction saying otherwise.
If it weren't allowed, the documents would clearly say so (somewhere).
The member can question it all he wants, but he would be questioning a negative, something that doesn't exist.
It's pointless to create the by-law at this stage.
But if it makes someone "feel good" I guess it has it's purpose.
I wouldn't do it, though.
There really are way to many real things to get yer panties in a bunch over besides whether or not a family member can exist on a COMMITTEE when there is no obvious restriction saying otherwise.
🎯 You've read this entire discussion
Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:
- ✓ Ask follow-up questions
- ✓ Share your experience
- ✓ Get expert advice
- ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →
⚡ Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in here