Electing Officers of the Board

How, procedurally does a newly elected Board elect new officers (President, VP, Treasurer, Secretary)? Let's say there is a 5-member Board and 3 members are nominated for the position of President. Is a vote taken and the Board member with the most votes wins? If not, how is it done?

You asked: Let's say there is a 5-member Board and 3 members are nominated for the position of President. Is a vote taken and the Board member with the most votes wins?

Yes. Elect each officer's position separately, starting with Pres.

Why do you ask, if I may inquire? It seems like a no-brainer, but am I missing something?

Betty,

In most HOAs, the directors are elected by the membership. They, in turn, "elect" the officers. There usually is no set procedure on how this is done. In my former assn, I was elected to the first member-controlled board. When we got to deciding who would be Pres there were 2 who were interested in the position. We settled the matter by having them draw straws! So, it really depends upon how the board members want to undertake this. In many instances there is just a mutual agreement as to which position each member will hold.

Richard,

I really have a problem with you referencing the Adam-Kessler Davis-Stirling website as you give the impression that what you are referencing is the website for the CA HOA State statutes. The Davis-Stirling Act should be viewed at the CA State Leg website. If you want to read a lawyers interpretation of the DS Act then you can view the Adam-Kessler Davis-Stirling website. And, IMO, if you are bent on only providing links to the Adam-Kessler website you should not say the link is to the D-S Act as it is very misleading.

With regard to the link you posted on this thread, the info given gives the appearance that the Davis-Stirling Act provides requirements for electing officers of the board, but it does not. The info given at this link is the opinion of the Adams-Kessler law firm. Also one of the links given in the info regarding electing officers points to the statute for electing directors which is very misleading and really does not apply. This is the link for "nominations" which points to D-S 1363.03(a)(3).

Bottom line: As far as I can tell, there is no CA HOA statute which addresses choosing officers. Unless the bylaws require the officers to also be elected by the membership, the board may choose the officers in any manner they deem proper. If the procedure is outlined in the bylaws then, of course, they must follow that.

The real thing......

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

Richard,

All I'm saying is that when you post a link to D-S.com, the impression is that you are posting a link to the state law, when in fact that is not what you are posting. You are posting a link to an article written by an attorney interpreting the D-S Act. All I'm saying is that this is very misleading. I'm not saying the website does not contain some very good info. However -- read on. . .As I pointed out in my last msg, the info you pointed them to was very misleading especially for someone not familiar with the CA state laws. The link was for an article which pointed the reader to a portion of the statute dealing with nominations of directors that was under the heading of officers.

Where would I point someone for guidance concerning CA state laws? I would point them to the website of the CA legislature. If I pointed them to a website such as Davis-Stirling.com I would let them know this is not the official website for CA HOA statutes.

Frankly, I think it's very misleading for Adams-Kessler to call their website Davis-Stirling.com. I'm sure that was a PR move to ensure that more people will go to their website for info on the statute.

Mary

I will continue to reference that site as a way of helping others from California. If you feel the need to put a disclaimer on my post, I have no problem with that.

I too am guilty of caging things from davis-stirling.com but I make sure to credit them. This is from a link on davis-stirling.com but is from the actual Corporations Code:

Corporations Code §7213. Corporate Officers.

(a) A corporation shall have a chair of its board, who may be given the title chair of the board, chairperson of the board, chairman of the board, or chairwoman of the board, or a president or both, a secretary, a treasurer or a chief financial officer and any other officers with any titles and duties as shall be stated in the bylaws or determined by the board and as may be necessary to enable it to sign instruments. The president, or if there is no president the chair of the board, is the general manager and chief executive officer of the corporation, unless otherwise provided in the articles or bylaws. Unless otherwise specified in the articles or the bylaws, if there is no chief financial officer, the treasurer is the chief financial officer of the corporation. Any number of offices may be held by the same person unless the articles or bylaws provide otherwise.

(b) Except as otherwise provided by the articles or bylaws, officers shall be chosen by the board and serve at the pleasure of the board, subject to the rights, if any, of an officer under any contract of employment. Any officer may resign at any time upon written notice to the corporation without prejudice to the rights, if any, of the corporation under any contract to which the officer is a party.

But getting back to the OP original question:

Yes Betty that is precisely how it works. Whoever the remaining two voted for would get a majority of votes and be president. If they split their vote giving two of the three two votes then the third candidate would cast the tie breaker vote.

Glen

I would give those guys every credit in the world and then some. It's also the fastest way from point a to point b.

Richard,

Posting a link to davis-stirling.com that goes directly to the statute is one thing, but posting a link to davis-stirling.com that goes to some attorney's opinion about a particular section of the Act is quite another. All I'm suggesting is that you state exactly what you are providing a link to. If your goal is to be helpful then you won't have a problem with this.

It's not my job to put disclaimer's on your posts -- that's your job. If you don't care that you give out misleading info, that's your problem, not mine. So continue to be stubborn instead of being helpful.

The more you open your mouth the easier it is to understand why you have so many problems with your board. Arrogance and an attitude of always being right are hard for anyone to take for very long!

EXACTLY how is the link I posted MISLEADING..It was an organizational chart showing the differences between Directors and Officers. Most of that information is in my Bylaws. You have a problem with the word "nomination" as it applies to directors and officers. Here is what they said Since the Davis-Stirling Act allows members to nominate themselves to run for the board, it would be reasonable to allow self-nomination as officers." In my opinion saying its "reasonable to allow" is an opinion.

To accuse me of knowingly misleading people is insulting. You give "opinions" on California law and you live in Arizona. I don't see disclaimers on your comments. BTW, my Board, admittedly, doesn't know what Davis Stirling is or California HOA law for that matter.

Richard,

The link I provided is a direct link to the CA Davis-Stirling Act, albeit through the Adams-Kessler website. I did not post a link to an attorney's opinion of the statute!

Frankly if someone were to follow the link Richard posted and could not tell that it was an attorney's web site as it says right at the top of the page "A Professional Law Corporation" then they really are too stupid to be involved in HOA management.

Betty,
Our docs say that the Board elects the new officers, (which may or may not be board members, although all of ours are).
We try to determine the officers at the first board meeting following the election and just ask each other who wants to do what. We did have 2 who wanted to be Secretary once and we were going to vote on it but one of them stepped back and let the other one take the position. We usually have to convince someone to take a position instead of having too many who want it.