|
|
Post by szweda on Oct 9, 2009 9:39:55 GMT -5
A position on the association board of directors recently opened up when a current board member resigned. The board is taking applications for this position. An election for the board was held last spring. It makes sense to me that the person who ran in that election but lost a seat with the next highest number of votes should be contacted and asked if he or she would like to serve out the rest of that term. In this way, the will of the people would be served, and any controversy that might arise from another arbitrary method of selection by the board would be avoided. Any other method of selection by other than a vote of the membership could make the board look biased and self-serving. Comments from board members or others would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewphillips on Oct 11, 2009 10:08:33 GMT -5
A position on the association board of directors recently opened up when a current board member resigned. The board is taking applications for this position. An election for the board was held last spring. It makes sense to me that the person who ran in that election but lost a seat with the next highest number of votes should be contacted and asked if he or she would like to serve out the rest of that term. In this way, the will of the people would be served, and any controversy that might arise from another arbitrary method of selection by the board would be avoided. Any other method of selection by other than a vote of the membership could make the board look biased and self-serving. Comments from board members or others would be appreciated. Makes sense if that line of reasoning was already part of our board seat replacement procedure. Since it is not, ANYTHING the board does is subject to scrutiny. They can't win. ...um, who would the voted runner up be? |
|
