Here are some interesting events that have recently emerged.
- Residents were mailed an Invitation to be a candidate for a Board Director. Three slots were available.
- The deadline date to submit the required and expected paperwork was wrong and ambiguous in the Invitation, i.e. the day and date did not match.
- Last year there were as many as ten candidates; this year there were allegedly two candidates. We were told only two candidate submissions were received in a “timely manner”. The “timely manner’ was the erroneous day and date in the Invitation. Were other candidate submittals received in an ‘untimely manner” because of the erroneous day and date? There was never a correction made and then communicated to the Residents on the incorrect date and day; I never received a correction.
- A second Notice of the Annual Meeting was sent out to the Residents with redone Information Sheets for the only two candidates. These two candidates’ Information Sheets appeared as a part of and incorporated into this Board Notice, formulated with the same typed format and font as the Board Notice.
- The Information Sheets were two to three one-sided pages for each candidate. Note that the initial Invitation to the Residents required, and was limited to, two sides of one 11.5” by 8” piece of paper for the candidates’ Information Sheet, and not two to three one sided pages.
- Further, the candidates’ Information Sheets did not appear as “candidate prepared”, but Board prepared from, hopefully, the candidates’ own words. Normally Information Sheets would have been solely candidate prepared, included with the returned and signed Invitation.
- In the past, these Information Sheets would then be sent separately along with the Board Notice to the Residents, as it was done last year. The Residents received, by mail, a candidate separately prepared Information Sheet from each of the candidates themselves.
- Why would the Board need to filter a candidates’ completed Information Sheet, dress up its appearance, and present it to the Residents with a Board controlled format? The Residents should have the opportunity to review a candidate’s presentation of himself or herself without the Board’s intrusion and tampering. The Board has never “polished” candidates’ Information Sheets in the past. Hmm.
- We were told only two folks offered their candidacy for three open positions, we were further told that no election was necessary, and that the Board would select a person for the other open position.
- If all this seems contrived, then it certainly appears that way. The Residents had no say as to these unusual circumstances that evolved with this year’s flawed process of determining Board Director Candidates.
- Just think, from 10 Board Director Candidates last year, to two this year. Does this reflect on the mindset of the residents or on the direction the current Board is taking with its actions towards our community?
- Because of a flawed timeframe for returning Information Sheets and a signed Intention to Run Form, it would be expected that the Board announce its error to the community and extend the time period to encourage more willing and able Residents to volunteer their service as a Director Candidate.
Instead, it could be said that the Board may have created a situation to select and groom its own candidates. Hmm.