Revised on 9-3-15.  See note below.

(Note: This may contain material which some might consider editorial in nature. Given the nature of the subject matter and the information I wished to impart, I don’t think I could have handled it any differently.)

Nomination Process & Candidates Q&A

As noted in my last meeting summary, the Board previously gave the Nominating Committee its approval to submit a slate of candidates equal to the number of open slots. It was apparent from the meeting discussion that this approval had been communicated to the committee several months earlier; perhaps shortly after it was formed.  Then again, I am not certain when the committee actually was formed; since there was no Board resolution covering that action.

In any event, it is now clear that the Board and the Nominating Committee had been considering for some time the option of nominating a fixed slate of candidates equal to the number of vacant positions. But they apparently decided not to inform the community of this fact.

As a result, the first official Board announcement indicating that this option was a possibility came out at 9:50 AM on August 31st.  At 11:30 AM the same day, it sent an announcement saying that the committee was nominating three candidates for three positions. In effect, the community had a little over ninety minutes to digest the information in the first e-mail before being informed in the second that the change had been made and that, absent any write-in candidates, there would be no election.

In addition to lowering the number of required signatures for a write-in candidate, the Board said the following:

“The dates for announcing candidates to the community and the submission of a petition for candidacy have been moved forward in the process to allow the community additional time to evaluate the candidates and submit candidates by petition if they choose to do so.”

While that is probably a good idea, it is not entirely clear to me that this will happen. Since the announcement did not include the actual deadline for write-in candidates, I sent an inquiry to the committee chair. Without going into all the details, I am still trying to make sure everybody is on the same page in terms of that cut-off date.

As it stands, there will be no election unless there are write-in candidates. However, most people will not want to support a write-in candidate unless there are good reasons to do so. And I believe the reasons, if any, would depend on where the nominated candidates stood on key issues (for example, building community amenities other than sidewalks).

Therefore, I am proceeding with the Candidates Q&A as has been done for the past three years. Assuming the candidates agree to participate, I am hopeful that this information might still be helpful to residents whether or not any write-in candidates are proposed.

I am targeting the posting of this information for sometime between the 24th and 30th of the month. Again, that is assuming the candidates agree to participate. If there are any changes to that schedule, I will post additional information separately.

 

Additional Information – Posted on 9-3-15

Deadline for Write-In Candidates

The Board has not yet informed the community of the exact deadline for the submission of write-in candidates. Given the recent changes to the current nomination process, I thought that date might be of interest. And, if you went to what you thought were the current By-Laws to determine it yourself, you would come up with the wrong date.

You will have to bear with me here, because this initially may not make sense.

Let’s start with the By-Laws posted on the web site. They say that the deadline for write-in candidates is 45 days before the Annual Meeting. Since the Annual Meeting is on November 21st, that would put the deadline for write-in candidates at October 7th.

However, as I noted above, the Nominating Committee said that the By-Laws were to be changed “to allow the community additional time to evaluate the candidates and submit candidates by petition if they choose to do so.” But I don’t know if the By-Laws have actually been changed, because no related Board resolution has been made public. Nor did the notice give the new deadline that supposedly added “additional time”.

Therefore, I inquired as to the revised deadline and was told by the Nominating Committee Chair, Dave Bursiek, that it is September 27th; which is ten days earlier than October 7th.

Now, if you are confused, you are probably not alone. There is an explanation, but it is somewhat convoluted. At this point, you have two choices.

If all you wish to know is the deadline, it is September 27th. If you are willing to simply accept that, you can stop reading here.

If you wish to know why there is an apparent discrepancy between the stated intention of the committee to “allow additional time” and the fact that the new deadline is earlier than the old deadline, read on. But please be warned that it is a little complicated.

Again, I do not know if the By-Laws have actually been changed. Assuming they have, here is a comparison of the “Old” dates and the ‘New” dates using this year as an example. Everything works backwards from the Annual Meeting date; which, this year, is November 21st.

Old By-Laws

• Nominations announced no later than 60 days before the Annual Meeting; which would be September 22nd.

• Write-in candidates submitted no later than 45 days before the Annual Meeting, which is October 7th.

Here is the key point. Using the old deadlines, the community technically had 15 days to nominate any write-in candidates. In this case, from September 22nd to October 7th.

New By-Laws

• Nominations announced no later than 75 days before the Annual Meeting; which would be September 7th.

• Write in candidates submitted no later than 55 days before the Annual Meeting; which is September 27th.

Here is the next key point. According to these new deadlines, the community technically has 20 days to nominate write in candidates. In this case, from September 7th to September 27th.

Compare the two “key points”, and you will see why the committee is able to say that it has allowed for “additional time”. It will say that the time period for write-in candidates increased from 15 to 20 days.

I believe the Committee’s intentions were good, but the net result this year is that we actually lose 10 days. Because, had the changes not been made, the deadline would be October 7th; not September 27th.

You might ask, what went wrong…………

It has to do with the difference between the “technical” time periods and the “effective” or actual time periods.  Keeping that in mind may make it easier to follow this explanation.

What is missing in the analysis is the fact that the increase from 15 to 20 days only means something if, in fact, the committee waits until the very last minute to announce the names. But it does not do that. In reality, it has been announcing those names much earlier; usually around September 1st, which is well in advance of even the new 75 day deadline. In that situation, moving the deadline for announcing names from 60 days to 75 days in advance of the meeting is effectively meaningless. And, by linking the 55 day deadline to the 75 day deadline, it effectively ends up cutting ten days off the time period; not adding five days.

Please note that it cuts off ten days this year.  Since the Annual Meeting date varies every year, so would that number of days.  Also, I don’t have exhaustive records of when the Nominating Committee has announced the names of candidates.  My records go back only three or four years; and I have based my comments on that information.

The committee chair mentioned that the extra ten days were also needed for administrative reasons to include any potential write-in candidates in all the paperwork.  And that is further complicated by the fact that we now tally the votes a week in advance of the meeting itself. Even if that is the case, the net result this year is still the same. These latest By-Law changes will effectively shorten the period for obtaining write-in candidates by ten days.

I admit that I was not aware that the old time period was as short as 15 days. Because, for the past several years, candidates were announced well in advance of the old 60 minimum time period. And that meant that residents effectively had over double that 15 day time period within which to deal with a write-in candidate. That is precisely what happened with Don Lummus when he was a write-in candidate two years ago.

The Board has decided that 20 days is enough time to determine the candidates’ positions on relevant issues, determine if a write-in candidate is desired, find a write-in candidate, obtain signatures and do all the necessary administrative work. I will leave with you the judgement as to whether that time period is sufficient; but please remember that the required number of signatures has been cut in half.

With these recent changes to the process, two things will always be true if future Nominating Committees continue to announce names around September 1st. First, we will most likely have slightly more than 20 days to deal with write-in candidates. Second, we will effectively have less time for that process than would have been the case had the By-Laws had not been changed.