Annual Elections: What Are the Pros and Cons of Candidate Slates?
June 13, 2013 — As we continue through condominiums' and co-ops' annual-election season, our series of articles on the topic now asks: What are the pros and cons of having a slate of candidates, either one endorsed by the board or, conversely, a slate endorsed by an opposition group?
First, these aren't real slates. People can vote for anyone they want to, even if that just means part of a board's slate and part of an opposition's slate. And while slates can make things easier for voters who can't decide and want to take the path of least resistance, they can easily backfire. Attorney Phyllis H. Weisberg, a partner at Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, cautions: "A board endorsing a slate is the kiss of death in some buildings: ‘We don't like the board and we'll vote for everybody else who's running.'"
"One of the problems I see with slates is that they are viewed by some as heavy-handed," which turns voters off, says James Glatthaar, a partner at the law firm Bleakley Platt & Schmidt. He's also seen it backfire with opposition slates. "One time these three people running against a slate felt they had to form their own slate, and they really looked like The Three Stooges when they got to the annual meeting and started to disagree with each other vehemently."
"Usually people will propose a slate because they're fairly confident the individuals on it will be able to work well together," says David L. Berkey, a partner in Gallet Dreyer & Berkey. "It's important to have a board that works well together. The negative of having a slate is that you could be closing the process to more independent people who might have new ideas."
For more see our Site Map or join our Archive >>