Subscribe for Daily Updates!
Do you have an explicit definition in your building of what constitutes a shareholder in good standing?
..
Using the definition of shareholder in good standing, what precludes a shareholder in your building from casting shares in any vote or election?
..
Do the “rules” in any building prevent a shareholder from running for the board if one or more of the following conditions exist? (1) Active lawsuit against the corporation; or
(2) More than 4 or 5 or 6 arrears events in the last five years; or
(3) no more than $100 in arrears at the time of notifying the secretary that one is running for the board; or
(4) does not use the building’s address as the legal domicile for IRS tax purposes (e.g.: a snow-bird, with permanent residence set in another state).
..
Comments, views, feedback?
..
Any law cases?
unless your bylaws have wording that decides who can run for office, anyone over the age of 18 can run and get on the BOD.
Your building is already ahead of that curve, by requiring that they be a shareholder, and a member in good standing.
Some buildings require that the shareholder be a full time resident, that would also be in the by-laws
There have been instances where Board Members brought actions against other Members. They were still considered in Good Standing. It's according to the issue at hand.
A shareholder cannot have his right to vote removed under any circumstances.
Your bylaws should have some sort of general guidelines on who is eligible to run for election.
In Good Standing would mean that the shareholder does not owe the corporation any money. ( that's zero $0)
If you feel that your bylaws have too many loopholes, you can amend them with a majority vote.
For example, a clause requiring a shareholder to reside in the building to be eligible.
In no way challenging right to vote, but rather asking about good standing and running for office if in arears, if lawsuit outstanding, etc.
....
So challenging voting rights are off the table...
...
But, can ya review and perhaps embellish your response....thanks?
Introduce yourself to other members of Board Talk! Log in below or register here.
Board Talk members who registered prior to March 9th, 2016 will need to reset their password.
Interesting enough the general wording requires definition by way of policy that is well-known to all shareholders, i.e., resolution that is distributed. First thing that comes to mind is being current in your maintenance. It's up to the Board to define if good standing means being current for 12 months, 6-months, etc.
Living in the co-op or litigating is not part of being in good standing. A person who elects not to live in his/her unit for any reason or no reason at all should not be deemed an uninterested party of his/her investment. There are doubts that absentee shareholders are familiar with everyday issues of the co-op and consequently, the general thinking is that it is best to exclude these shareholders from office.
Shareholders with outstanding litigation or even insurance claims: Anyone has the right to start a legal action or even claim from insurance if they believe that there are grounds for litigating and if all recourse has been depleted to sway the opinion of the Board. If the person is elected, then there is such thing as being excluded when dealing with the litigation in question. Obviously, many shareholders may feel that this poses a conflict of interest. A disclosure of this litigation should be known by sharholders before their vote.
AdC
Thank you for rating!
You have already rated this page, you can only rate it once!
Your rating has been changed, thanks for rating!
Board Talk members who registered prior to March 9th, 2016 will need to reset their password.