Background Checks for candidates for RR Board of Directors

[Birdman]

It is my understanding reading the Grapevine Now Website that all candidates now who are proposing running for the River Ridge Board of Director are subject to background checks. Seems reasonable that persons seeking positions of authority in a corporation should indeed be vetted and screened in order to ensure that they are suitable for a job requiring secrecy, loyalty, or trustworthiness.

As I recall in the past candidates running for the Board of Directors were not subjected to background check pre-election and that only if and when they were elected and seated on the BOD were background checks performed. Seems odd in that there was no vehicle or means to have them removed if for instance the background check revealed conduct in the past that would question their ability to holding a position of authority. I recall in the past that it would only be announced at the board meeting that the new board members background check came back “OK”.

I certainly am a firm believer in not violating a person’s constitutional rights but in the past even if a person’s background check was to come back unfavorable the only people that would know about it would be the remaining sitting board members and maybe our attorney. In the past I never understood why background checks were performed if there were no consequences and no mechanism in place to remove said board member.

My questions are simply, with the new requirement that perspective candidates be subjected to a background check, what are the consequences and reasons if any they could or would be disqualified to run for the BOD? Will the voting property owners be privy to the results of the background check before they cast their ballots or will the information be for certain eyes only?

Last but not least what is the purpose of background checks if there is no consequences or actions that would disqualify a candidate?
If it is legal to do so I would hope that the entire membership of this association would be privy to any results of negative background checks that may affect they votes they cast. There has to be some reasonable threshold for disqualification otherwise it is a waste of time and effort to do background checks.

This is just my personal opinion it is not intended to be a political statement so don’t make it one. I am just curious and concerned.

[TLMilligan]

The BOD, last year, determined the offenses that would preclude an individual from serving on the Board. This information can be found in the Board minutes as well as the election rules. The background check changes were implemented to ensure all candidates are qualified to serve on the Board before the votes are cast. I don’t think the actual results of the background check will be published, but, if you notice a candidate is not on the ballot, you’ll know their record did not support serving on the Board.

Thanks

[BlancheandLarry]

I agree that the background checks should be done and am pleased that the BOD has set a threshold that must be met, with certain offenses disqualifying an individual from running for the board. I also agree that the fact that an individual has been removed from the running because of a background check infraction is sufficient. Releasing specific information shown in the background check would not serve any good purpose and could cause ill will and dissension in the community. It should be sufficient to just say "you're not qualified."

[Diane1774]

Maybe this isn’t the correct forum, but how does the board feel about posting their photos on the website or at least in the office? We’ve been coming to RR for a few years but can’t always make it to a meeting, so we couldn’t pick a board member out of a crowd. I think being able to put some faces to the names we all see / hear would be great. Just a thought.

[TLMilligan]

I will speak with the BOD about this. Thanks

[Willie Saunders]

All Board Members should also be subject to a drug test prior to taking office along with a background check. The Board is handling our money and are acting in our behalf and should have a clean drug test.

Also, all employees involved in an accident (whether vehicle or not) should have a drug test done - I know for fact that the drug tests where not done when some employees wrecked a vehicle or got hurt on the job.

[Sponsored content]