REVIEW PRACTICE 2 · IN DEVELOPMENT
Election Conduct Review
Every other accountability mechanism assumes the members can replace the board. Where the board controls the nomination, the proxies, and the count, that assumption does not hold.
An election is the only governance mechanism that does not depend on the goodwill of the people it constrains — provided the incumbents do not administer it themselves. In most member-governed bodies, they do.
The gap this addresses
Commercial corporate elections are administered by an inspector who is independent of the board, sworn, and answerable for the count. Member-governed bodies — associations, districts, mutual and cooperative entities — frequently have no equivalent. The board appoints the nominating committee, the manager holds the proxies, and the ballots are counted by people the board chose, in a room the members are not in.
None of the points below require a reviewer to allege that any count was wrong. They test whether the procedure was capable of producing a result a losing candidate could verify.
What this review is not
- It makes no assertion that any election result was inaccurate. It tests the procedure, not the outcome.
- It is not an audit, examination, or investigation within the meaning of any professional standard, and it produces no assurance.
- It is not legal, accounting, or tax advice. See our Terms.
- A review point that resolves against an entity is a question, not a conclusion. Every published finding is designed to state the document it came from and the answer that would close it.
- Where a TASFGA researcher, founder, or board member is a member, party, or complainant in a matter concerning an entity, TASFGA does not publish a review of that entity. See Methodology.
The review points
12 points, grouped by what each tests. This set is a draft. It would be versioned, opened for public comment, and re-applied to every prior review when it changes, in line with our Methodology.
Access to the ballot
- Nomination control. Who decides which members appear on the ballot, who appointed them, and whether a member can reach the ballot without their consent.
- Candidate information parity. Whether challengers and incumbents get the same space, the same distribution channel, and the same deadline for a statement to members.
- Eligibility rules. Whether eligibility conditions — arrears, residency, seniority — appear in the governing instrument or were adopted by the sitting board.
Notice and timing
- Notice period. The notice the governing instrument or statute requires, against the notice actually given, measured to the date of the meeting.
- Meeting scheduling. Date, hour, and location tested against members’ ability to attend, and whether a remote or absentee channel exists.
- Agenda and materials. Whether the materials a member would need to vote — candidate statements, the prior year’s minutes, the financials — accompanied the notice.
The mechanics of the vote
- Proxy custody. Who receives, holds, and may revoke proxies; whether the manager or an incumbent solicits them; whether an undirected proxy defaults to a candidate.
- Quorum determination. How quorum was calculated, from what member roll, and whether the roll was available to a candidate before the meeting.
- Who counts. The identity and independence of whoever tallies the ballots, and whether any candidate or their designee was permitted to observe.
- Result record. Whether the minutes record ballots cast, the margin, spoiled ballots, and proxies exercised — or only the winners.
Continuity
- Terms and staggering. Whether seats were filled for the terms the governing instrument specifies, and whether staggering has been maintained or quietly collapsed.
- Vacancy appointments. Seats filled by board appointment rather than member vote, the authority relied on, and how long the appointee served before facing an election.
Where this applies
- Residential community governance — condominium, cooperative, and homeowner-association board elections.
- Licensing & self-regulating bodies — how licensee seats are filled, and by whom.
- Corporate & institutional boards — nonprofit and mutual-entity elections, where the proxy machinery is weakest.
- Municipal governance — appointed board and commission seats, where the appointment record substitutes for a vote.
How this connects to the rest of the work
Where the procedure could not produce a verifiable result, the fix is usually structural: an independent inspector, a member-accessible roll, and a recorded tally. Those belong in a model election-conduct standard, which is the natural companion to the disclosure standard already in draft.
The in-field evidence base for Focus 1 — building by building, firm by firm — is published at condoscoopsnyc.org, which documents the underlying statutory gaps this practice was built to detect.
Other review practices
Audit & Financial Records Review
Audited statements, budgets, and the records behind them, tested against the governing instrument.
REVIEW PRACTICE 3Records Retention & Access Review
A right to inspect is worth nothing if nothing was required to be kept.
REVIEW PRACTICE 4Procurement Integrity Review
Who picked the vendor, who else was asked, and who got paid on the side.
REVIEW PRACTICE 5Member Speech & Retaliation Review
What happens to the member who asks, and who pays for the answer.
REVIEW PRACTICE 6Data Governance & Payment Security Review
Who can move the money, who holds the credentials, and who is told when it goes wrong.
REVIEW PRACTICE 7Vendor & Professional Credential Review
The qualifications of whoever wrote the report the board is relying on.
TASFGA is pre-incorporation. This review practice is a published draft, not an offered service, and no engagement is available. Members of a governed body who wish to apply these points to their own entity are free to do so.