Reply To: How to apply the rules against Conflicts of Interest

[Karen Bennett]

gkhryciw

 

@MarkH-2

Considering X’s right to vote for himself on a motion that he be removed from the board:

Roberts’ reference to the procedure for removal of the accused at some point in a trial shines a light somewhere but doesn’t seem to help me distinguish X’s trial from a rule preventing X’s conflict:

1. a trial examines evidence, i.e. a historical fait accompli to determine if the accused has already acted contrary to the law

2. a rule eliminates any future possibility of X benefitting from being a board member or appearing able to do so from a conflicted position, regardless of anything being done.

Within part B, two cases exist:

1. the existing conflict rule is tantamount to a preemptive ruling of guilt; it prevents everyone from having any advantage, positive or financial, arising from their position, full stop.

2. since X’s position on the board gives him all attendant, board-related rights which puts him above the other unit owners who, e.g. can only vote at the AGM and a special general meeting, X may not vote for himself to maintain the advantage of his position.

Please spread the word!