| 1 |
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Also, I wonder if legal problems wouldn't rather arise from the |
| 4 |
> absence of _reopen_nominations? IIUC, countify will implicitly add any |
| 5 |
> missing candidates to the end of a ballot. So there is no way to vote |
| 6 |
> against a candidate. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I was actually wondering the same thing since every proxy statement |
| 10 |
I've ever gotten allows withholding votes. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
However, reading the NM state regs they seem pretty flexible about |
| 13 |
voting for directors in general. As far as I can tell we could amend |
| 14 |
the bylaws to not even require Trustee elections. Maybe if we were |
| 15 |
publicly traded there would be more stringent regulations, but that |
| 16 |
will obviously never be an issue for us. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Perhaps somebody has more specific knowledge but as far as I can tell |
| 19 |
the elections process we have is legal. I can also see no legal |
| 20 |
barrier to adding _reopen_nominations, or to Trustees appointing |
| 21 |
candidates who fell below this threshold (unless we put something to |
| 22 |
the contrary in the bylaws). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art8.pdf |
| 25 |
53-8-15 |
| 26 |
53-8-18 |
| 27 |
53-8-19 |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Rich |
Archives