In communities like Snug Harbor, where homeowners expect transparency, accountability, and fairness from those entrusted to govern, even the appearance of impropriety can erode trust. That’s why many property owners will likely feel dismayed—if not outright disgusted—by the board of governors’ decision to allow a husband and wife to serve concurrently.
This is not a personal indictment of any individual or couple. It’s a governance issue. When two people who share a household, a bank account, and a unified set of personal interests are seated on a board meant to represent a diverse community, the result is a structural conflict of interest. The foundation of any board’s integrity rests on the independence of its members. Allowing two votes from one household undermines that principle.
The decision raises several serious concerns:
1. Loss of Independent Oversight
In any board structure, diversity of thought is key. That doesn’t just mean demographic or experiential diversity—it means ensuring that board members can challenge each other, debate ideas, and hold one another accountable. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which one spouse meaningfully challenges the other in a boardroom setting, especially when board discussions extend into the home.
2. Consolidation of Power
The practical effect of allowing a married couple to sit on the board is a concentration of influence. Two guaranteed votes from a single household can tip the balance of tight decisions, and that’s not representative governance—it’s bloc voting. Other property owners have every right to question whether their interests are truly being weighed against others in a fair and unbiased manner.
3. Perception of Cronyism
Even if both individuals are well-qualified and act with the utmost integrity, optics matter. Perceived conflicts of interest can be just as damaging as actual ones. Residents who already feel disenfranchised or skeptical of the board’s motives will see this as a step backward—a sign that personal relationships matter more than good governance.
4. Setting a Dangerous Precedent
What happens when the next couple wants to serve together? Or a group of close friends? Where does the board draw the line? Without clear policies against familial appointments, the door opens to more concentrated voting blocs, making the board less democratic and more exclusive.
What Needs to Happen Next
The Snug Harbor Board of Governors owes the community a clear explanation—and a policy review. Transparency about how and why this decision was made is essential. But more importantly, the board must consider adopting bylaws that prevent spouses or immediate family members from serving concurrently.
Many homeowner associations, nonprofits, and even corporate boards have strict guidelines preventing such arrangements for precisely this reason: to maintain public trust and to ensure independent judgment among board members.
Snug Harbor deserves the same.