I agree with Linda, Nancy, and John. The resident board member has to focus on the best interests of the community to maintain financial viability. It is right that the board selects and appoints the resident member.
My community uses the Residents' Council to vet people who are interested in serving. They interview up to 10 candidates and submit names of three residents to the ED. Their names are submitted to the Board Governance Committee who interviews the candidates and makes a recommendation to the full board.
Some folks complain that the resident directors do not tell us what is going on. But they are acting as full board members and do not speak about the discussions or actions of the board. It is hard to explain to other residents that although they are residents, they are not on the board to represent the interests of the residents. Their job is to carry out the duties of care as outlined in this article.
Providers have been objecting to residents on the board for years. They don't like change. I have heard an ED say that they control the board. No wonder they don't want a resident on the board. An effective board should welcome another perspective. Age should not be the issue. Many board members are retired themselves. The only difference is where they live. Resident director can contribute to an understanding of the culture in the community as well as bringing skills and experience to strengthen the board.
Maryland does require a resident on the governing body. Maryland Law
http://mdrules.elaws.us/comar/32.02.01.19
Ann MacKay
MaCCRA President