Hansome

The most important part of this society is our right to vote for our leaders. When our leaders are untruthful, and have ulterior motives... I dunno I think it is disgraceful. This unreal scenario was told to me by our bartender, who was waiting the table and thought it was funny. I think it shakes our belief in the goodness of our elected officers. I find it so bizarre, to run for an office that you really don't want in order to appoint officers who might not be loyal to the person who takes over the position. I cannot remain silent as that would be just as wrong.

I do. I see it as dishonesty also. I believe when you take a position, you should try to actually do the job. My thought is that i give up my time, to come and vote. It should mean something. For a candidate to capture an election, and quit so that his buddy can take over is contrary to electing a prez. The candidate has done this before. It created a huge divide. Voting members should know that this is happening again. It is setting up a puppet govt at our club, for the state guys to bully. My question was not "should i bring this up". My question was the proper way to let voting members know of this scheme, and then they can vote without being in the dark about candidates desires.

This Hello. Last night I heard about a plan to fix our elections, next month. Chuck (a very popular member) is running for Prez. Mike, (unpopular) is running unopposed for vice prez. The theory is that when Chuck wins, he will resign within a month, and take a position at the state level, rather than stay as Prez at the local level. This will automatically move the vice prez into the prez position. I feel that this is an attempt to fix the election, in effect making the memberships votes worthless. I feel that I must voice my concerns at the next general meeting. How should I procede? I'm lost. Mike

Voluteer organization working with Constitution and Bylaws has proposed a negative amendment. It reads; Minor corrections occasionally are needed to correct spelling or date information - there is a proposal to not require an amendment for minimal changes such as grammar, titles, references, dates or times to ensure clarity. Doesn't Roberts Rules cover this? As we already have a rule that says anything not covered in our bylaws may be referred to Roberts.

I wanted to bring something up at our next meeting, and needed the minutes to properly give credit where it was due. Our secretary told me he does not print the minutes until it was time to accept them at the next meeting. Is this normal? OUr bylaws do not cover this.

At our meeting, under "old business" a member proposed giving $1800 dollars to a struggling non profit in our area. This motion was unanimously voted down as it was felt the non profit did noting to help itself, it was becoming dependent on our organization. Much later in the meeting, the motion was brought up again, for a lessor amount of $700. Motion passed. My question is whether this motion was proper, as a similar motion had already been defeated. Redundant motions are not covered in our bylaws.

Society Bylaws: The Board shall hold a regular meetings on the third Thursday of each month, at 6 pm, or at a date, time, and location designated. Changes in the date time and location of meeting shall be posted on the bulletin board. So we show up to the meeting and are asked to leave while the board conducts business. different from the business scheduled. There was no emergency. Maybe I'm big dealing something here, but I feel it was important to conduct the scheduled business first. and foremost, out of respect for the members who took the time to attend the meeting. Am I wrong here?