I submitted some amendments to the constitution of our minor hockey association prior to the AGM (one for conflict of interest, one for confidentiality and one for transparency as well as tweaking some existing by-laws). The one that seems to have them upset is a change to the election rules - we are one of the only associations in our region which requires that someone have served on the board for any length of time before being eligible to become VP. More then half don't require this for president either. The board does not seem happy with this and has proceeded to email the members arguing against my amendments while also saying I have a vendetta and personal agenda. These have come from the president, the vice-president and other board members. I'm wondering if this is common practice prior to an AGM. The main issue I'm having is I don't have access to the membership the same way they do (they have everyone's email address), so they get to debate the merits outside the AGM. As well, the president will be presiding over these matters at the AGM and has already questioned my motives on the issues and let his position be known in an email to the entire membership prior to the AGM. I recall another contentious AGM for the local youth orchestra and the president and board members in that case were totally quiet leading up to the AGM. They did not try to influence the people in any way (publicly) prior to the debate at the AGM.