leonard miller

Next question. I believe that a more honest vote by the membership will take place if it is done by secret ballot. What must be done to require a ballot vote?

Are the Board of Trustees trying to have a vote without allowing the opportunity to move any amendments? If that is the case, then GWCtoD is correct. I believe this is what the rogue trustees are attempting. Thanks for all your replies and support. I now know what proceedures they must follow to accomplish their goal and I may be able to stop them from this poor use of leadership.

the Board of Trustees are trying to pass a constitution revision by a simple up/down vote on the revision as a whole. If there is a motion to that effect and seconded, followed by discussion, can amendments to parts of the revision be made before the vote to accept as a whole?

I have a similar situation where the Board of Trustees are trying to pass a constitution revision by a simple up/down vote on the revision as a whole. If there is a motion to that effect and seconded, followed by discussion, can amendments to parts of the revision be made before the vote to accept as a whole?

I will be more specific as to the exact wording of the of the constitution. It is different than I paraphrased. Under Article IV , section 3-- Any elected officer must be available twelve months of the year in their capacity. Those who would be absent from the area for two or more months, except for health or family concerns, are not eligible to hold a seat on the Board of Officers. This gives a different slant to the facts.

Our constitution of a not for profit organizations states that to be eligable to run for office the candidate must not live out of state for two or more months each year. In the policies and proceedures section a proposed policy states that if no candidates are found to run for office, the constitutional rule can be exempted to allow a canidate to run for office if he lives out of state for two or more months. Can this be a valid policy or proceedure?