Public Arguments for Amendments Prior to AGM

[playbytherules]

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.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

No rule in RONR would prohibit sending emails.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

20 minutes ago, playbytherules said:

S1.) I'm wondering if this is common practice prior to an AGM.

S2.) 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.

In reply to S1.

"This" refers to -- what?

What do you think is not a common practice (prior to an Annual General Meeting)?

***

In reply to S2.

This is a common practice! (i.e,. the average member having zero access to the mailing list of the organization.)

[Gary Novosielski]

For what it's worth, I agree that having a requirement that an officer have served for a specific amount of time is a bad idea.  

We often have questions here along the lines of, "We have good people willing to run but none of them are eligible because they haven't been on the board for three years; what can we do?"   And we tell them to amend their bylaws.

I'm not saying that it's a good idea to elect inexperienced people.  I'm saying that if members don't think someone is experienced enough, they can vote for somebody else, without the need for a rule on the subject.  I'd strongly advise against having different eligibility requirements for the president and VP, since you don't want to be in a position where the VP is not eligible to succeed to the presidency if necessary.

As to the overblown accusations, just keep your cool, look like the grownup, and give your arguments in debate in a reasoned manner.  Making accusations about your motives is a serious breach of decorum if it happens in a meeting, but RONR has no rules about what people say in e-mails.  

Good luck.