2004 Motions for Membership Meeting – Proposition 6

Home Forums Diamondhead Country Club and Property Owners Assoc POA Board of Directors 2004 Motions for Membership Meeting – Proposition 6

This topic contains 2 replies, has 127 voices, and was last updated by  Editor 13 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1768

    Editor
    Moderator

    We invite all to post their comments and opions in the following motion:

    It is moved that the Diamondhead Property Owners Association Board of Directors be directed by the Membership to change SECTION 6.3 Penalties. To read as follows

    Section 6.3. Penalties. Violations of Rules & Regulations are subject to suspension, fines or assessments as set forth in the Diamondhead Country Club & POA, Inc. Rules and Regulations, Penalty Assessments Section.

    #1767

    wayne king
    Participant

    I may not understand prop 6 completely, But I think the jest is that the board wants to be able to change or alter fines and other regulatory items without membership approval. I am against this, diamondhead security is just that, SECURITY, there is bound to be a legal reason they are not diamondhead police or sheriff, Have they the adequate training? Is their equipment calibrated and functioning correctly? I feel this proposal needs to be debated very throughly befor changeing the existing bylaws,covenents or whatever, and giving this much authority to the board who at present need to get the associations finances in order and not get involved in the inevetable “ticket fixing”and telephone survailence that currently exist with other things such as boats, camping trailers and loose dogs and cats. It was sort of sneekie to attach this proposal to the existing 5 proposals that I think everyone pretty well supports.

    #1771

    Editor
    Moderator

    I wouldn’t be so sure that all other proposals are so meritorious either. Proposition 3 stinks of 7 year fish. A membership meeting is supposed to be run by the members, not the board or secretary. This presents a obvious conflict of interest when the secretary is running for re-election. A very bad idea indeed, which proves that all motions should be look at very carefully and debated rigorously by the membership, before the meeting.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.