How to remove board members

This topic contains 89 replies, has 1,897 voices, and was last updated by  Editor 2 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 90 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #8092

    Editor
    Moderator

    In June the membership of the POA overwhelmingly voted to change the way business is done by the Diamondhead Country Club and Property Owners Association. A few board members have either ignored this mandate or simply refuse to acknowledge the rights of the membership. These people need to be removed from office. This is how it is done under Mississippi Law:

    Â 79-11-245. Removal of directors

    (1) The members may remove one or more directors elected by them without cause.

    (2) If a director is elected by a class, chapter or other organization unit or by region or other geographic grouping, the director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit or grouping.

    (3) Except as provided in subsection (9) of this section, a director may be removed under subsection (1) or (2) of this section only if the number of votes cast to remove the director would be sufficient to elect the director at a meeting to elect directors.

    (4) If cumulative voting is authorized, a director may not be removed if the number of votes, or if the director was elected by a class, chapter, unit or grouping of members, the number of votes of that class, chapter, unit or grouping, sufficient to elect the director under cumulative voting is voted against the director’s removal.

    (5) A director elected by members may be removed by the members only at a meeting called for the purpose of removing the director and the meeting notice must state that the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the meeting is removal of the director.

    t: none; font-stretch: normal; background-color: #ffffff; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px”>(6) In computing whether a director is protected from removal under subsections (2) through (4) of this section, it should be assumed that the votes against removal are cast in an election for the number of directors of the class to which the director to be removed belonged on the date of that director’s election.

    (7) An entire board of directors may be removed under subsections (1) through (5) of this section.

    (8) The board of directors of a corporation may remove a director without cause who has been elected by the board by the vote of a two-thirds (2/3) of the directors then in office or such greater number as is set forth in the articles or bylaws.

    (9) If at the beginning of a director’s term on the board, the articles or bylaws provide that the director may be removed for missing a specified number of board meetings, the board may remove the director for failing to attend the specified number of meetings. The director may be removed only if a majority of the directors then in office vote for the removal.

    #8091

    rohboat
    Participant

    Good Lord. Where do you get this stuff. Sounds very involved.
    Truthfully it might be easier to get rid of the whole thing.
    It might be sneaky but I think with the right people involved and with some corporation from city people it might be easier than you think.
    The plan should be to starve the beast.

    #8093

    Editor
    Moderator

    It’s the law.

    #8094

    BeauB
    Participant

    I agree with roh. Starve the beast. If we just go after members we are not ultimately solving the problem T. R.

    #8095

    wmueller
    Member

    What are the legal ramifications of starving the beast? If folks had an accurate picture of that, they might be better equipped to decide “am I in, or am I out”? Also, given the law as posted and given that Fletcher is the POA president, what about ousting the offending directors?

    #8096

    vsimons
    Participant

    POA FEES need to be revised, especially those ALSO charged by the POA-created CITY, if we want to attract new residents:
    Here are a FEW current FEE examples from the POA Website: http://www.diamondheadms.org/Members/MemberRates.aspx

    DCCPOA 2014 FEE SCHEDULE

    Monthly: $65.00 & $1.50 Admin. Fee. Annual (Paid by 1/31/14): $745.00.

    Transfer Fees: $400.00.

    Consolidation Fees: $4,000.00.

    Building Permit Fees: $1,500.

    These are FEES approved by OLD Board members.
    The new Board can ELIMINATE or REDUCE these fees; but AT LEAST ONE new Board member is spouting the “need” to “protect amenities at all costs” because HE SAYS the “amenities” are why we all moved here!

    #8097

    Editor
    Moderator

    Your plan jeopardizes all who follow it. Long and costly legal battles will ensue and eventually cost you dearly.

    #8098

    Editor
    Moderator

    The smart and legal way to dissolve the DHCC&POA requires three steps:
    [list type=decimal][*]
    Remove board members (4 will do) who ignore the rights and will of the members at a special meeting 90 days from now called specifically for that purpose.
    [*]
    Replace these board members with people who will serve the entire membership and allow a vote on dissolution.

    Have a vote on dissolution at the next annual membership meeting (June 2015).
    [/list type=decimal]

    #8099

    Editor
    Moderator

    Craig Harvey? Correct?

    #8100

    BeauB
    Participant

    That’s even sooner than 7/1/15. Let’s bring all that into the plan and begin to find replacements

    #8101

    Squaredeal
    Member

    Count me in on this venture, whatever it takes, I will do, no problem.

    #8102

    wmueller
    Member

    I like the Editor’s reasoned approach.

    #8112

    Lce
    Participant

    Editor – 2014-08-11 6:34 PM

    The smart and legal way to dissolve the DHCC&POA requires three steps:
    [list type=decimal][*]
     Remove board members (4 will do) who ignore the rights and will of the members  at a special meeting 90 days from now called specifically for that purpose.
    [*]
    Replace these board members with people who will serve the entire membership and allow a vote on dissolution.

    Have a vote on dissolution at the next annual membership meeting (June 2015).
    [/list type=decimal]

    This plan to push for a vote for dissolution in June 2015 will work as long as we know which board members to vote in and out.

    The chickens hare finally come home to roost, After all these years of putting up with the entitled attitude of some of the DPOA ruling elite… (imo in the past boards were composed of too many self-serving, retired welfare golfers.) It’s time to end their ‘pyramid scheme/con game’.

    I liked some of your ideas in your editorial “Time to Split”. http://www.diamondheadnews.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=964&z=3

    Eventually making the country club and golf courses a little more upscale (ala English Turn) and making them private or having the people who use them pay more of their own expenses for upkeep would be more fair. The golf courses and country club have been overly subsidized for years.

    That might also help attract some upscale decent looking business so that the entrance of Diamondhead -just as you get off the interstate- so that it doesn’t look like you’re entering downtown Beruit.

    It will be a battle but it’s time for fairness in how community/city money is spent. This is the best plan for dissolution. It will work.

    #8113

    wayne king
    Participant

    I am all for a reasonable approach to extensive POA reform or being abolished, many alternatives exist. Contrary to what many espouse as it being a fair equitable manager for all the property owners in Diamondhead. One has to look no further than the roadway going past the Dairy Queen to the Red Zone parking area, the dilapidated unkept restrooms at east rec, unpaved parking at the marina, some lot owners harassed to clean and maintain their property while others are let to fall and remain in deplorable states compare all this to the lush green golf course greens and fairways, the paved streets on the south side serving no one, the well manicured runway airport area to see the falousy in that “equitable” thought. Where are the ball fields, bleachers, water fountains, restrooms ect. for children’s sports activities? The out now for the POA is “well those belong to the city” after taking our money set aside for paving to “Renovate” the golf courses, The POA has let this all fall by the wayside for years, catering to insider and special or self interest. No, the POA has proven to NOT be an honorable steward of our community and needs to go.

    #8115

    Lce
    Participant

    vsimons – 2014-08-11 6:04 PM

    POA FEES need to be revised, especially those ALSO charged by the POA-created CITY, if we want to attract new residents:
    Here are a FEW current FEE examples from the POA Website: http://www.diamondheadms.org/Members/MemberRates.aspx

    DCCPOA 2014 FEE SCHEDULE

    Monthly: $65.00 & $1.50 Admin. Fee. Annual (Paid by 1/31/14): $745.00.

    Transfer Fees: $400.00.

    Consolidation Fees: $4,000.00.

    Building Permit Fees: $1,500.

    These are FEES approved by OLD Board members.
    The new Board can ELIMINATE or REDUCE these fees; but AT LEAST ONE new Board member is spouting the “need” to “protect amenities at all costs” because HE SAYS the “amenities” are why we all moved here!

    Hi vsimons.

    I’m new to this site. Because of some of the voting outcomes and changes that were passed in recent times I’ve become hopeful about the future of our community/city for the first time in almost 13 years.

    But I missed the meeting you referenced. Was it Craig Harvey who claims amenities are why we all moved here and that they must be protected at all costs? If so he should be the first to be voted out.

    As an aside – Thanks to all who contributed their thoughts to this thread and to this website. imho It doesn’t matter if this community was created in the 70’s to be marketed as second homes where people would eventually move when retired to live out their last 40 years of life. The old are dying off and the future of this community is likely in people who are now mid aged and young families who are moving here.

    Thank you to the editor and everyone who posts their views here. Many of the younger property owners of Diamondhead are open minded and willing to listen to all good/well thought out FAIR ideas while pushing for change.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 90 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.