Home › Forums › Diamondhead Country Club and Property Owners Assoc › POA Board of Directors › Missing Proposal
May 30, 2004 at 2:08 pm #1770
I submitted another proposal in March to be included on the ballot but the board disagreed and it was not allowed to go before the membership for a vote. The proposal was for at least one open meeting whenever, in the future, a rate increase was passed by the board in order to provide an explanation for the increase and to allow for discussion and questions by the membership. The board indicated that it did not agree because current practices already provided sufficient information and, therefore, would not allow the membership to vote on my proposal. I believe there is something wrong with a process that does not allow the membership to vote on anything the board does not agree with.May 30, 2004 at 4:09 pm #1769
Are you telling us that the board of directors of a non profit corporation based in the state of MS refused a member’s (in good standing) motion to be placed before the membership at its annual membership meeting? Couldn’t happen, not in Mississippi, the state where Worldcom is chartered, where lawyer and judges are so honest and upstanding that companies just flock to the state to offers well paying, lucrative jobs to the well educated and unbiased residents of the the area. Sorry, my sarcasm is showing again.
I could say this is an unbelievable outrage, but I have lived here long enough to believe anything.May 31, 2004 at 3:50 pm #1772
Any suggestions on who to vote for next month to maybe change things a little better?June 2, 2004 at 6:39 am #1773
I would prefer a choice, someone that knows how to pronounce his own last name would be nice.June 3, 2004 at 6:56 pm #1781
If there are no minutes authorizing or showing the matter of the rate increase being passed, then it seems that the logic of the vulcan should prevail,which = no rate increase exists. Contact the District Attorney, I think its called extortion….I will sign a complaint to the D.A. along with other members who seek the minutes authorizing the fee or the discontinuance of the fee increase if it was instituted without observation of proper proceduers. If there is no legal recourse then we need to drop it and organize the desenters here in diamondhead and begin to get involved politically to change this state of surfdom that appears to be in place concerning the boards attitude about the rank and file membership.June 4, 2004 at 5:59 pm #1784
We should refuse to pay the increase. Don’t these #*@# idiots know that are answerable to the membership? If the membership wants a debate on this and any future increase then SO BE IT. This is an issue the membership has a right to demand not politly request. These elected board members must think they own this corporation. They need an attitude adjustment or a no vote of confidence by the membership. Man, with the intellect and education of this community are these persons the best we can find to lead us?? What a sorry bunch.March 27, 2005 at 9:04 am #1865
I support your proposal and believe that the board is limiting our input and making decisions not in our best interest.March 27, 2005 at 10:21 am #1866
I was finally told by the new POA president that Mississippi state law prevented anything going before the membership for a vote unless the POA Board agreed with whatever was being proposed. That just doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever. If that is true, there is absolutely no reason for a member to even make an effort to submit a proposal because, if the POA Board wants to keep something the way it has been, they are not going to allow the membership to vote even if the membership might prefer the proposed change.
I’m trying to research state law to see if what I was told is the truth.March 27, 2005 at 12:31 pm #1867
To aid your search we offer this information”
§ 79-11-315. Approval of amendments to bylaws where corporation has members.
(1) Unless Sections 79-11-101 et seq., the articles, bylaws, the members (acting pursuant to subsection (2) of this section), or the board of directors (acting pursuant to subsection (3) of this section) require a greater vote or voting by class, an amendment to a corporation’s bylaws to be adopted must be approved:
(a) By the board if the amendment does not relate to the number of directors, the composition of the board, the term of office of directors, or the method or way in which directors are elected or selected; and
(b) By the members of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes cast or a majority of the voting power, whichever is less. The members may condition the amendment’s adoption on its receipt of a higher percentage of affirmative votes or on any other basis.
(2) If the board initiates an amendment to the bylaws or board approval is required by subsection (1) of this section to adopt an amendment to the bylaws, the board may condition the amendment’s adoption on receipt of a higher percentage of affirmative votes or on any other basis.
(3) If the board or the members seek to have the amendment approved by the members at a membership meeting, the corporation shall give notice to its members of the proposed membership meeting in writing in accordance with Section 79-11-205. The notice must also state that the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the meeting is to consider the proposed amendment and contain or be accompanied by a copy or summary of the amendment.
(4) If the board or the members seek to have the amendment approved by the members by written consent or written ballot, the material soliciting the approval shall contain or be accompanied by a copy or summary of the amendment.
You can find this and other statutes that is being misinterpreted by the POA board and their attorneys at http://188.8.131.52/mississippi/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0March 27, 2005 at 3:18 pm #1870
ED…thanks. I’ll be submitting this to the board this week and asking for a response. The current bylaws the POA is distributing definitely say ‘and’ not ‘or’ and that it is the law.March 27, 2005 at 5:22 pm #1871
There is NO state law effecting the submission of items to a vote by the POA membership. We are bound by the By-Laws of the POA as far as voteing on items concerning the administration of the association. Surely there is a method for a member to submit a proposal and an appeal avenue if his submission is rejected, ie, a petition process ect. The present board should research this and make any changes to rectify an oversight by the original framers of the by-laws and allow members an avenue to generate change. If they are afraid of change that would allow membership participation in the administration of Diamondhead they should find something else to do. We would be well served to first determine what qualifies an individual or corperation as a voteing member and how many votes one or the other has and exactly what basis determines that. There are abundant by-law topics in need of review as Diamondhead has grown over the years. I would suggest that the by-laws be reviewed on a periodic basis by a committie of qualified voters representing all the interests of POA members. This committe could be gleaned from the various clubs and associations that call Diamond head their home base and are primarly made up of POA members. Suggested revisions generated may be voted on by the membership for adaptation. This country is free due to the sacrifices of the brave, not the endulgence of selfinterests, I hope we can try and keep it that way.March 30, 2005 at 11:45 am #1876
I am intrigued by what I have been reading. I am new to the site. I agree with comments by the editor and supporters. The question I have “Are we just a small bunch of renegades, or is there a larger support out there?” Until now I have been one of the silent complainers. Let me know what I can contribute. My time is limited, but I have many skills that could benefit the group. I have a higher degree in Public Relations and am currently enrolled in a social work program. Needless, to say, I advocate for the oppressed. I would say that it applies here.March 30, 2005 at 1:21 pm #1877
Amen! Sounds like a lot of double talk, to put it politley.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.