Response to Kyger's May 2014 DHNews Article

Home Forums Diamondhead Country Club and Property Owners Assoc POA Board of Directors Response to Kyger's May 2014 DHNews Article

This topic contains 2 replies, has 205 voices, and was last updated by  Editor 3 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #6736


    To allow rebuttal to President Kyger’s article concerning this years membership meeting, this thread has been created.



    After reading the purposed bylaw revision of Feb. 2009 I noted, back in 2009, the board of directors placed a very clever change to Article Vlll that eliminated members ability to change the bylaws with a 2/3 vote. They placed the wording “And With The Board of Directors Approval”. This wordage basically gave the board veto powers over any proposal from the membership that the board did not want. Before the membership voted to approve these amendment they were urged (on this website) to vote against the amendment because it was giving the board too much power. We were unsuccessful in educating the membership. This language was not included in the revisions of 1989 and 1997 and was never a part of the bylaws until 2009. And now you can see they are using this provision to control the membership and their 2/3 vote. You can see by the letter it is being used as a weapon against the members. Very clever indeed.

    I thought it interesting the president of the DPOA said they were holding open meetings because it “has long done so in the best interest of the members.” Well if he concedes an open meeting is in the our best interest what does he not support a revision to require open meetings? He claims we are more open then the board of supervisor meeting but does not give an example. He also says “this is the same Mississippi law that brought us the Department of Marine Resources” Is the inference the law caused the scandal at the DMR and is he suggesting the law be eliminated?

    The DPOA president also states the roofing repairs could not have been completed if the board was hampered by waiting for approval from the membership and more damage would be sustained. These remarks are a little less than honest. Surely our DPOA president knows emergency purchases and work invoices are treated differently then everyday operations and would be exempt from voter approval or public bid. I would like to hear an explanation as to why the board would be opposed to letting the membership have a voting voice in whether are not they favor the expenditure of $650,000 plus on the tennis facility. This is not an emergency but seems like it is being treated as one.

    While I appreciate the DPOA president providing his views and opinions I would appreciate it even more if he would allow an open debate, at a future board meeting, on the way the bylaws are presently written. With the president and the boards support we can/should put this issue back into the hands of the membership. It should never have been removed.



    Peoples Republic of DH?

    Our Dear Leader, Kim Il Kyger, is so far out of control that even his toadies on the POA Board did NOT know about his surprise Election Process Change. HOWEVER, at the May 1 meeting it was evident that the Board (elected to “represent” us) wimped out again, and all but a couple of them rolled over and played dead, as usual. One little toady who usually never makes a squeak piped up when directed by K. Il K., to support his East Rec deal and “alcohol” sales near the playground.

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

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.