The By-Law discussion...

Over on the Official Unofficial Seminole Heights blog, the post on OSHNA nominations has become more of a debate on the by-laws. My blog already states my views. That post is restated below.

There is an extensive revision to the Old Seminole Heights Neighborhood Association (OSHNA) by-laws. Naturally I have some opinions here. I strongly encourage a NO vote for the long term health and vitality of the organization.
I have reviewed the by-laws in detail. I still have a saved copy of the by-laws from when I first went on the board. Packed away in boxes notes on the first major re-write was back in 1994. I have copies of subsequent revisions. It is one thing to make corrections of spelling, grammar and such was a comprehensive revision. It is quite another to ram through a variety agenda driven changes in one big package. That is the kind of BULLSHIT Congress does to pass what could never stand on it's own merits. That is, in my opinion, what the By-law Committee and it's Chairperson have done.

Honorary membership is the one I have the most fun with; you see in the 1994-95 revisions Honorary Members included past Presidents who were given life-time voting privileges. In 1996-97 there was this rush to take away the voting privileges from those lifetime Honorary members. I was the only one that was the target for that little change, it too was mingled with other revisions to hide the agenda. Now we come full circle, now it is proposed that those rights are to be restored. Well I thought it was unnecessary then and I still do. There was no compelling reason for the first change and there is no compelling reason for the current proposal. But hey if I am wrong, and the members pass the revisions, I can save $10 a year and still have the benefits of running for office and voting.

But back to the serious side. All the bitching about no body wanting to get involved is bullshit. Yet that is the smoke screen for 2 year terms. That is the compromise for term limits.

Two year terms will prove to be a disaster and lead to a board out of touch and filled with their own self-importance.
Term limits are unnecessary. When people have choices they can choose to limit terms. Simply ask the one sitting board member who lost their trustee position in the fall of 1994. There may be people on the board that have been there far too long in my opinion but it should be up to them or the membership when their time on the board is up.
Why is it suddenly necessary to require one year of membership before being able to be a candidate? OSHNA has been in existance for 20 years. Has there been a crush of newbies storming the palace gates? It is yet one more BAR put forward to impede participation.
Why the prohibition against a sitting President running for any other position? Maybe there would be a President who still wish to serve but who because of a change in circumstances wanted a less demanding position (as a past President, I could see that happening). This also masks an unstated agenda.
In the guise of "the selection of a diverse and experienced board" the complete re-write of Article V, Section 2 "Eligibility" becomes self-serving of the incumbents.
The last time I checked it is the membership that is responsible for the selection of their governing Board.
On a 9 member board there is no sound reason to prohibit a President from voting. No President in OSHNA has ever had the sway over the Board to dictate outcomes of votes. Some have voted, some have abstained, some have selectively voted. In my time on the Board as President or as chairperson, I selectively voted but did not make motions in acting in the capacity of chair person.
There is no justification neutralize the President. The board has restricted the President's setting of meeting agenda's and speakers, and some would go so far as to say the President cannot express a view that has not already had the blessing of the board. This is to proscribe from the President the one tool or option at his or her disposal. Another hidden agenda masquerading as reform.

The board has the power to expel members from the association and remove other board members without the membership having any say but the members have no authority to recall board members before the next election???

THE ABOVE ITEMS ARE SOME VERY STRONG REASONS TO VOTE NO ON THE BY-LAW REVISIONS. THE MEETING MUST HAVE A QUORUM AND THEY MUST PASS BY A 2/3RDS VOTE.

"all animals are equal but some are more equal than others"