Friday, July 12, 2013
The Advisory meeting held this week was not even able to make a motion to consider the rule requiring a “9 month residency”
Before even reading the proposal, making a motion to accept so an informed discussion could begin those attending as guests began their opposition of the “as yet proposed change” claiming it was about picking on one, and how terribly unfair that was.
Our documents require that any one seeking to run for either an Officer or Executine Board Member Candidacy must be domiciled and reside in Century Village for a period not less than (9) nine months of each year they serve.
The amendment would require the Candidate to show their drivers license/personal State identification card and a voters registration card to “prove” they meet the (9) month requirement when they apply. The amendment would also require that, if while serving, should you sell the unit at which you proved your residency, you would then need to prove the new address remains in Century Village.
So, you ask what is the problem?
We see a deficit in our bylaws because one has if fact purchased outside of this Village, registered to vote outside this village, has had what has been called housewarming parties outside the Village, but claims to live within the Village.
Many of the seasonal residents that have been intested in serving as Executive Board Members, but only reside here for a one(1) week to five(5) month period are not able to meet this standard. It would seem the issue of minimum residency must either be removed or be given sufficent respect to provide for some simple way of requiring compliance. This most recent amendment seems to have provided that minimum, except for the one who remains nameless, out of respect, just happens to have become embroiled by disregarding this clause or believing we all should, out of respect.
When we begin to selectively enforce our RULES, for whatever reason, are we not guilty of talking out of both sides of our mouths. Is this not a case of “do what I say, not as I do”.
Why does this present a problem if it is to insure compliance by all – someone even went so far as to say “no one will ever want to run for any office”. Most of us know why we have difficulty encouraging others to run – the constant politicizing or everything that UCO does, Lawsuits against UCO, etc.
How can two delegates give up their right to vote, and walk out on a meeting in progress, and represent their constituancy because they disagree with a proposal. How is that different than claiming seasonal residents are being left out when the “important votes occur when they aren't here”?
Lets support what is in the Village's best interests, not the intrests of the one. Perhaps this could become effective for the March 2014 election rather than effective immediately upon adoption............
What's your view – we'd like to know!