This Is our Village

Friday, July 12, 2013

Bylaw amendments

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!


  1. I have not been to UCO installations, but don't all the elected officials take an oath to uphold the bylaws, it probably includes more promises to be trustworthy, etc. Villagers trust the people they vote for. Shouldn't officials step up and explain when they violate bylaws. Do we need an ethics cmte (like PB County) or is the Advisory Board our ethics watchdog??

  2. UCO and the delegates should decide just what constitutes a full time resident, and then stick with that definition consistently.

  3. Non compliance, should be reason
    enough for immediate removal..
    I'm appalled,but not surprised.
    Get rid of the "Cliques"....

  4. Requiring a voter registration card, as secondary proof of residency, would require a candidate to register to vote. That would place a political requirement on a candidate that US Citizens are protected against in the Constitution, that is, the right NOT to register. Most people do register, but the Government does not REQUIRE it. UCO would be exceeding it's purview to require candidates to produce voter registraion cards, and no corporate counsel would green-light a bylaw ammendment written in this way.

    What would probably happen is a "one from column A, two from column B" deal- the same workaround used by the DMV and the Passport Office. Voter registration cards would be OK, but other verification methods would have to be acceptable.

  5. I agree that we cannot ignore the bylaws for the benefit of one, even if we would like to see that "one" remain in office. The 9-month residency rule has always been in effect and I believe it to be a good one. It's unfortunate that we can lose good offioers and/or board members as a result, but it is what it is.

  6. Mistress Olga's Rants and objection uphold the residency requirement really makes you wonder. What is her motivation for bending, no... twisting the rules?
    Then to attack a VP that is away for treatment that he (I am told) can not get here. It is a shame. Of course there is also the personal attack on me, the lies being spread that I was not honorably discharge. ANYONE THAT HAS EVER SERVED knows that you don't get a pension or disability from the VA without an HONORABLE Discharge, and a pension usually means you have completed 20 or more years HONORABLY. As for my medical condition, plain and simple Olga, it's none of your damn business.

  7. To Don4060
    Upon your return to CV, I strongly
    suggest you confer with some
    "Seasoned" resident, who can
    enlighten your perception on this
    issue..There is a history..which
    I am not going to detail..(far too long)however, the by laws are
    specific, and should one not abide
    by them, they are subject to removal.

  8. Bettie- i don't care how much "seasoning" or "history" there is - a private organization requiring a member to produce a voter registration card in order to run for office is discriminatory and illegal. This is junior high school level Social Studies. The residency requirement, and discussion about how residency verification can be enhanced is perfectly OK, but believe me, this particular dog will never leave the pet store. The Government would not even be able to get away with it. Just check the residency documentation requirements at the DMV or the Passport Office.

  9. Don, look it up...I did. here is the list of what can be used for proof of residence in the State Of Florida:2 Proofs of Residential Address
    Gather TWO of the following documents showing your residential address: (internet printouts or faxes of these documents are acceptable)
    Deed, mortgage, monthly mortgage statement, mortgage payment booklet or residential rental/lease agreement
    Florida Voter Registration Card
    Florida Vehicle Registration or Title
    Florida Boat Registration or Title (if living on a boat/houseboat)
    A statement from a parent, step-parent or legal guardian of an applicant. The parent or guardian must reside at the same residence address, accompany the applicant and present "Proof of Residence Address"
    A utility hook up or work order dated within 60 days of the application
    Automobile Payment Booklet
    Selective Service Card
    Medical or health card with address listed
    Current homeowner’s insurance policy or bill
    Current automobile insurance policy or bill
    Educational institution transcript forms for the current school year
    Unexpired professional license issued by a government agency in the U.S.
    W-2 form or 1099 form
    Form DS2019, Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor (J-1) status
    A letter from a homeless shelter, transitional service provider, or a half-way house verifying that the customer resides at the shelter address
    Utility bills, not more than two months old
    Mail from financial institutions; including checking, savings, or investment account statements, not more than two months old
    Mail from Federal, State, County or City government agencies (including city and county agencies)
    Transients – Sexual Offender/Predator/Career Offender: - FDLE Registration form completed by local sheriff’s department

    As you can see, Voter registration CAN be used.
    Just thought you'd like to know.

  10. the dog has left the Pet Store....

  11. Bob- this is an excerpt from Ed Black's original post:

    "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."

    This is an excerpt from the Florda Residency Guidelines that you just posted:

    "Gather TWO of the following documents showing your residential address"

    Now Bob- carefully compare the two excerpts. You will notice an important difference. Ed's proposal is for the Candidate to produce two specific documents, with no substitutions permitted. Your guidelines allow for two documents from a list of thirty.

    The guidelines that you posted seem to me to be a good starting point for enhancing residency verification at CV. If it is OK for the Government, it is very likely OK for us.

    But the proposal suggested by Ed, as written, would, I believe, be a problem.

  12. Don, there is a big difference in what the state uses, I agree, however, why make it more difficult for people volunteering in UCO by having a list as long as the states? The proposed list asks for two out of three.
    Maybe having one or two additional sources for verification may be in order, but which would you suggest that would prove the person is domiciled at the address?
    Water bill/Fpl bill don't work unless usage is shown.
    Usage proves someone lives there.
    Voter registration would work if the person is responsible and registers any changes of address.
    Driver's license, same thing.
    vehicle registration could be an option. someone will say, not everyone has a vehicle.
    An argument can be made for practically every one.
    but to have UCO use a list as long as the DMV just makes things harder.
    I like your suggestion of one from "A" and two from "B" .

  13. Don4060 has been making his point since early on in the comment stream, but people don't seem to get it. It isn't that the voter registration card is not proof of residency; it's that it should not be a REQUIRED proof, because it would probably be illegal to REQUIRE it. Don4060 is only pointing out that the way Ed Black phrased the suggested rule (to include proof) be changed a little to take this into consideration. Neither is he suggesting a whole raft of proofs be required.

    Am I wrong? I think we all, myself included, need to take the time to READ AND DIGEST one another's blogs before dashing off a response of our own.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.