-
Yet again, for at least the third time, the same small number of people who have disrupted our meetings for close to four years, and have launched a law suit against us, bring a Bylaw to re-impose term limits on all Officers.
-
Yours truly, current President of UCO, would lose the opportunity to run for Office if term limits were voted in; and the opposition would then be elected by default. Perhaps that is why they are working so hard to restore term limits, by any means possible!
-
My opposition has zero experience of service to the Community, and until recently attended virtually no UCO meetings, so I ask what are her qualifications? When you disagree with her, she calls you names; her supporters spew libel, defamation and hatred onto the Internet.
-
So, I ask simply, give me the opportunity to run again, and vote a resounding no to term limits on UCO Officers, at Friday Delegate Assembly.
-
Dave Israel
-
Saw a sign on Aitz Chaim fence and on a building along West Drive stating "LET'S TAKE OUR VILLAGE BACK", back to where?
ReplyDeleteI rather move FORWARD !
So true!
ReplyDeleteBACK to closed meetings, misguided loyalty, favors for friends, very little published info, delayed alerts for bad decisions.
ReplyDeleteHopelessly unprofessional!
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY NO TO TERM LINITS!!!!
ReplyDeleteRUN FOR OFFICE IF YOU WANT NEW PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's all been said before! When will it stop coming up every other month? Just back from the Delegates meeting and the motion didn't come close to passing. It's been said before anyone may choose to run and if you don't like the incumbent don't vote for him!
ReplyDeleteJoyce
HAPPY TO HEAR, TL WAS DEFEATED...
ReplyDeletePerhaps the "Malcontent's" will
now understand, the MAJORITY of
Delegates,are FIRMLY OPPOSED to
the continuance of this practice..
As I and other's have previously
stated.. Any qualified resident
(domiciled 9 mths of yr)may oppose
any OFFICER, at ANNUAL ELECTIONS.
Guess this statement will now elevate ME to the TOP of the YOU
KNOW WHAT LIST.and this time get my name RIGHT!!!!!
I am not sure the malcontents ever understand anything sensible. We do need a UCO bylaws revision to keep motions which are defeated from being reintroduced for a long period of time.
ReplyDeleteAt the very least, one motion per year, with rules that discourages the same issue from reappearing multiple times, each time with slightly different wording in the motion. This tactic has wasted hundred of hours of Delegate's time over the years.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm not mistaken, one of the first times––maybe THE first time--"no term limits" was put up for a vote in the past year or so, it FAILED TO PASS. Those of us favoring no term limits then were glad enough for a second crack at the issue!. If a limit is going to be set, let's make it at least twice in a 12-month period. Maybe three times? I don't know how you overcome the slightly-different-wording problem. Perhaps we should get some advice from Harry Reid.
ReplyDeleteToo mnay times Lanny. UCO is stressed enough without that extra mess.
ReplyDeleteRight- the sword cuts both ways. A middle-way solution then. No more "$1.00, $.99, $.98.....$.67". Tedious.
ReplyDeleteBut you must be in favor of at least twice, Plcruise, else term limits would be the rule right now, and Dave would not be eligible to run for UCO president in March!
ReplyDeleteI think we have learned not to rush thru votes that involve double, triple negatives. Marilyn G did an excellent job on Friday reading, then clarifying what a yes vote meant. Good job on the counting too.
ReplyDelete