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!
