SUSPEND THE VOTE

[mpallamary]

To my fellow association members.

In my opinion, given the upcoming meeting to discuss the expulsion of the Orange County Chapter president, Mr. David Woolley, on October 4, for representing his chapter and the obvious relationship between this proposed action and the "urgency" to adopt the bylaws by September 10, the only rational thing to do is to suspend the vote. As many of the members may not be aware, the directors have been advised not to discuss the October 4 vote as noted on the attached. The pertinent warning reads as follows:

REMINDER: Legal counsel strongly urges Board members to maintain confidentiality regarding this matter. All matters discussed in Attorney-Client Privileged Session during the Board’s April and July meetings also must remain absolutely confidential. Lapses in confidentiality are likely to be harmful to all persons concerned.


Many members do not read this as an admonition - they view it as a form of intimidation. Indeed, what is intended by the notion of any discussion being "harmful to all persons concerned?"

Because of the seriousness of this matter and the undeniable relationship between the rush to adopt the bylaws, particularly the "Woolley Amendment" (Section 2.08), the directors are unable to discuss the bylaw changes because of concern that to do so will be "harmful to all persons concerned." This legal admonition pretty much prohibits anyone from talking about the bylaws and because the membership does not know what the basis is of the warning, where does that leave the rest of us who are financing these activities?

In my opinion, the effect, intended or otherwise, of the admonition is to discourage democratic debate and that is fundamentally wrong. Clearly if the BOD intends to proceed with the October 4 vote, the bylaw vote must be suspended until after the October 4 vote. Absent proof of urgency other than the timing of the vote, I challenge the BOD to explain why a vote on the bylaws is needed at this time and why the vote cannot be suspended.

I concurrently urge everyone to lobby to take this matter off calendar. There are too many problems and too many questions and I believe that a host of legal problems can be avoided with a little bit of common sense.

I would add that I have been contacted by a large number of people across the state and one thing is certain - a majority of the membership wants an open and transparent debate about the proposed changes. Clearly the legal admonishment is a gross disservice to the association if the people most familiar with the proposed amendments are unable to discuss them, particularly the Woolley Amendment.

Depending on your interpretation about the relationship between the proposed vote to expel the Orange County Chapter president and the adoption of the bylaws, one thing is clear, there are a far too many questions. Moreover, and recognizing that the association's actions are governed under the federal laws related to nonprofits and since these laws were changed in 2009, it is imperative that the organization's activities be open and transparent; that is the primary reason the laws were revised. If you are not familiar with the association's duties, please acquaint yourself with these rules and laws.

Please join me in urging the BOD to suspend the bylaws vote until the expulsion vote has been decided.

[bruce hall]

time I have seen, in writing, that the board is trying to expel a member of our volunteer organization.

If that really is the reason(or one of the reasons) for these bylaw revisions, then they shouldn't be voted on, or they should be voted down.

If we can't kick out someone with the existing bylaws in place, or if it is really difficult to have them removed, then that's a good thing. Think about it.

All voices should be heard in any organization, for or against. It is a great way to keep ourselves in check.

There is my 2 cents given what was just posted.

[land butcher]

time I have seen, in writing, that the board is trying to expel a member of our volunteer organization.

If that really is the reason(or one of the reasons) for these bylaw revisions, then they shouldn't be voted on, or they should be voted down.

If we can't kick out someone with the existing bylaws in place, or if it is really difficult to have them removed, then that's a good thing. Think about it.

All voices should be heard in any organization, for or against. It is a great way to keep ourselves in check.

There is my 2 cents given what was just posted.

I agree 100%

[mpallamary]

SUSPEND THE VOTE.

[Jim Frame]

As a result of some offline communications, I've come to a different understanding of the bylaws changes than I had when I cast my ballot. I now wish to rescind my ballot, and would like to know if there's a process I can follow to accomplish that.

Thanks!

[marois]

Regarding the vote, once all the ballots have been received, a teller committee will be form to tally the votes and report the results at the November 4th Board of Directors’ meeting and depending on the outcome the revised Bylaws may or not be adopted.
Concerning the October 4th meeting, this meeting is being held in accordance with the current Bylaws, which were last adopted in October 2008. Having attended a couple of meetings this year as an alternate, all I can say is the reason(s) for the meeting is more than a director asking questions.

Armand Marois

[Frank Romano PLS]

To my fellow association members.

. . . it is imperative that the organization's activities be open and transparent; . . .

I agree with Mr. Pallamary's statement.

I think discussion of this topic has been very insightful (Thank you Mr. Page for your section by section analysis.)

Thank you Gary Schenk for bringing up the topic.

I have to agree with MR. Pallamary:
SUSPEND THE VOTE!

[mpallamary]

SUSPEND THE VOTE.