Marone: Further study of law makes difference in Sun City board debate


This iThis is a rebuttal of David A. Wieland’s letter (“Reader’s quotes are not correct,” Sun City Independent, August 18, 2021).

First of all, before Mr. Weiland “sticks to his research,” perhaps he should take a closer look. Law 10-3809 mentioned by Mr. Weiland is incorrect. 10-3809 concerns directors who have been “appointed or appointed”. Law 10-3808 is about directors who have been “elected by the members”, that’s how we do it here in Sun City!

10-3808 goes on to state that “A director elected by the members may be removed by the members …” The only authority that 10-3808 gives to directors to remove another director is if the director has not attended a meeting. specified number of meetings.

Second, Mr. Weiland makes my point when he refers to Article II, Section 8, and the due process given to cardholders before their privileges were suspended by the managers of Sun’s recreation centers. City. The fact that a similar due process is nowhere to be found in the articles of incorporation or in the bylaws of the board of directors suggests to me that at the very least the disciplinary procedure provided for in Robert’s Rules of Order, the parliamentary authority of the RCSC, should apply.

As I said before, yes, the board has the power to call a special meeting and, yes, the board has the power to remove a director, but it’s not a simple two-step process. Certain procedures must be followed to ensure due process for the accused. Surely everyone thinks director Karen McAdam should have spent her day in court.

Source link


About Author

Leave A Reply