11-20-2014, 01:34 PM
hppwatchdog is correct that the fifth appointment is not valid.
Although the Board did not announce when the resignation of the Director for District 1 became effective, some time must have elapsed before the 19 October meeting because there was a candidate ready for appointment. There was also no urgency to rush this matter through, as there were four valid candidates for appointment, bringing the total to 8 members, and most likely ensuring a quorum for any future meetings. Therefore, there was time to post the vacancy on the website and add the last member at the December meeting.
However, hppwatchdog fell slightly short in the estimation of the number of candidates who could have applied to be considered. Since it is an appointment, not an election, candidates can be drawn from all members, without regard to district.
It has been 5 1/2 months since this Board took office; it is no longer "new". There have been more than numerous occasions brought to its attention when it has ignored the Bylaws and that this is not acceptable. The Board has actually taken some of the "suggestions" and amended its actions to comply.
Is it not time to expect that the Board will, at the least, read those sections of the Bylaws related to matters it is considering BEFORE it takes decisions?
Although the Board did not announce when the resignation of the Director for District 1 became effective, some time must have elapsed before the 19 October meeting because there was a candidate ready for appointment. There was also no urgency to rush this matter through, as there were four valid candidates for appointment, bringing the total to 8 members, and most likely ensuring a quorum for any future meetings. Therefore, there was time to post the vacancy on the website and add the last member at the December meeting.
However, hppwatchdog fell slightly short in the estimation of the number of candidates who could have applied to be considered. Since it is an appointment, not an election, candidates can be drawn from all members, without regard to district.
It has been 5 1/2 months since this Board took office; it is no longer "new". There have been more than numerous occasions brought to its attention when it has ignored the Bylaws and that this is not acceptable. The Board has actually taken some of the "suggestions" and amended its actions to comply.
Is it not time to expect that the Board will, at the least, read those sections of the Bylaws related to matters it is considering BEFORE it takes decisions?