More E-Bulletin MythDemeanours

Congratulations, Drive Canada (board) the following is a masterpiece of  (let me see how many adjectives I can use) slanted, distorted, manipulative, biased, colored, contorted, and perverted writing!

E-bulletin: "Based on the members actually present, the motion would have passed, however there were three individuals who came with sufficient proxies to deny the 2/3 required vote so the motion was defeated. 

Of interest was the recent signups for proxies including family members, non-drivers and some people who have not been members for many years."

FACT: The motion was illegal. Period. Every other aspect of the meeting was stated as conducted “per Bylaw [insert applicable bylaw article & number]” .  Those aspects were very minor and immaterial,  for example as to whether a quorum was present per bylaw such and such -  the point was that a quorum was present. However, the argument was made regarding the bylaw changes - an item of immense importance -  that a Special General Meeting was required and that there was a precedence in that Bylaws had previously been amended in the morning and the AGM took place in the afternoon.

I stated in the meeting that the procedure was not legal because it could not be approved by Industry Canada prior to the AGM and “acceptance of the new Directors.”  An attendee  specifically asked if what I said was true. The reply was again, that there was a precedence, and also that the intent to send the amendments to Industry Canada for approval was sufficient.

I knew this information was wrong but had to wait until returning home to find my records.  I sent a  correction to the “Board” and involved individuals.  Not surprising, I received not one word in return except from Iris and Sue.

If you are interested, my correction is here:
http://carriage-driving-canada.blogspot.com/

Bylaws are sacrosanct! I find no integrity in a group that would so cavalierly willingly subvert the bylaws under which an organization operates. I would truly like to think that the board members had not thoroughly thought about their actions;  I would like to think that, but it is difficult to do so. Moreover, they were offended that the 3 of us and our proxy votes were not willing to be complicit.

Isn’t it ironic everyone else is required to sign this statement on their membership applications/renewals:” I hereby agree to uphold the bylaws and membership policies of Drive Canada”  One must assume that the Drive Canada Board has special renewal forms because they surely wouldn’t sign that.

 Isn’t it ironic everyone else is required to sign this statement on their membership applications/renewals:” I hereby agree to uphold the bylaws and membership policies of Drive Canada” One must assume that the Drive Canada Board has special renewal forms because they surely wouldn’t be so dishonest.

"Based on the members actually present, the motion would have passed"  27 Members that were present are going to make that decision for the entire membership? I recall a meeting in which the DC president had 109 proxies.  The "Board" had no complaint then.


Now this is a real fun comment:

"Of interest was the recent signups for proxies including family members, non-drivers and some people who have not been members for many years."

That is a bizarre statement.  “Signups for proxies”?  How does one signup for a proxy? A member may give another member his proxy, but signup? The notice was mailed out October 15 - 30 days prior to the meetings, and “Membership on record 45 days prior to the date on which the General or Special Meeting is to be held shall be entitled to receive notice.”  Since nobody knew the topic of the Special Meeting, and there was not a notice of election, where was the landslide of new memberships that this statement implies?
 
“Family Members?”  And the “Board” doesn’t have any “family members”?  Oh, and I really like the term,   “non-drivers.” Again, look to the “Board”.

“Some people who have not been members for many years”  The “Board” doesn’t get it - this was supposed to be an election year and many, many  Drive Canada members had been increasingly unhappy with the actions of the “Board” and wanted to effect change (that can be done in a democracy) and put forward a total of 5 nominations.  Now just why would you think some people have not been members for many years and rejoined?   Maybe because they saw a glimmer of hope of inclusion?

Iris’ report on the meetings is here
http://carriage-driving-canada.blogspot.com/

It gets better - stay tuned for the Double Speak awards.