MINUTES

59th ANNUAL MEETING

Tan-Tar-A Resort - Salon A

Osage Beach, Missouri

November 27, 2007

 

 

 

The 59th Annual Meeting of the Missouri Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts was called to order by President Fred Feldmann at 8:30 a.m., at Tan-Tar-A Resort in Osage Beach, Missouri. 

 

Roll call and establishment of a quorum, 78 districts were present.  Introduction of guests.

 

The minutes from the 58th Annual Meeting held November 28, 2006 were approved as mailed.  Motion was made by Cole County to suspend with the reading of the minutes and they be approved as sent out, seconded by Newton County.  Motion carried.

 

A treasurer report was given.   The report covered the period of November 1, 2006 through October 31, 2007, in order for it to be included in the registration packets.  A motion was made by Cole County and seconded by Pulaski County to approve the treasurer report.  Motion carried.

 

Elizabeth Brown gave a Commission Report.  She stated this was her last official duty as Commissioner.  She stated she feels the districts are the backbone of the state of Missouri.  The theme of the conference – the 3 R’s – affect all the conservation partners.  Doyle Childers, Director of DNR, has recognized 5 outstanding districts as follows:  Monroe SWCD for outstanding treatment of gulley erosion – Dent SWCD for implementation of best management practices on grassland – Atchison SWCD for outstanding treatment of sheet and rill erosion – Jackson SWCD for information education efforts – Dallas SWCD for progress in implementing the AgNPS SALT Project.  She stated another successful event is the Envirothon.  Parkway North blew way the teams at the state competition placing 1st, 2nd and 3rd, and the winning team then placed 4th at the Canon Envirothon in New York.  Another call for SALT projects has produced 12 preliminary proposals.  There have been 88 SALT projects funded with 16 of those completed.  In the last fiscal year over $19 million was claimed in cost-share funds.  There were 65 districts who claimed 80% or more of their cost-share fund allocation.  She mentioned the proposed rules change on the allocation of the cost-share funds.  We are in the comment period now.  The Commission’s plans are to initiate criteria that will allocate the cost-share funs to the districts according to the districts’ needs.

 

Roger Hansen gave the NRCS report.  He stated that thinking about the previous night’s speaker talking about the paradymn shift in funding, he feels it started last year with NRCS.  The FT-07 budget eliminated earmarks.  He had 60 staff years funded by earmarked funds.  There were 130 employees detailed out-of-state this past year.  Two years ago he had 475 employees, today he has 425 and by next March should be at 400.  He stated he wished he could say it would stay at 400 but that will depend on Congress and whether they come up with a budget or a continuing resolution, and how the continuing resolution is worded if that is how they are funded for the remainder of their fiscal year.  If they don’t pass a budget by Christmas they will probably have a continuing resolution for the rest of the year.  If this happens it will lock in the funding amounts from the 2006 budget with no earmarked funds.  The 2007 Farm Bill is still not passed.  Unless Congress extends the current Farm Bill or passes a new one, the authority for some of the federal programs will expire.  The only 2 continuing programs will be EQIP and CSP.  When the new Farm Bill is approved it will open up new funds.  He stated the main thing he could do was to try to not spend money.  Missouri was 1 of 4 states last year with a deficit budget.  He thanked DNR for their assistance with the computer issue.  NRCS has to pay $3000 per computer for support annually.  If changes had not been made to the district employee computer access, it would have added $900,000 to his budget.  There will be 1 computer in each office available to district employees so they can access the NRCS programs.  He stated he feels the funding shift is temporary and we just need to get through it.  He also stated he was happy about the good job by all the employees for getting the work on the land through out all the issues.

 

Fred Feldmann stated it had been a very interesting year, a very busy year.  We are working to try to improve things for the districts.  All the changes affect everyone, he stated he knows everyone is not happy with all the changes, he emphasized we need to maintain a positive attitude and work through them to accomplish what is best for conservation in Missouri.  He stated we often take for granted how well off we are with the sales tax funding compared to other states.  We are trying desperately to keep Missouri in the position it has been.

 

Brad Ross, Director of Member Services for NACD, stated that NACD represents over 3,000 districts and serves as their voice on Capital Hill in Washington, D.C.  NACD’s officer team is a really dedicated group and they would like to hear from local districts.  He stated they appreciate the contribution and leadership from Missouri on the NACD Board.  Steve Oetting hosted NACD President Olin Sims, Keira Franz, and Lisa Lerwick on his farm a couple of weeks ago.  He stated it made a huge impact on Keira’s understanding of the conservation programs.  He thanked the 74 Missouri districts who paid NACD quota last year.  He went over the goals of NACD through their new strategic plan.  The top 3 goals are:  1 – public awareness and public relations, 2 – support for state association and conservation district members, 3 – grass roots advocacy.  He stated that one of the public outreach efforts has been the conference calls with the state associations and districts.  He also encouraged association memberships.  NACD has been working diligently on the development of the 2007 Farm Bill.  It has been a long, drawn-out process.  The House side has a strong conservation component.  NACD endorsed the House Farm Bill proposal.  The Senate is on recess now, will be back next Monday.  Hopes are to get the Farm Bill finalized by Christmas.  The longer it is delayed the harder it is on producers and agencies to get programs implemented.  The NACD Annual Meeting is in Reno, February 10-14.  Brad encouraged attendance at the meeting.  The theme is “Conservation Beyond Boundaries” which enourages new ways to gt the job done.  He also mentioned the 509 Capitol Court Campaign for renovating the office in Washington, D.C., and thanked Missouri for their contribution to this campaign.

 

Don Fisher stated he was proud of the state association and the districts and the job they do.  This is what makes the conservation program so successful along with the county offices.  He stated he Farm Storage Loan program spent $3.57 million last year.  We need to keep working on the Farm Bill.  Landowners need to understand the particulars of CRP contracts if they plan to buy or sell land.  They need to understand how to protect theirself with new owners taking over the contract and making sure it is reported properly to the FSA office.

 

Fred turned the meeting over to Steve Radcliff for the resolutions.  Steve stated the debate rules as follows:  3 minutes per person at the mike, 1 person at the mike at a time, the sponsor of the resolution may come back for rebuttal, timers will be used, the sponsor must move to approve the resolution to get it on the floor for discussion, any close vote will be re-voted by a roll cal vote.

 

Resolutions to be brought from the floor were asked to be brought forward so they could be put on the screen for discussion.

 

See Attachment 1

 

Resolutions

 

#01 from Boone County concerning extending the 4-year limitation and removing the $90 per acre limitation on DSP-3/33/333 practices.  Boone County moved to adopt this resolution as written.  This was seconded by Callaway County.  No discussion.  The vote was close so roll-call vote was called for.  The resolution failed with 36 votes in favor.   See attachment 2

 

#02 from Greene County concerning cost-share practice certification without additional evidence such as maps.  Greene County moved to adopt this resolution as written.  This was seconded by Audrain County.  Resolution passed with 62 votes in favor.

 

#03 from Greene County concerning local control by district boards.  Greene County moved to adopt this resolution as written.  This was seconded by Lawrence County.   No discussion. Vote on resolution passed with 64 votes in favor.

 

#04 from Greene County concerning the local district involvement before major changes are implemented.  Greene County moved for adoption of this resolution.  This was seconded by Daviess County.   No discussion.   Vote on resolution passed with 60 votes in favor.

 

#05 from Gasconade County concerning the Corps of Engineers dumping of soil into the Missouri River.  Gasconade County moved for adoption of this resolution.  This was seconded by St. Charles County.  No discussion.  Vote on resolution passed with 74 votes in favor.

 

#06 from Christian County concerning repealing memorandum 2007-035 and certification of a cost-share practice remain the responsibility of the field office staff.  Christian County moved this resolution be adopted.  This was seconded by Greene County.  There was no discussion.  Vote on resolution passed with 50 votes in favor.

 

 

#07 from Livingston County concerning cost-sharing for topsoiling all terrace practices.  Livingston County moved for adoption of this resolution.  This was seconded by Daviess County.  There was no discussion on this resolution.  Vote on resolution failed with 21 votes in favor.

 

#08 from Livingston County concerning excluding the cost of fencing and water components from the $15,000 and above NRCS requirement.  Livingston County moved for the adoption of this resolution.  This was seconded by Daviess County.  Vote on resolution failed with 28 votes in favor.

 

#09 from Warren County concerning determination of district employee eligible for benefits.  Warren County moved for the adoption of this resolution.  This was seconded by Miller County.  Jefferson County pointed out what appeared to be a typing error – Therefore be it resolved……as we believe to be the case ……  No further discussion.  Vote on resolution passed with 48 votes in favor.

 

#10 from Warren County concerning funding district employee salaries and benefits in full.   Warren County moved for the adoption of this resolution.  This was seconded by Cooper County.  No discussion.  The vote on resolution passed with 45 votes in favor.

 

#11 from Montgomery County concerning information education funding.  Montgomery county mved for the adoption of this resolution.  This was seconded by Morgan County.  No discusion.  The vote on the resolution passed with 62 votes in favor.

 

Resolutions from the floor.

#12 from Warren County concerning Health Insurance for Board Members.  Warren County moved to bring this resolution from the floor.  This was seconded by Daviess County.  Vote passed with 55 votes in favor. 

Whereas, Soil and Water Conservation District Board Supervisors are volunteers by statute, and

Whereas, District Board Supervisors are not eligible to receive health insurance through the current system.  This is due to the fact that board members are a volunteer position, and

Whereas, DNR has group health insurance established for soil and water district employees;

Therefore, be it resolved:  The Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District would like to urge MASWCD in cooperation with DNR to change MO Statute Chapter 278, Soil Conservation, Section 278.110.4, to read:  A soil and water supervisor shall receive no compensation for his services, but he shall be entitled to expenses, including travel expense and health insurance for self and family through the MCHCP if it is paid 100% by the supervisor.

Reason:  it is getting increasingly difficult to find people willing to take on the role of supervisor.  Due to the high cost of health insurance for self employed farmers, especially as they get older.  This would be an incentive for self-employed farmers to run for the position.  At the same time, there would be no premium cost to the state.

Warren County moved doption of this resolution.  This was seconded by Randolph County.  Question from Holt County, what happens to the insurance when supervisor goes off the board.  The answer was it was understood that when you go off the board you are on your own and the insurance ends.  Cole County stated they were on the insurance plan a few years ago, was grandfathered in under the revised rules.  When turned 65 no medicare supplement was honored, still wanted to be the primary insurance.  Vote failed with 34 votes in favor.

#13 from Buchanan County concerning cost-sharing on CRP land.  Buchanan moved to bring this resolution from the floor.  This was seconded by Daviess County.  Vote to bring from the floor failed the 2/3 requirement with 42 votes in favor.

#14 from Livingston-Grundy-Daviess-Harrison Counties concerning requirements for Soil and Water Commissioner.  Gundy moved to bring this resolution from the floor.  This was seconded by Livingston and Daviess Counties.  Vote to bring from the floor passed with 61 votes in favor.  Grundy County moved adoption of the resolution.  This was seconded by Morgan County. 

Therefore be it resolved:  that in order to serve as a Missouri Soil and Warer Districts Commissioner, one must have had local experience by previously or presently serving on the local soil and water conservation board.

Cole County stated they felt this was unconstitutional, was like saying someone without children could not run for the school board.  Vote on resolution passed with 52 votes in favor.

Warren Couty asked to re-consider the vote on resolution #12 due to the vote being close.  It was pointed out that only the party on the prevailing side could ask for reconsideration of the vote.  Jefferson County moved to reconsider the vote.  This was seconded by St. Charles County.  Vote failed with 34 votes in favor.

 

By-Law Amendment #1 – Clark County moved to adopt the by-law amendment as written.  This was seconded by Livingston County.  No discussion.  Vote on by-law amendment passed with 66 votes in favor.

 

Steve Radcliff reported that the resolutions passed at last year’s meeting were incorporated into the MASWCD Policy.  A motion was made by Pulaski County, seconded by Buchanan County to approve the updated MASWCD Policy.  Motion carried.

 

The resolutions passed at today’s meeting will be incorporated into the MASWCD policy and ready for approval at next year’s annual meeting.

 

George Engelbach from Jefferson County stated he felt the renovation project for the NACD building in Washington, D.C. was important and that some of the districts would find it possible to support this.

 

The Area Directors from Areas 1—3—5—7 were all re-elected for another term. 

 

The members were asked to return the voting signs back to the Area Directors.

 

Meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.  The MASWCD reorganization meeting is scheduled for 11:00 a.m. this morning in the Terrace Drawing Room.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

_____________________________

Peggy Lemons, Executive Director

 


Attachment 1

MASWCD RESOLUTIONS

November 2007 Training Conference

 

Resolution # 1

Boone County

Whereas, the current Commission policy states that applicants have a four-consecutive year period to make multiple applications for Planned Grazing Systems (DSP-3/33/333) that begins the day the Board approved the initial claim, a $90 per acre limit, and a $13,500 maximum cost-share limit, and

Whereas, the Commission has recognized that the Planned Grazing System practice is very effective in maintaining forage production and therefore better water quality in drought conditions, and

Whereas, smaller acreage graziers are not able to spread basic watering costs over as many acres thereby operating at an economical disadvantage, and

Whereas, some landowners were given an additional period of time to expand their systems, and

Whereas, Planned Grazing Systems are most effective and efficient when fine-tuned and/or expanded with time and experience;

Therefore, be it resolved: That the Missouri Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts urge the Soil and Water Districts Commission to extend the four-year limitation on DSP-3/33/333 applications to 9 years and remove the $90 per acre cost-share limitation while keeping the maximum state cost-share allowed at $13,500 per landowner.

Resolution Failed

 

Resolution # 2

Greene County SWCD

Whereas, according to the Parks and Soils Sales Tax Law, the Soil and Water Commission has been delegated the responsibility for developing soil and water program policy, and

Whereas, the Soil and Water Commission has a past history of gathering information from local soil and water district boards to develop a sound and reasonable conservation program policy, and

Whereas, the Commission and district boards have been excluded from recent decisions affecting local district operations (e.g. maps of practices mandated by DNR program office) and have been offered no opportunity for input, and

Whereas, cost share practice claims are required to be certified by the responsible technical agency (NRCS),

Therefore be it resolved:  that practice certification should be accepted for cost share payment without additional (map) evidence and that program policy should not be altered without justification before working through the proper Commission channels.

Resolution Passed

 

Resolution #3

Greene County SWCD

Whereas, the local Soil and Water Conservation District board is the elected governing body of a soil and water conservation district, and

Whereas, a function of a soil and water conservation district board is to hire qualified employees and make budget decisions each fiscal year based upon employee job performance, pay increases and advancements, and

Whereas, district boards have received direction from a state agency on the compensation and promotion for work for non-state district employees

Therefore be it resolved: that soil and water conservation district boards should not relinquish local control to state or federal conservation agencies and should continue to provide supervision to SWCD employees. Let it be further resolved that district funding should not be tied to unattainable goals determined by state agency staff.

Supported by: Audrain, Barton, Benton, Bollinger, Cape Girardeau, Christian, Clay, Cole, Crawford, Dallas, Daviess, Grundy, Lawrence, Macon, Mercer, Miller, Morgan, Pettis, Ripley, Saline, St. Francois, Shelby, Warren & Webster SWCDs.

Resolution Passed

 

Resolution #4

Greene County SWCD

Whereas, the local soil and water conservation district board is the elected governing body of a soil and water conservation district, and

Whereas, a function of the soil and water conservation district board is to identify local conservation issues and to offer appropriate environmental corrective measures and

Whereas, the board feels that we are losing our close working relationship(s) with sister agencies and conservation partners such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Missouri Department of Conservation, the Farm Service Agency, the University of Missouri Extension Service, and Watershed Committee of the Ozarks,

Therefore, be it resolved: that soil and water conservation district boards work together with the DNR program staff and the Soil and Water Commission and sister agencies or conservation partners to review proposals before acting on any major changes that would hinder our combined conservation efforts.

Supported by: Barton, Benton, Bollinger, Cape Girardeau, Christian, Clay, Cole, Crawford, Dallas, Daviess, Grundy, Lawrence, Macon, Mercer, Miller, Morgan, Pettis, Ripley, Saline, St. Francois, Shelby, Warren & Webster SWCDs.

Resolution Passed

 

Resolution #5

Gasconade County SWCD

Whereas, the Soil and Water Districts Commission Plan for the Future states that they will conserve Missouri’s soil and water resources and support clean water by working with others to determine and implement long-term strategies to conserve Missouri’s productive power of the agricultural land in a way that is protective of Missouri’s water resources and

Whereas, the number one non-point source pollutant, by a wide margin, entering Missouri’s waters is sediment

Whereas, it is the local Conservation Districts and Commission’s responsibility to assure taxpayers that, by continuing soil and water conservation programs, the purity of the water in their streams and rivers will be protected

Therefore, be it resolved: that the Missouri Association of Conservation Districts and the Soil and Water Districts Commission stress their strong opposition to the deliberate dumping of thousands of tons of soil by the Corps of Engineers into the Missouri River.

Supported by: Moniteau SWCD

Resolution Passed

 

Resolution #6

Christian County SWCD

Whereas, the requirements for documentation of structural practices constructed with funds from the Missouri State Parks and Soils Tax is more stringent on certain practices (e.g. those involved with grazing management), than other structural practices applied throughout the state (e.g. terrace systems, water ways), and

Whereas, the structural practices installed with Missouri State Parks and Soils Tax funds have multiple levels of review and technical certification by the Natural Resources Conservation Service as mandated by program policy, and

Whereas, any Technical staff of the Soil and Water Conservation District or Natural Resources Conservation Services has received adequate training and job approval for designing and inspecting structural practices, and

Whereas, the information interpreted from a map may not adequately represent the design of a structural practice due to topography, geography or the geology of that particular site, and

Therefore be it resolved: to maintain equality in the review of structural practices, that the articles identified in memorandum 2007-035 be repealed by the commission and that technical certification of a practice remains a responsibility of adequately trained and certified field office staff.

Supported by: Audrain, Barton, Benton, Cape Girardeau, Christian, Clay, Cole, Crawford, Dallas, Daviess, Grundy, Lawrence, Macon, Mercer, Miller, Pettis, Ripley, Saline, St. Francois, Shelby, Warren & Webster SWCDs.

Resolution Passed

 

Resolution #7

Livingston County SWCD

Whereas, the Livingston County SWCD believes all terrace practices should require topsoiling, regardless of soil type;

Whereas, the Livingston County SWCD believes the decision to approve cost-share assistance for topsoiling on all terrace practices, regardless of soil type, should be up to each individual Soil and Water Conservation District;

Therefore, be it resolved: that the MASWCD urge NRCS and the Commission to approve cost-share assistance for topsoiling the practice for all terraces.

Department of Natural Resources, Soil and Water Conservation Program Comments:  State Cost-Share practices are designed in accordance with NRCS specifications set forth in the Field Office Technical Guide.  When it is determined that topsoiling will be effective, based on the soil type and amount of topsoil remaining, the landowner is required to topsoil for the practice to be certified s meeting standard.  The commission has approved the use of state cost-share funds for topsoiling in those instances where it is required nd so noted on the drawings.

Resolution Failed

 

Resolution #8

Livingston County SWCD

Whereas, the Livingston County SWCD believes that the fencing and water component expenses should not be included in the $15,000.00 and above NRCS requirement that require the designs to be approved by the NRCS Area Office for structure practices.

Whereas, the fencing and water components do not affect the structural design of the structure;

Therefore, be it resolved: that the MASWCD urge NRCS to exclude the cost of fencing and water component expenses from the $15,000.00 and above NRCS requirement.

Resolution Failed

 

Resolution #9

Warren County SWCD

Whereas, the state office has consistently encouraged soil and water districts take the initiative to supplement Soils & Parks Tax district assistance grants with matching grants, 319 grants, AgNPS SALTs, local funds, or other types of funding for salaries info/ed programs, and equipment purchases.

Whereas, the DNR Memo #2008-007, "Health Insurance", states "only those employees that are paid from the Parks and Soils Sales Tax will be eligible to have their health insurance and retirement paid with the Parks and Soils Sales Tax funds."

Whereas, district boards voted on health insurance before learning of the requirements stated above for their employees to be eligible for benefits.

Whereas, the state office is deciding who is/is not a district employee by which type of funding is being utilized to pay their salary.

Therefore, be it resolved: that the Commission should decide who is/is not a district employee and they should receive their benefits as was believe to be the case when the search for better health insurance began.

Resolution Passed

 

Resolution #10

Warren County SWCD

Whereas, the state office has consistently encouraged soil and water districts take the initiative to use matching grants, 319 grants, AgNPS SALTs, local funds, or other types of funding for salaries when their allotments were inadequate to fund salaries, info/ed programs, and equipment purchases.

Whereas, the new FY08 allotments, as outlined in the 6/29/07 DNR letter to each district, the districts are only receiving what the state funded in salaries for FY07 or the minimum for that employee’s pay-range plus 8%. This includes NO compensation for years of experience. The new allotment has also limited the salary paid for an employee because they are only funding the state’s portion of the matching grants used for their salary.

Whereas, to many districts, this is a pay reduction, which the state office consistently denied would take place.

Therefore, be it resolved: that district employees, as deemed by the districts/commission, should be funded for salaries and benefits in full, not only the state’s portion for matching grants last year, as districts were led to believe. The districts should not be given partial funding because of the long-time problem of under-funding districts in the first place. In the past, is was the commission’s policy that anyone working for soil and water districts and worked 1000 hours qualified for benefits.

Resolution Passed

 

Resolution #11

Montgomery County SWCD

Whereas, the state office has consistently encouraged soil and water districts take the initiative to use matching grants, 319 grants, AgNPS SALTs, local funds, or other types of funding for information/education when their allotments were inadequate to fully fund these programs.

Whereas, matching grants for info/ed has been taken away and the state has placed the burden on each district to fund their established info/ed programs from local funds.

Therefore, be it resolved: that districts receive grant monies for established and proven info/ed programs. The districts should also be encouraged, not discouraged, to conduct various "hands-on" info/ed programs to schools within their counties which has been highly supported by tax-payers.

Resolution Passed

 

Resolution #12

Warren County SWCD

Re:  Health Insurance for Board Members

Whereas, Soil and Water Conservation District Board Supervisors are volunteers by statute, and

Whereas, District Board Supervisors are not eligible to receive health insurance through the current system.  This is due to the fact that board members are a volunteer position, and

Whereas, DNR has group health insurance established for soil and water district employees;

Therefore, be it resolved:  The Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District would like to urge MASWCD in cooperation with DNR to change MO Statute Chapter 278, Soil Conservation, Section 278.110.4, to read:  A soil and water supervisor shall receive no compensation for his services, but he shall be entitled to expenses, including travel expense and health insurance for self and family through the MCHCP if it is paid 100% by the supervisor.

Reason:  it is getting increasingly difficult to find people willing to take on the role of supervisor.  Due to the high cost of health insurance for self employed farmers, especially as they get older.  This would be an incentive for self-employed farmers to run for the position.  At the same time, there would be no premium cost to the state.

Resolution Failed

Resolution #13

Buchanan County SWCD

Whereas, Currently land under an expiring Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contract and land that has recently been removed from a mature CRP contract are not eligible for state cost share according to rule 10 CSR 70-5, 020(2) (erosion rate limitations).  And that this same land is not eligible for state cost share until the fields are cropped for three to four years and an erosion problem does develop.

Therefore be it resolved:  That MASWCD urge the Commission to allow land under an expiring Conservation Reserve Program contract, which will be brought into cropland production, be eligible for state cost share funding during the first year out of the CRP program.  Justification will be based upon the calculated erosion rate of the land while it was cropped prior to being enrolled into CRP.  Eligible land will have a pre-CRP erosion rate greater than T.

The rule, 10 CSR 70-5.020(2) have an additional instance when excessive erosion is not necessarily occurring.

(H) for the establishment of conservation practices on land recently removed from an expired CRP contract.

Failed the 2/3 required vote to bring from the floor for discussion.

 

Resolution #14

Livingston, Grundy, Daviess and Harrison County SWCD's

Therefore be it resolved:  that in order to serve as a Missouri Soil and Warer Districts Commissioner, one must have had local experience by previously or presently serving on the local soil and water conservation board.

Resolution Passed

 


 

By Law Amendment #1

Proposed Amendment to By-Laws

Submitted by

MASWCD

 

Amended MASWCD Constitution and By-Laws - Article VI, Section 2 and 2A; and Article VII, Section 2A

 

 

Article VI -- Board of Directors -

Officers - Organization Units

 

Section 2: Officers of the Association.

The Officers of the Board of Directors shall serve as the Officers of the State Association. The President shall call the elected Directors together at the Annual Meeting for the election of the Vice-Presidents in odd number years, and the election of President elect in even number years. The President then completes the organization by appointing a Treasurer, committee chairmen and the advisory members. At the odd number year Board meeting, during the Annual Meeting, the President elect Director who becomes President shall be succeeded immediately by his/her First Alternate for the Area. The decision of the Board of Directors as to the policies and activities of the Association shall be final and a report thereof given to the Annual Meeting.

A. President-elect: At the end of the first year of the President’s second term, the Board of Directors shall, by majority ballot vote, decide whether to retain the First Vice President as President-elect or to reject the First Vice President as President-elect.

 

Article VII -- Eligibility - Term of Office -

Compensation - Duties

Section 2: Term of Office.

A. President: The term of the President shall be for two (2) years, and the person so elected shall not be elected to a successive term in that office with a maximum of 2 terms. The Vice Presidents shall be elected bi-annually. Should the President-elect be appointed to complete an unexpired year as President, he or she is eligible for election for one two (12) two-year terms. Newly-elected officers and Directors of the Association shall take office at the conclusion of the Annual Meeting and Conference activities.

 

Amendment Passed

 


 

Attachment 2