Where's Waldo? New Rules Adopted 3/10/2014

Anon Environmentalist!  You are trying!

I believe there is an excellent case to be made for invalidating the entire ballot probably under multiple laws--including under the concept of "spoilt votes" where, for various reasons, individual or groups of votes are invalid due to deficiencies in instructions, attorney opinion of legal validity, form etc.  Many, many ballots should have been discarded for the reason of Spoilt Votes which would have effectively killed the entire ballot result and not passed anything.

If there were any ballot that should be declared Dead and Gone, Null, Void, Spoiled etc, it is the Infamous Polling Ballot of 2014.  Below is a link with more about Spoilt Votes.

Spoilt Vote

But, you know how it goes in SLR--we "pretend" that all is well and let the chips fall!

Regarding valid rules based on lawfully constructed ballot, valid ballots cast, secure ballot control and accurately reported results (and all those conditions are a stretch in normal times and a total FAIL in 2014), it is still unknown which rules were adopted according to due process and which were not.  This would require a FORENSIC AUDIT of the Election and Ballots creating, counting, reporting, documenting and recording the rules.  One can identify discrepancies and, in some cases, KNOW that there has been alteration (as is the case with the most recent changes to the InCrediBook.)   But, until a legal and process flow is analyzed going all the way back, one cannot accurately  assess the validity of the current day rules.

You have not yet specifically identified those changes that were made on the newly-published rules though you appear to be cognizant of the real possibilities that an unknown number of rules were not legally adopted by membership vote.  All the ballot materials must be scrutinized for each recorded rule change; I mistakenly thought that was one of the goals of the Rules Committee. 

SLohA has chosen to not reveal the Minutes of the Annual Meetings with ballots/results prior to 2008 so one would have to do an Official Records Request and pay to Certify Mail and wait 10 days to get this material. 

However, 2008 is available and some bad behavior and false statements have been identified.  That is a hint for your extra bonus point.

What an observant overachiever you are!  I think you deserve a 1/2 point and an extra clue but you need to have a copy of the new set of Rules being handed out--I assume you do but if not, you'll never get the answer.

There are many ways to be confused about the DreadBook--(I call it that because I dread what I'll will find in any of the several versions in circulation.)

This is what I discovered about all these dates.  There are (at least) two references to the same thing in most of these "revisions"--one refers to the Annual Meeting date where the revision was supposedly adopted and one date refers to the date of the filing in the county record.  The county filing date typically follows the Annual Meeting date by a month or so.  So, when you see a revision date of 2/16/08, that would be the adoption date and the SAME revision referred to as the recording date of 4/11/08.

Re the 2006 date, I'll have to go take a peek to see what happened in 2005 and 2006.  There were several years, in sequence, where there were many many voluminous rules changes!  I have always had my doubts as to the legitimacy of these rules and that is why I advocate that if MANBOD sends a violation letter based on a rule from that far back, it needs to be cH allenged and the supporting documentation requested.

Here is your clue.  The first falsification is in 3-7 Tampering with Resort Equipment.