| (a) The State Board may not consider removal of a district director for neglecting the duty of office unless a petition, on a form prescribed by the State Board, signed by a majority of the district board of directors is submitted to the State Board. The State Board shall consider if the action requested by the petition is sufficient to warrant further action and notify the district of their decision (b) A petition to remove a district director for neglect of duty, should have documentation attached that, at a minimum shows: (1) that the district has made a reasonable effort to notify the director when meetings were scheduled; (2) that the district has made a reasonable effort to inform the director of the importance of attending and participating in scheduled meetings. (3) that the district has fair, reasonable, and unbiased policies for granting excused absences when notified that a director has a conflict with a board meeting. (4) that the district has notified the director by certified mail they were proceeding with removal procedures and received no response, or have documentation of any response. (5) if the removal petition is for medical reasons, the district must have a copy of a statement from the attending medical doctor expressing their belief that the director will not recover sufficiently to attend meeting for the remainder of their term. (c) The State Board may investigate and if warranted consider the removal of a district director for malfeasance in office or for being disqualified as a voter in the district or for being disqualified as a director in the subdivision they represent in the conservation district when petitioned, on a form prescribed by the State Board, signed by one or more district directors is submitted to the State Board or when presented with an allegation by a member of the public. |
