While I have a lot of questions, and need to reread the changes several times, the most glaring issue is the election of Board members. The proposed changes state that the Board will present to the members a slate of potential Directors, one for each open position.  So the only vote would be up or down.  So the Board gets to pick it's own members, Members of the organization be damned.  What is markedly absent, at least so far, is what happens if the vote goes to No?  Does the process then become a vacancy fulfillment, and the Board decides who will take the open seat for the term?  Could they, in fact, just decide that the person or persons who were voted against should be in the seat anyway?

The second most glaring issue is the removal of the Ethics committee as a standing committee.  For an organization bound by by a code of ethics, the Ethics Committee should be strengthened, not made into something the Board will decide to seat on a whim.  There are existing questions about the fact that the Ethics Committee is currently made up of multiple Directors, in violation of the current bylaws, no matter the legalese of counsel regarding the fact that the Directors are also Members.   Strong No, thank you.  This is an attempt to move power into the hands of a clique and give them the power to maintain that clique themselves.