The suggestion of a poll is a good one. Properly constructed it can indeed provide valuable information that can lend to any BOG discussion/decision on allowing Araimid mains.
As you move towards developing a list of questions for your poll, I offer some commentary.
First, I coach my employees that in business situations; never, never attempt to solve problems until you clearly identify the problem. So the question I ask is; what problem are you trying to solve? I'll put that stake in the ground and circle back to it in a minute.
Second, in medical and psychological tests as well as with polls, the results can be skewed or wrong conclusions can be drawn if the studies aren't constructed properly. Or, the inverse of that is that one can skew results to their desires by manipulating the test or the questions. Again, I'll leave that stake for a moment.
My third comment (stake in the ground) is relative to "majority rule" and the function of the BOG. I'll remind that this organization is not a democracy; it is, as with our own federal government, a representative democracy. There is a big difference in the two. As such, the individual members of the BOG have two responsibilities. The first is to represent the interests and desires of their constituents or individual regions and secondly, to make decisions that are in the best interest of the Class. Please know that those two responsibilities may not always be congruent. A point to this third commentary is to say that by allowing a poll to determine any decision, the BOG would be abdicating its responsibility.
As much as I want the Class to allow Aramid mains, I also recognize my bias. As with my bias, the BOG needs to sort out the other bias arguments. I question if a yes/no poll can do that.
Now back to my stakes. I offer that the question the BOG should be asking itself is not whether or not to allow Aramid mains. I believe the question to ask is whether Arimid mains are good for the class. There is a significant difference in those two questions. While both questions should be followed with a why, the first could be argued with a strong emphasis on cost. The second, is far more relative to the perpetuity of the class and not necessarily so impacted by cost.