HISTORY AS PROMISED

[ChunksterK]

Patricia, forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but did the court allow HPPOA to spend up to 5% of its revenues on non-road purposes such as mail boxes? I asked a board member how that was kosher, and she said they were allowed 5% for other items.

[Obie]

Everything Patricia posts is her own opinion and her interpretation of the law. It's all a bunch of gibberish.
What the courts ruled were abided with at the time but our bylaws have been rewritten and voted on by the association members including putting aside 5 % for non road expenditures.

[ChunksterK]

There is currently a lawsuit in progress challenging the association's right to put aside 5% for non-road purposes. My question is whether there was a basis in law for the members to change the bylaws to allow such expenditures. If there has previously been a contrary legal precedent or ruling, I'd like to know about it.

[Patricia]

Patricia, forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but did the court allow HPPOA to spend up to 5% of its revenues on non-road purposes such as mail boxes?  I asked a board member how that was kosher, and she said they were allowed 5% for other items.

-----------
Aloha. This is another confused issue, which the current board does not understand because they do not know their history. I will try to simplify.

When Paradise Hui Hanalike (now HPPOA) was given charge of the road maintenance crew and were deeded the roads, they acted kind of like a parent company- overseeing the road maintenance. There was not a lot of money at that time. This was because only the properties at the bottom of The Park were obligated (in their deeds) to pay for road maintenance. The majority of properties, at the top of The Park, had no maintenance obligations. This arrangement proved expensive for Paradise Hui Hanalike who quickly grew concerned about liability. So, Paradise Hui Hanalike took all the lot owners in Increment I (the upper part of The Park) to court and sued them. 

After winning their lawsuit, Paradise Hui Hanalike took their club and road maintenance crew and wrote out bylaws which separated the functions and expectations of the club from the Road Maintenance Committee. Up until this point, the club was actually pulling in more money than the Road Maintenance Committee. And there were concerns with how the Road Maintenance Committee was managing themselves as Paradise Hui Hanalike (because of their liability) was having to monetarily bail the Road Committee out (help them purchase equipment, etc.) So, it was mandated, in the bylaws at that time, that the Road Maintenance Committee was required to put away 5% of all the Road Fees collected into a fund that would be used for equipment purchase. (The first mention of 5%)

Unfortunately, there was more fighting and more court battles that would follow. And in 2001 Paradise Hui Hanalike won another lawsuit, which resulted in them restructuring themselves, and getting rid of the Road Maintenance Committee (they absorbed them). But Paradise Hui Hanalike (now HPPOA) was also ordered (by the court) to maintain the separation of restricted road maintenance funds and club money. And at the time, this suited Paradise Hui Hanalike, as they had historically always collected more money as the club, than the Road Maintenance Committee had. In fact, they had bailed out the Road Maintenance Committee so many times, the court allowed Paradise Hui Hanalike (now HPPOA) to do what they needed to do to complete the "restructure" and reimburse themselves, with road fee money for several years, at the sum of $24,000 per year.

After the restructure and years of $24,000 reimbursement were completed, HPPOA was still allowed a 5% reimbursement (compensation). This money was to defray any expenses that HPPOA might have had to pay (out of club money) for road maintenance business. However, as time went by HPPOA stopped collecting club dues- there was a lot of road fee money coming in (millions). So, HPPOA no longer subsidized road maintenance with club dues. There were/are no club dues to spend. 

The thing is, just about everything is paid for with road fee money- salaries, legal fees, office supplies. There is nothing to reimburse HPPOA for. However, if HPPOA wished to charge owners for the use of their clubhouse (for meetings) that would be acceptable and allowable. That type of "compensation" is what the clause in the bylaws is intended for. Unfortunately, that kind of compensation is much less than the $170,000 plus HPPOA charges Owners for their "General Fund Transfer" every year. 

That said, short answer, "No. HPPOA cannot take 5% of road fees and reimburse themselves $170,000 plus a year when they do not provide services (clubhouse rentals do not total anything near that amount) or pay for road maintenance costs using club dues (dues which are non-existant).

Let me know if I can try to better explain it.

---

Aloha

Everything I write has been taken from historical documents, including those that came from Paradise Hui Hanalike (now HPPOA). I have not added opinion to the telling of the history.
Opinion arises when the question as to if the history and documentation should or should not apply or
matter. My opinion on that is, history does matter.

[ChunksterK]

Thanks for responding, Patricia. It looks like such a muddled mess that I doubt anyone can fully explain it. At some point the suit will be tried or settled, and we will know.

[Patricia]

Agreed. Hopefully the judge will know and understand the history. Otherwise, I am sure there will be more lawsuits.
I am totally in agreement with paying our fair share to maintain HPP roads. But I am not willing to be forced to join a voluntary club that I have no wish to be a part of, or be made to fund their "community" whims.

[Obie]

Again all of that gibberish is Patricia's opinion.

All associations are allowed to change their bylaws as long as they are consistent with the laws. HPPOA bylaws have been reviewed by lawyers and approved by the membership.

The judicial rulings that Patricia has jumbled together to form her opinion were issued about the matters before the court. They were issued to get these associations headed in the right direction but they are not binding laws.

[Patricia]

Again all of that gibberish is Patricia's opinion.

All associations are allowed to change their bylaws as long as they are consistent with the laws. HPPOA bylaws have been reviewed by lawyers and approved by the membership.

The judicial rulings that Patricia has jumbled together to form her opinion were issued about the matters before the court. They were issued to get these associations headed in the right direction but they are not binding laws.

-----------
Aloha.

Why do you say the judicial rulings were not binding? I have seen and know of court documents that state the rulings are binding.

Also, I do not understand, please tell me how a court can require that people must join and fund a voluntary club if they do not wish to do so?  (And no, I am not referring to road fees). Again, there is free association.

---

Attorneys over the years, accountants, even "members," had/have no understanding of the history. Many adhere to the false belief that HPPOA is a mandatory association and have no knowledge of how it was formed, why it was formed, or by whom it was formed.
Acronyms have been mistakenly and intentionally misused in replacement of one another to create confusion,- HPP, HPPC, HPPOA.
And terminology has been swapped out (members for owners and vice versa) which also blurs meaning.
I am just the messenger, Mr. O. I know you do not like me. But I did not make the history. If you have documents, etc., that can shed more light on this subject I would be very happy to see them- truly.

[Rob Tucker]

Communication does not require that someone wins. Relax.

[Patricia]

Communication does not require that someone wins.  Relax.

------

To whom are you speaking?

---

Communication does not require that someone wins.  Relax.

------

To whom are you speaking?

Aloha. Actually, it does not matter to whom you are speaking. Telling people to "relax" is condescending. It implies that the person(s) you are saying that to, are in some way "hyped" and/or being unreasonable in some way. 

Still, you are right. Communication does not require that someone wins- not unless you are in some kind of hostage negotiation scenario. 

You cannot win at history. It is or is not truth. Our task, if we want to know truth, is to always keep digging and to keep our minds open.