+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership (/showthread.php?tid=19034)
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - DaVinci - 12-23-2017
quote:
Originally posted by My 2 cents
And why do they need 11 bank accounts?
With all the road work they have been doing, I have a hard time believing that any money is being stolen. Where would it come from? And why would they put it into a another OLCA labeled account? Even Special Master is not suggesting this. The time and place to look for embezzlement would have been when the last licensed contractor was given some big money for very little work. But I don't suspect embezzlement there either, I just think we got screwed.
The unlicensed contractor problem can be fixed. It's true that we don't have to use licensed contractors, but we cannot use unlicensed ones. What we CAN do is form our own road crew and pay them as employees with all the associated workmen's comp, etc. It's a bit cumbersome, but it is perfectly legal and sound. It has been done that way in the past, and we should have gone back to it long ago.
Why can’t we use licensed contractors? We don’t have to, but we certainly are permitted to. There. Problem solved. Why would we go into the road repair business? Why do we think it would be smart to hire employees and deal with payroll and payroll taxes and insurance and such when we can’t even coax 20 lot owners a month to go to a damn meeting? Or manage to elect a BOD that doesn’t have their own agenda (proxy voting, changing bylaws, filing lawsuits, freezing bank accounts). Now we have two BODs and clearly, CLEARLY, we need adult supervision. The recent road maintenance has been adequate, true, but we do need to start using licensed contractors for the road work. Not much harm in spreading around a bit of gravel, but if we ever start paving again, I don’t want money going to contractors that won’t stand behind the work. And I agree with Rich... why in the hell won’t the Wirick group share financials with the Special Master? That alone is highly suspect, and goes a long way to justifying her decision. The nonsense has gone on long enough.
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - DaVinci - 12-23-2017
quote:
Originally posted by KeaauRich
Well, at this point I don't take *anything* that either "Board" says as fully credible-- there has been too much stretching of the truth and shady dealings on both sides.
... [snipped for brevity, go read his post if you want to]
So I think I'd err towards believing the Special Master, though I agree that she (or her firm) should not be considered for the Receivership position if that's what the Court orders.
... [snipped for brevity, go read his post if you want to]
So, in a nutshell, she appears to basically agree with the Arthurs group's initial complaints. Having said that, I think the most positive step we could take to get the Association back on track would be a new election for the entire Board that would be overseen by a neutral third party (such as the League of Women Voters, who I believe provided this service in the past). And I'd stipulate that members of both the Wirick and Arthurs groups would be ineligible to run for office during that election.
Huzzah. Agree with everything Rich has said, and would like to nominate him for president of the new board! (Seriously.)
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - KeaauRich - 12-23-2017
DaVinci... do that and I promise you, you will wish you had never been born!
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - My 2 cents - 12-24-2017
And I'd stipulate that members of both the Wirick and Arthurs groups would be ineligible to run for office during that election.
This sounds great on the surface, so let's think it through. For the last couple of years we have had 15-20 people willing to serve on the board of their choice, but for the previous 10 years or so the boards have mostly struggled to keep enough directors to make a quorum. So if you eliminate the current 15-20, where do the new directors come from? Not me, I've done my time. KRich is pretty clear where he stands. Anyone else on this thread want to step up an put your name on the ballot?
Assuming we can get enough candidates, they will be brand new. Continuity will be lost and they will have to start from scratch. If we are in receivership the new directors will get direction from someone from the outside, who may not know as much about OLCA as the new directors (as demonstrated by Ms. Cabral). Making it even less appealing, the person giving the direction will be getting paid $100,000/yr. while the new directors do all the work for free. And where is the guarantee that the new batch will get along any better than the old one? It's not like OLCA has a history of peace and harmony on its boards.
A fresh start sound good, but I don't think it's as easy as just saying it.
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - My 2 cents - 12-24-2017
Why can’t we use licensed contractors?
We can, we just have to find one that will provide good, honest work for a reasonable cost. The current practice was triggered by the last licensed contractor we had that charged an enormous amount of money for very little work, and the work that was done was shoddy at best. We got screwed, plain and simple. If we cannot find a licensed contractor that will treat us fairly, the only legal option is having our own road crew. BTW, an OLCA road crew still won't be able to do paving. Paving requires a licensed paving contractor, period.
Another option is to sue the county and force them to take over our roads, and get us out of the road business completely. But few people want to hear that.
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - kalakoa - 12-24-2017
We got screwed, plain and simple.
I hate to keep pointing this out, but we were all screwed the minute County gave final plat approval to the unpaved subdivisions in violation of their own laws.
Replacing the board and upgrading to licensed contractors won't solve this problem; so long as there are mandatory dues with no real oversight, a "rogue board" will step in to seize control of those funds. It's happened before, it will happen again.
County Code clearly documents the policies and procedures necessary to create a LID -- I'm no lawyer (yet) but I'm pretty sure a LID would supercede "private road dues" (whether directly, or as implemented by a change to the existing CC&Rs), leaving the HOA to work on more important issues such as managing the farmer's market and deciding what color to paint the community center.
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - My 2 cents - 12-24-2017
Kalakoa, apparently you were writing your post at the same time I was editing mine. I was expecting support from you, but not THAT quickly. Thanks.
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - kalakoa - 12-25-2017
Another option is to sue the county and force them to take over our roads, and get us out of the road business completely. But few people want to hear that.
Consider: if "everyone" could be united into a common course of action, there wouldn't be a "roads problem" in the first place.
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - Chunkster - 12-25-2017
Harry Kim once told me that it would bankrupt the county to take over maintenance of the private subdivision roads. When I asked him how he knew that and what the numbers were, he just gave me a blank look and tried to change the subject. Harry obviously just repeated the usual politician's standard answer to that question without having done any research. BTW, I made it clear that I was talking about simply maintaining what was already there, not paving everything.
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - kalakoa - 12-25-2017
it would bankrupt the county to take over maintenance of the private subdivision roads
Yes and no. Remember who "funds" the County -- if all these "private" roads were upgraded to full-spec pavement, the taxpayers would go bankrupt, thereby destroying the economic base.
I suggest that every subdivision be forced to create a LID for road maintenance -- but leave it up to the subdivisions to define their desired level of "road". Many people (myself included) do not want, nor can they afford, full pavement.