+- 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: HPP Board 2014 (/showthread.php?tid=14356)
RE: HPP Board 2014 - caveat emptor - 12-22-2014
Janet, sorry I’m replying so late but I had to get permission from Joan to use her letters and emails. And I spoke with the witnesses of the Escobar Incident to get their statements. I do have permission to discuss it.
You're very polite! You stated "...might be another example of this Board's disregard of the Bylaws." The word "might" implies other possibilities, I think the accurate word is "is" another example. Because, a BOD can not create Association Policy in secret meetings that NO member knows any thing about unless you are one of the unfortunate souls who receive one of their reprimands which are created in the heat of the moment ( whether competently plagiarized from another policy attachment or not).
Your quotation of Article X is correct. “ARTICLE X – COMMITTEES
Section 5. Removal of Committee Member or Chair.
(a) Member. At any meeting of a committee of the board or membership, any one or more of the committee members may be removed with or without cause by vote of the majority of the committee members.” You then say “Therefore, the Board itself does not have the authority to remove any member of any committee. The only way for it to engineer such an action would be for it to "convince" the other members of the subject committee to do so.”
It is quite clear that there is no avenue stated in the HPPOA Bylaws for the BOD to legally remove a "Membership" committee person duly voted on by the membership. However..., if the BOD is up to it (and I'm sure they will be after reading this) they may try to argue that such a removal is authorized in Attachment F. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for Joan, they not only created another illegal HPPOA Conduct policy out of thin air and attached it as “F” to her letter barring her from everything but, they left out from the fake “F” the only statement in our Bylaws or Policies that they could have tried to use. That is, assuming they would stoop so low as to take that statement out of context. This is the statement in “F” (the real F)… “Behavior resulting in removal will bar this person from membership attendance at any HPPOA function for 1 year”. That is the last sentence in a paragraph discussing what will/should happen to owners being disruptive during their 3 minute owner input and have to be removed from the meeting… and that is all it is and can be used for. Remember I explained how they tried to use this paragraph against Mr. Hanor and they screwed that up?
“Do you know if it was the Board or the members of the Finance Committee that acted? Is there some way to find corroboration of this? Do you know if the removal occurred before or after the incident with Ms. Escobar?” It was the BOD, the Finance Committee did not remove Joan. She received “the letter” from BJ Mullenix dated Sept. 22, before the first Finance committee meeting had met. The letter is signed by BJ and says, in the last sentence, that she is representing the majority vote of the BOD. The removal from everything HPPOA was 2 weeks after the incident but the police reports against Joan were made right after the Sept. 7th Special Membership meeting where the incident occurred.
”On a related note, does anyone know the current membership of the Finance Committee? I cannot find anything on this committee on the HPPOA website after the minutes of the 14 June 2014 meeting.”
The original Finance committee had 6 owners voted on and approved in the June 30 membership meeting. After the new BOD took over they immediately took drastic and illegal action against most of the previous BOD members with Letters of Reprimand. One letter went to Verne Presnall who was one of the owners voted onto the Finance committee; one down. Then Joan got her letter; 2 down. Another member resigned after the first committee meeting; 3 down (there have only been 2 meetings in 6 months). So, I believe that would add up to the survivors as 3 owners and the Treasurer.
Readers need to understand why I say Joan's letter and the attachment are illegal. As discussed above they have no legitimate authority to create, let alone send an owner a letter like this. Especially since it is all based on lies, remember Friends of the Board (FOBs), I am ready and capable of posting the real witnesses’ statements of the infamous Escobar Incident. After reading the attached “F” that Joan received, I noticed that the last 3 paragraphs are incompetently and illegally plagiarized from the Conduct Policy’s front page and Attachments A and C. Attachments A and C were written for Board Directors conduct and behavior… not owners. Therefore, how can they plagiarize them and misuse them against an owner? How can anyone stand by and defend “cut and past” policy or Bylaws? Yet, they shamefully used them.
Can anyone imagine the legitimacy of receiving a speeding ticket in which the policeman sited the wrong infraction and how long that would hold up in traffic court? So it is in Joan’s case. Our Bylaws have appropriate ways in which we can professionally and fairly handle these disputes. Let’s follow them.
RE: HPP Board 2014 - Frank - 12-22-2014
quote:
Originally posted by hppwatchdog
Frank, I wish I could help! I was told to my face by the President that," I am the President and I can do what ever I want". I have a witness to this remark and it is not hearsay.
A group of directors DON'T care about the bylaws and owners and they are on a mission to destroy our association.
You will soon see that the actions that they took with the fired employees is going to bite them right in their A$$, they still think that their actions are covered by the D&O insurance policy which they have not read. If you break a civil law (like an HRS)the insurance underwriter will cut their losses and drop the Association and them like a hot rock.
Furthermore, if the underwriter assumes that they did wrong they don't have to defend the Association or any director. Remember, the complaint by the fired employees is suing the Association and each named codefendant.......you know what that means. Each director will be liable for any court fees and awards against them without insurance.
This is standard language in all such policies. How can an insurance company pay someone to break a law?
Good luck with that.
bold by me...wishing is not a solution...carry on...
RE: HPP Board 2014 - janet - 12-22-2014
Thank you, caveat emptor, for your extensive and clear response to my questions and explanation of the situation.
My disgust at the Board's handling of this particular issue has increased exponentially, so much so that I will need to study your post in detail and allow some time to pass, before I can react rationally.
RE: HPP Board 2014 - Kenney - 12-23-2014
Aloha Janet. I'm with you. Disgusted.
I feel betrayed by all the Board Members we voted in, (except Janice, who I believe has been Pono throughout ) who gave the impression that they were going to clean up our Association, and do it by following the rules.
Instead, it's just more of the same, only worse. Now we have a Board Member who is also temporary GM, on the HR Committee (unless she's resigned) and probably tailored the GM job description to fit her qualifications. I heard she's applied for the job.
I also applaud your effort to react rationally. I gave up, resigned committees, stopped posting here regularly.
I don't want to be associated with this Board until they start following instead of changing the rules to fit their personal agendas.
By the way, the Pres. told me she was going to resign right after the Hurricane. No witnesses though. I wish she would.
RE: HPP Board 2014 - shockwave rider - 12-23-2014
As long as this president maintains a strangle hold on the seats that come open we will see no change. If the open seats are not filled according to the process in the bylaws we will continue to get more insiders who just go along with the rest of the board. I think reasonable people will not be willing to serve on a board with no respect for the bylaws and members.
RE: HPP Board 2014 - hppwatchdog - 12-24-2014
Please be advised that the board is in violation of the bylaws again.
The board has posted (on the website) that there will be an executive session on 1/30/14. Please note that the website states that no homeowners need to come because it is an executive session. The word homeowner is incorrect, it should state member. You can be an owner without owning a home and an owner without being a member.
SECTION 9. (D) Executive Session, 1. Description a. An executive session must be agenized, or be called during an open meeting with a motion to adjourn to executive session, a second and majority vote.
This means that they have to call a special board meeting with an agenda including the executive session on it. They have not called a special board meeting and there is no agenda that I can find.
4. Final actions of the executive session SHALL be reported and affirmed when the meeting resumes or at the next regular meeting. (The action taken as distinct from the debate)
This means that at the January board meeting the board MUST report from the executive session held after the December 17th meeting as well as the December 30th meeting.
We have to start holding this boards feet to the fire and this is a great place to start.
It’s obvious that the board is more concerned with P. A. systems and camera’s everywhere then simply reading and following OUR bylaws. No more excuses like, we’re new or I wasn’t aware of that. If they didn’t run off Bruce and Tom they would have some guidance.
RE: HPP Board 2014 - Obie - 12-24-2014
"Please be advised that the board is in violation of the bylaws again."
Not until they actually violate them !
Mele Kalikimaka
RE: HPP Board 2014 - janet - 12-25-2014
hppwatchdog made a mistake in tense. But I believe his purpose was the same as mine when I posted the following on 22 December(emphasis added):
"With reference to the "Emergency Executive Session" mentioned above, it appears that the Board is again ignoring the Bylaws and walking into another invalid meeting.
ARTICLE VIII – BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Section 9. Meetings of the Board.
(d) Executive Session
1. Description
a. An executive session must be agendized, or be called during an open meeting with a motion to adjourn to executive session, a second and majority vote.
"Agendized" means put on the agenda of a Regular, Special or Emergency Special Meeting ahead of time. A Special meeting can be called with only that one agenda item. The Board will have to call an open Special meeting, with proper notification AND the participation of interested members and then can immediately adjourn to Executive Session.
Posting the notification on the website, while admirable, does not satisfy the regulation."
I had hoped to warn concerned members that the Board was going to make another mistake BUT had time to rectify it and do this correctly. Unfortunately, no one reacted to it - I just checked the HPPA website and no agenda has yet been posted for an Emergency Special Meeting on 30 December.
No, I did not state "Get the Board to fix this". I had thought that was clear. Perhaps concerned members did try to affect this change and were ignored by any Board members they approached.
You all do realize the Association is as much a victim of this Board as the former employees claim they are? I fear that this Board could be setting itself up for a lawsuit by the membership for its malfeasance.
RE: HPP Board 2014 - mermaid53 - 12-25-2014
Originally posted by caveat emptor:
It is quite clear that there is no avenue stated in the HPPOA Bylaws for the BOD to legally remove a "Membership" committee person duly voted on by the membership. However..., if the BOD is up to it (and I'm sure they will be after reading this) they may try to argue that such a removal is authorized in Attachment F. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for Joan, they not only created another illegal HPPOA Conduct policy out of thin air and attached it as “F” to her letter barring her from everything but, they left out from the fake “F” the only statement in our Bylaws or Policies that they could have tried to use. That is, assuming they would stoop so low as to take that statement out of context. This is the statement in “F” (the real F)… “Behavior resulting in removal will bar this person from membership attendance at any HPPOA function for 1 year”. That is the last sentence in a paragraph discussing what will/should happen to owners being disruptive during their 3 minute owner input and have to be removed from the meeting… and that is all it is and can be used for. Remember I explained how they tried to use this paragraph against Mr. Hanor and they screwed that up?
My recollection of the incident is that he had to be escorted out by the police because he wouldn't be quiet after numerous warnings that his time was up. He was still talking as he was led away. It appears that the BOD followed the conduct policy you quoted above. I'm not here to defend any of the BOD, just stating facts as fairly as possible.
After the new BOD took over they immediately took drastic and illegal action against most of the previous BOD members with Letters of Reprimand. One letter went to Verne Presnall who was one of the owners voted onto the Finance committee; one down. Another member resigned after the first committee meeting; 3 down. Then Joan got her letter; 2 down.
That's quite an exaggeration as it's 2 out of 9. The 3rd, a new committee member, resigned bc the person didn't wish to work with a bylaw breaking board. (there have only been 2 meetings in 6 months).
Per our Bylaws, the Finance Committee should "meet at least 3 times a year and as needed" so no problem there.
So, I believe that would add up to the survivors as 3 owners and the Treasurer.
I believe your assessment is correct on who's left. There were no ulterior motives to remove anyone from the Finance Committee. It just happened that way.
Readers need to understand why I say Joan's letter and the attachment are illegal. As discussed above they have no legitimate authority to create, let alone send an owner a letter like this. Especially since it is all based on lies, remember Friends of the Board (FOBs), I am ready and capable of posting the real witnesses’ statements of the infamous Escobar Incident. After reading the attached “F” that Joan received, I noticed that the last 3 paragraphs are incompetently and illegally plagiarized from the Conduct Policy’s front page and Attachments A and C. Attachments A and C were written for Board Directors conduct and behavior… not owners.
Attachment C is the Glossary of Terms describing different terms and their meaning, so pertains to board members AND lot owners.
Our Bylaws have appropriate ways in which we can professionally and fairly handle these disputes. Let’s follow them.
A judge friend said the board has an innate responsibility to protect volunteers from those who've acted out against other volunteers even if our bylaws or policies don't describe specifically how it's to be carried out. There will always be a new situation that our bylaws or policies won't specifically address. The ban for one year blah blah blah aligns with action the board could take towards a volunteer who acts out at a meeting and has to be escorted out. For the board to not take action is neglectful. No volunteer should have to be concerned with being harassed or physically lashed out at by another volunteer who may have done so in the recent past. To not have consequences gives the person the impression that they are above the law. The two previous board members banned for 1 yr. coincidentally were on the previous Finance Committee w/the former Pres, GM and Admin Assistant. Some of the current board aren't the only ones guilty of having illusions of grandeur.
Mele Kalikimaka e Hau'oli Makahiki Hou!
RE: HPP Board 2014 - hppwatchdog - 12-30-2014
quote:
Originally posted by Obie
"Please be advised that the board is in violation of the bylaws again."
Not until they actually violate them !
Mele Kalikimaka
Ok, now they are in violation of the bylaws again and again.
Any business that took place in executive session tonight is invalid, again.