Posts: 1,265
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2014
[quote]Originally posted by steve1
Over a week ago I called the office to request that they grade out/fill some ever growing potholes at the end of our street, as had been done in past years prior to the winter rains. Nobody answered the telephone so I left a clear message on their machine with my contact info and requested some service for the hundreds of dollars a year I pay to have our roads maintained. To date nobody has returned my call, nor have they done any work that I can see.
Is it possible they are still having phone and computer issues during the transition from Net.com? Lot owners were experiencing the same issues w/the previous ofc staff of leaving msgs and getting no response. I don't know if all of this has to do w/Net. com. The pothole and road condition issues aren't unique to this mgmt. The previous mgmt had the same exact issues and were asking for more road crew. Do we need more road crew staff? Or is it about working smarter?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of our districts probably have fewer than 200 voters, and I would suggest that the process be changed to a percentage of actual votes from within each district the prior election. (Say 10% for example, so if only 120 people voted in a district then it would require 12 signatures to initiate a recall election, and I would also suggest that the recall vote be determined by a simple majority, not a 2/3 vote, since they got into office and started abusing their duties on a simple majority.
It's not a good thing to make the recall process too easy either. There needs to be a balance..think about the costs of just doing one recall. Costs of printing the ballots, office staff labor which would include checking lot owner standing, costs of postage. To give a more accurate statement on cost, research is needed.
Posts: 529
Threads: 85
Joined: Sep 2010
Steve1,
You said "over a week ago I called "...
That would be New Years Week...as was the case with most Puna businesses, they were on a short work week due to the holidays.
What utility or large company servicing 11,000 people would get a phone call on a message machine during New Years week and call you back ? Not any large business I know in Puna would do that, especially when this concerns road work which needs a work order to be filled out.
You need to either call them back when it is not a holiday week, during normal business hours and talk to a person, or better still, go in and fill out a work request. We all pay the same road fees as you do and we all have to wait in line to get the road work we request done. At least this read crew keeps a list and does the work, which is better then the last road crew.
Go into the office, fill out a work order request, get on the list, and wait your turn. If you are not getting results in a few weeks time, Call in during business hours and ask where you are on the list. This is a huge subdivision with lots of road issues left over from the last road crew. It takes time to catch up.
--------------------------------------------------------
You said "Say 10% for example, so if only 120 people voted in a district then it would require 12 signatures to initiate a recall election, and I would also suggest that the recall vote be determined by a simple majority, not a 2/3 vote."
Are you joking here? The last members meeting there were 2 members who could do a recall just with their votes alone. One member held up 13 voting cards and the member beside him held up 9 voting cards. So if one member owning 12 lots votes, then he gets his way? NO!
Edited to make more readable
hawaiideborah
Posts: 143
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2014
Hawaiideborah, Owners/members with multiple lots have that many votes in "membership meetings" not in casting a vote for an election. In an election, each member only has one vote, it has nothing to do with how many lots the member owns. The ballots are mailed out only to members in good standing not to lots. Hope that helps.
Posts: 143
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2014
I see that the good folks at ponohpp.com have posted the responses to the lawsuit against us from the attorney for the BOD. I also noticed that on page 4 of the Amended Answers and #25 something very interesting.
It looks like the BOD had to try to remedy their illegal firing... "Defendants assert board of director ratification as affirmative defense.".
I wonder if that will reduce the Associations liability for the 5 BOD members illegal revenge against the employees? Because it won't on all the other counts against the named defendants.
Maybe you FOBS (Friends of the BOD) can explain to us what that means? Maybe you can find the answer on the HPP web site posted under "BOD Secret Meeting Minutes"? Maybe the BOD will discuss it at the next BOD meeting the way they have kept us informed all along?
Posts: 173
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2014
quote:
Originally posted by mermaid53
[quote]Originally posted by steve1
Over a week ago I called the office to request that they grade out/fill some ever growing potholes at the end of our street, as had been done in past years prior to the winter rains. Nobody answered the telephone so I left a clear message on their machine with my contact info and requested some service for the hundreds of dollars a year I pay to have our roads maintained. To date nobody has returned my call, nor have they done any work that I can see.
Is it possible they are still having phone and computer issues during the transition from Net.com? Lot owners were experiencing the same issues w/the previous ofc staff of leaving msgs and getting no response. I don't know if all of this has to do w/Net. com. The pothole and road condition issues aren't unique to this mgmt. The previous mgmt had the same exact issues and were asking for more road crew. Do we need more road crew staff? Or is it about working smarter?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of our districts probably have fewer than 200 voters, and I would suggest that the process be changed to a percentage of actual votes from within each district the prior election. (Say 10% for example, so if only 120 people voted in a district then it would require 12 signatures to initiate a recall election, and I would also suggest that the recall vote be determined by a simple majority, not a 2/3 vote, since they got into office and started abusing their duties on a simple majority.
You have brought up a very interesting point regarding varied population sizes in different districts. Perhaps a sliding scale on signatures required based on district size? It's not a good thing to make the recall process too easy either. There needs to be a balance..think about the costs of just doing one recall. Costs of printing the ballots, office staff labor which would include checking lot owner standing, costs of postage. To give a more accurate statement on cost, research is needed.
Why is it that you and hawaiidebrah continue to point to the past? No one is defending the old board, or staff, just what a tragedy this new board has made of the current situations in the Park including the law suit.
A bad act is a bad act! There is no need to compare it to the old board, the new boards actions should stand alone. This board said they were going to be different (better), and they are worse!
Oh, BTW the water truck has been out watering roads for dust this week. I saw them three different days, they might have been out there even more. Go ahead and call the office and you can confirm it.
I guess no matter what the President says, she realizes that there is a contract between Association and the DOH to mitigate dust using water. The President said she would not waste money water roads mid day, I guess she's eating those words now.
Posts: 529
Threads: 85
Joined: Sep 2010
quote:
Originally posted by caveat emptor
Hawaiideborah, Owners/members with multiple lots have that many votes in "membership meetings" not in casting a vote for an election. In an election, each member only has one vote, it has nothing to do with how many lots the member owns. The ballots are mailed out only to members in good standing not to lots. Hope that helps.
That is not what I understood. I think you are incorrect on this one.
I believe that every lot owned by a member in good standing gets one vote. Thus, the guys who own 13 lots and 9 lots get that many votes if they are in good standing (paid up on road fees).
If this is not the case, please provide the section of the bylaws that states only one vote per member regardless of how many lots they own. All I can find is one vote per lot owned.
Thanks for the info.
Obviously, it would make a huge difference in any vote if those with many lots could vastly dictate what happens in their district.
hawaiideborah
Posts: 173
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2014
quote:
Originally posted by caveat emptor
I see that the good folks at ponohpp.com have posted the responses to the lawsuit against us from the attorney for the BOD. I also noticed that on page 4 of the Amended Answers and #25 something very interesting.
It looks like the BOD had to try to remedy their illegal firing... "Defendants assert board of director ratification as affirmative defense.".
I wonder if that will reduce the Associations liability for the 5 BOD members illegal revenge against the employees? Because it won't on all the other counts against the named defendants.
CE, I spoke with two of the terminated employees yesterday after meeting with their lawyer. Wait until you see the next move they are preparing against the Association and each director named in the complaint. Remember as long as the insurance company doesn't take the case the Association and each defendant are not indemnified and the Association and each director will be responsible for damages and legal fees.
Moreover, the terminated employees are suing the Association and EACH director for damages.
As a responsible owner, the question that needs to be asked at the January BOD meeting is,
Is the insurance company defending the Association and directors or are we going it alone, at our cost from road fees? This is not confidential information regarding the case either, we are due an answer to this questions without delay!
Maybe you FOBS (Friends of the BOD) can explain to us what that means? Maybe you can find the answer on the HPP web site posted under "BOD Secret Meeting Minutes"? Maybe the BOD will discuss it at the next BOD meeting the way they have kept us informed all along?
Posts: 218
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2005
"Steve1,
You said "over a week ago I called "...
That would be New Years Week...as was the case with most Puna businesses, they were on a short work week due to the holidays. What utility or large company servicing 11,000 people would get a phone call on a message machine during New Years week and call you back ?"
Any one that wished to stay in business.
And Steve1 posted this on Thursday, in the week after New Year's. There were four working days in a non-holiday week for the office staff/volunteers (if any) or Board members to get those messages handled. The office where I work had them all taken care of by Tuesday morning.
Posts: 218
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2005
"That is not what I understood. I think you are incorrect on this one.
I believe that every lot owned by a member in good standing gets one vote. Thus, the guys who own 13 lots and 9 lots get that many votes if they are in good standing (paid up on road fees).
If this is not the case, please provide the section of the bylaws that states only one vote per member regardless of how many lots they own. All I can find is one vote per lot owned."
ARTICLE VIII – BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Section 7. Removal.
(a) A recall election for a director may be called by two-thirds majority of the board, or by a petition of not fewer than 200 signatures of members from the director's District.
Posts: 529
Threads: 85
Joined: Sep 2010
quote:
Originally posted by janet
"That is not what I understood. I think you are incorrect on this one.
I believe that every lot owned by a member in good standing gets one vote. Thus, the guys who own 13 lots and 9 lots get that many votes if they are in good standing (paid up on road fees).
If this is not the case, please provide the section of the bylaws that states only one vote per member regardless of how many lots they own. All I can find is one vote per lot owned."
ARTICLE VIII – BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Section 7. Removal.
(a) A recall election for a director may be called by two-thirds majority of the board, or by a petition of not fewer than 200 signatures of members from the director's District.
Ya, that's what I read too. in the last election our neighbors who own 2 lots got 2 ballots. As of last election, if a member owns 2 lots, they get 2 votes.
hawaiideborah
|
