Posts: 1,175
Threads: 12
Joined: Jun 2008
kalakoa:
The democratic process consists of in one general sense, mutual rights and responsibilities.
HPP property owners should simply suspend carrying out their road payments as long as this situation continues. The Board should in response conduct itself per the bylaws and the law.
If the Board wants to continue as is, withhold road fees, and sue them or force them from office as they are engaged in a continuing violations of the Bylaws and law.
I will repeat what I said before, I don't think most Americans understand, much less can make work our democratic processes. Sad.
Posts: 14,116
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
HPP property owners should simply suspend carrying out their road payments
Unfortunately, "process" often involves treating the symptom while ignoring the cause.
HPPOA would simply take legal action to secure liens against the properties of those who chose to suspend their payments.
Posts: 2,151
Threads: 73
Joined: Mar 2007
Oh, it's not just a lien that HPP has been known to do. They have foreclosed on some properties they have declared to be "seriously" in arrears. IIRC, their definition of "seriously" has changed over time, too, which keeps things interesting.
Posts: 1,175
Threads: 12
Joined: Jun 2008
Then what is the attraction of HPP? I didn't touch the place with a 10 foot pole or anyplace with a HOA.
Posts: 4,248
Threads: 96
Joined: Mar 2014
quote:
Originally posted by shockwave rider
I see the most likely outcome of HPP trying to charge UPS and FEX-EX for using the roads is they will cease to deliver to HPP and then we all will have to pick our packages up somewhere else.
Exactly. That goes for all sorts of other businesses as well.
Posts: 143
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2014
Mermaid, you mentioned earlier something about a special membership meeting for the proposed chip seal project. I didn't see it on the last BOD meeting agenda. Do you know if the BOD is just going to shove it down our throats? I heard Ruth thinks that the membership has no business telling them what to do or how to conduct association business and she has said in open meetings that the members telling the BOD what to do is like "the tail wagging the dog". And, not only once did she express this attitude but several times. So, she thinks she's the big dog and we're the tail. At least she didn't liken us to fleas. She's irredeemable and needs to be replaced.
I remember the old GM doing some research about what is probably the same road product that you mentioned the new GM brought up at the BOD meeting, something that the military uses. I think the old GM thought that it was too expensive and would have to be reapplied regularly.
I think the new GM will come to the same conclusion and we'll be back to the BOD shoving chip seal down our throats. I'm not against chip seal but I certainly want to be convinced it is the right product for our roads... but, only after due diligence by the BOD and GM. Only then should we support it. I saw the new chip seal work being done in Orchidland and it looks promising however, a friend of mine who lives up there says he's not convinced it's the best thing. With as much money and as long a process this will take this BOD better seek the members approval!!!
Posts: 1,265
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2014
Someone pointed out this bylaw to me regarding road assessments: "HPPOA Bylaws Article XI-Assessments, Sec 2 Road Maintenance Assessments (d) The board is authorized to establish policies and formulas for imposition of add'l road maintenance assessments on lot owners who generate increased burdens on traffic w/in the subdivision. These add'l road maintenance assessments shall be considered normal and shall not be considered as Special Assessments as per Sec 8 below."
So it sounds like yes we can charge members extra burden road fees but we can't charge outside truckers who come in here...
It could very well be that the chip seal will resurface at a later time if this other product let's say isn't available yet or that it's more for an arid climate??? If chip seal does resurface, the board should make a presentation and let us vote on it. The membership voted to go w/asphalt at a membership mtg several years ago. Any change should be passed by the membership.
The former Pres, VP and one other board member were really trying to shove the chip seal through at the board mtg. Part of their motion was to do it first on 23rd (either Kaloli or Shower??). Those 3 disregarded the reminder that a motion was on the floor from the membership mtg, and the need to follow RR's.
If the GM hadn't brought up researching another product, validating that there was an issue w/the contractor they were looking at and the treasurer saying what's the point on spending the monies on it if we're researching another product, they'd be moving ahead chip sealing. I believe I heard the motion was rescinded to pursue chip seal, not tabled.
I have no issues w/chip seal per se bc I don't know enough about it, but the whole thing was not transparent involving lots of $$$$$$ and the figures kept changing. That was my issue. There are people in other subdivisions that have it that aren't happy with it.
At the Finance Committee mtg prior to the board mtg, the former Pres disregarded talk about RR's. She stated she didn't like the members micromanaging the board. That we voted for them to make these decisions. It was obvious the GM found the discussions humorous. From day 1 he has been in the middle of a lot of drama. There'd be no drama if the board followed our bylaws and policies.
Posts: 143
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2014
Here’s a fact. The Finance Committee 2 terms ago (2013 - 2014) had thoroughly researched the extra burden road maintenance fees and had come up with a proposed fee schedule that was fair and equitable and the BOD approved it in May or so of 2014 and then this BOD decided to completely ignore it. This should not be of any surprise to any one. It has been their standard operating procedure from the beginning. What might surprise some is that this current BOD does know of the prior BOD’s vote and yet is so arrogant and ignorant of the By-laws that they will ignore that prior decision and completely start from scratch. Oh, not just start from scratch, but waste a lot of time/effort and, as has been seen over the last year, will do nothing except create more chaos and anger in the community. Because, this new "committee" is headed up by Roseanne, one of the BOD's most notorious hotheads (although Ruth is trying her hardest to take that title) and who will be capably helped by 2 "volunteers" that are equally as talented and hotheaded as Roseanne; her husband and Deborah, both are quite willing to help further along the angst among us. Since the idea and the people on this new committee were obviously discussed prior to the last BOD meeting, they have an agenda. That agenda will not be based in community good will, but will produce more fights and possibly legal action against the Association.
What's it going to take to get rid of these people? Remember, there was a large group of people who got an over whelming majority vote of "yes" from the membership at the Sept. 7th Special Membership Meeting for the motion of “no confidence” against last years BOD and asked them to resign as part of the motion. Too bad they didn't!
Posts: 151
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2014
Mermaid53:
You need to count to 10 or maybe 20. There is to much anger in your post. You get nowhere name calling. You get nowhere offending people.
Try being constructive on your criticism. Not destructive. You accomplished nothing by it.
As for our By laws. June stated she interpreted them. What is clear to one person,may be seen another way by someone else.
Posts: 1,219
Threads: 52
Joined: Dec 2014
quote:
Originally posted by flyingsurfer
Mermaid53:
You need to count to 10 or maybe 20. There is to much anger in your post. You get nowhere name calling. You get nowhere offending people.
Try being constructive on your criticism. Not destructive. You accomplished nothing by it.
As for our By laws. June stated she interpreted them. What is clear to one person,may be seen another way by someone else.
Are you sure you addressed this to the right person?
