Posts: 173
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2014
Dave, Were you at the meeting?
Also, I understand that a new board member defamed the TE's, Mermaid left that out. The board continues to give the TE's more ammunition in their case against the association. Frances did it January and BJ in her Presidents letter. [8]
Posts: 151
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2014
The park is not dead. The Board is being cautious.
Posts: 173
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2014
quote:
Originally posted by flyingsurfer
The park is not dead. The Board is being cautious.
Dave, The board has no authority to give away commonly owned property without a vote from the members.
Posts: 348
Threads: 23
Joined: May 2012
Wasn't there a vote for the park at the last general membership meeting?
Just asking.
Posts: 1,265
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2014
Article VII - Membership Meetings, Sec 1. "In support of Article IV, Objects and Purposes, the directors shall actively seek and consider member suggestions for agenda content.
Sec 3 Acts of the Association. The acts of a majority of the membership present at any membership meeting at which a quorum, as per Article V, Sec 12, is present shall be the acts of the Association except as otherwise provided herein.
Sec 6 Order of Business. The order of business at membership meetings shall be in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised...."
Who carries out "the acts of the association"? The board. A motion was passed at the Feb 2015 membership mtg to hire an engineer to scrutinize the results of the last phase of paving job before the contractors' expiration date and retainers were released. This was inclusive of the grubbing and clearing job. No action was taken and one of the contractors is currently seeking his retention money and late fees. The other was paid off back in March 2015 I believe. Votes don't necessarily mean the board will carry them out. Why not is the question?
Order of business is to be conducted using RR's. The motion left on the floor at the June 2015 membership meeting needs to be agendized for the October 2015 membership meeting. The motion was that the board provide a chip seal presentation to the membership at a membership mtg to include membership vote. 4 members left to kill the quorum thinking the motion would die before the final vote was taken. Instead the motion should be continued at our next mtg. The board should not carry out any business w/chip seal until the membership hears what this will entail to do the job and the finances of it, to include estimated labor costs using our own crew, finalized by a membership vote.
The member who spoke out against chip seal w/samples in hand at the August 2015 board mtg was very passionate that HPP not waste our monies on it. He named other subdivisions that are having trouble w/it. He spoke about the "1" contractor the 4 board members were considering. The GM was absent that night. But some of this board seems adamant to move forward and regard concerned members as "scrappy residents" inciting other members to go after them. Certainly not behavior any board member should be exhibiting as it's in conflict w/our bylaws to encourage harmony in our community.
I wonder how the chip seal will hold up once the buffalo grass and weeds start coming up through it from neglected easements since it's more porous than asphalt? We have this situation w/this stuff growing over asphalt right now. These are questions we need answers to.
Members should participate in the content of our membership meeting agendas. Owner input shouldn't be at the end of our meetings. After 2 hrs, many members exit and many times there is no quorum to vote on important business. This is a very important part of the membership mtg. We also need to follow up on ensuring the business is carried out once voted on. More members need to participate in speaking up at meetings.
Posts: 173
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2014
quote:
Originally posted by mermaid53
Article VII - Membership Meetings, Sec 1. "In support of Article IV, Objects and Purposes, the directors shall actively seek and consider member suggestions for agenda content.
Sec 3 Acts of the Association. The acts of a majority of the membership present at any membership meeting at which a quorum, as per Article V, Sec 12, is present shall be the acts of the Association except as otherwise provided herein.
Sec 6 Order of Business. The order of business at membership meetings shall be in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised...."
Who carries out "the acts of the association"? The board. A motion was passed at the Feb 2015 membership mtg to hire an engineer to scrutinize the results of the last phase of paving job before the contractors' expiration date and retainers were released. This was inclusive of the grubbing and clearing job. No action was taken and one of the contractors is currently seeking his retention money and late fees. The other was paid off back in March 2015 I believe. Votes don't necessarily mean the board will carry them out. Why not is the question?
Order of business is to be conducted using RR's. The motion left on the floor at the June 2015 membership meeting needs to be agendized for the October 2015 membership meeting. The motion was that the board provide a chip seal presentation to the membership at a membership mtg to include membership vote. 4 members left to kill the quorum thinking the motion would die before the final vote was taken. Instead the motion should be continued at our next mtg. The board should not carry out any business w/chip seal until the membership hears what this will entail to do the job and the finances of it, to include estimated labor costs using our own crew, finalized by a membership vote.
The member who spoke out against chip seal w/samples in hand at the August 2015 board mtg was very passionate that HPP not waste our monies on it. He named other subdivisions that are having trouble w/it. He spoke about the "1" contractor the 4 board members were considering. The GM was absent that night. But some of this board seems adamant to move forward and regard concerned members as "scrappy residents" inciting other members to go after them. Certainly not behavior any board member should be exhibiting as it's in conflict w/our bylaws to encourage harmony in our community.
I wonder how the chip seal will hold up once the buffalo grass and weeds start coming up through it from neglected easements since it's more porous than asphalt? We have this situation w/this stuff growing over asphalt right now. These are questions we need answers to.
Members should participate in the content of our membership meeting agendas. Owner input shouldn't be at the end of our meetings. After 2 hrs, many members exit and many times there is no quorum to vote on important business. This is a very important part of the membership mtg. We also need to follow up on ensuring the business is carried out once voted on. More members need to participate in speaking up at meetings.
Three points to help everyone to understand the bylaws.
1. In the bylaws it says that the board is the ultimate authority over business, they don't have to act on any vote from the members at the general membership. Since this act is in the bylaws RR doesn't matter.
2. Remember this is a board meeting and owner input isn't a requirement.
3. The association is a business and run by the board, even though they give the members a forum to speak doesn't mean that they have to listen. A member is a share holder in a corporation and the members need to stay out of the business that they elected members to run the association.
That's the biggest problem, all these members trying to run the corporation, if you want that authority, GET ON THE BOARD or abide by the bylaws.
Posts: 1,265
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2014
Originally posted by hppwatchdog:
Three points to help everyone to understand the bylaws.
1. In the bylaws it says that the board is the ultimate authority over business, they don't have to act on any vote from the members at the general membership. Since this act is in the bylaws RR doesn't matter.
Please reference where it says this in HPP's bylaws watchdog. And regarding RR's, our bylaws state our board and membership meetings are to be conducted in accordance w/RR's. That's why it's adopted every year per HPP's bylaws.
2. Remember this is a board meeting and owner input isn't a requirement.
That is correct but it has been past practice.
3. The association is a business and run by the board, even though they give the members a forum to speak doesn't mean that they have to listen. A member is a share holder in a corporation and the members need to stay out of the business that they elected members to run the association.
HPP's bylaws state otherwise..."Article IV-Objects and Purposes.(a) To ascertain the needs and desires of lot owners of the Hawaiian Paradise Park subdivision and represent those needs and desires as appropriate. (e) To foster an atmosphere of cooperation and harmony that encourages the participation of lot owners in the management and operation of the Association." The majority board has conducted themselves adversely to these bylaws for over a year now. Describing members concerned over how some of this board spends our big monies as "scrappy residents" couldn't be clearer in their attitude.
That's the biggest problem, all these members trying to run the corporation, if you want that authority, GET ON THE BOARD or abide by the bylaws.
"Get on the board"? That's not going to happen if you've got experience or knowledge in HPP affairs. You aren't welcome. You've forgotten that friends of your's, board members who had experience resigned because of this. 6 board members left in one year. That's got to be a record and it speaks volumes about volunteers not wanting to work w/bylaw breaking board members. Many committee members have quit for the same reasons. Who should abide by the bylaws watchdog? You're speaking to the wrong entity. Members aren't breaking bylaws..it's the majority board.
Posts: 1,265
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2014
Per HPP Website: accepting applications for full charge bookkeeper and office manager. Heard this was also advertised in the Tribune today as well.
Posts: 218
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2005
"BOOKKEEPER: HPPOA Office seeking Full-Charge Bookkeeper
Proficient in Quickbooks, GAAP/AP/AR/PR/GL
5+ years experience. AA in Acct/Bookkeeping; CPA desirable."
How much would they be paying for a bookkeeper with an Associates Degree and Certified Public Account license?
(And it was claimed that the previous occupant of the post, whose title was "bookkeeper" was being paid "too much".)
CPAs don't do bookkeeping - they hire/supervise them. Who dreamed up this job description? See next comment.)
Posts: 218
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2005
"OFFICE MANAGER: Handles full operations. Proficient in MS Office,
Quickbooks, WordPress. Have excellent writing skills & be detail oriented.
Small office – high volume. AA in Business Admin or" (sic).
If the "bookkeeper", a subordinate of the Office Manager, has the same level of tertiary degree (both AAs), it can lead to friction in the work relationship (I've seen it happen). And, if the "bookkeeper" is also a CPA, s/he will outrank the supervisor!
Much more important, what is meant by "full operations"? In the office only? Or for the whole operational side of the Association, (which I expect is the intention, or the ad would say "office" operations)?
If the second option is what is meant, what will the General Manager be doing? It seems the post has been relegated to Road Supervisor. To the best of my knowledge, every GM up to and including the previous (the terminated one) has included management of the office staff in his/her responsibilities.
First and foremost, the General Manager is the only employee mentioned in the Bylaws. Anyone can search the Bylaws for references to the GM's responsibilities, including - but far from limited to fiduciary ones (too many to list here).
The most significant aspect in the Bylaws in this regard is "ARTICLE XVI – MISCELLANEOUS...Section 3. Indemnification and Defense." The Association must pay for the indemnification of the GM, just as it does for the Directors. This is a clear recognition of the high level of responsibilities assigned to the GM.
The Board cannot just transfer the specified responsibilities to another position. It is attempting to contravene the Bylaws (again!), and for what seems like no good reason, since the GM should be handling these responsibilities.
It is also adding another position to the office, with its concomitant costs.
|
