Jen Ruggles, Kanealii-Kleinfelder, and Wirick

[TomK]

I got a nice reply to my email to Jen and yes, she is withdrawing for "personal reasons". It didn't seem appropriate to ask any follow-up questions.

HiloPuna:

"I’ve personally found it difficult to find “truth” at 2:35 am...."

Personally, I've found that people don't care what time an email is sent, they'll reply to it when they want. I don't understand the reason behind your pithy reply.

[Rob Tucker]

It would seem to me she owes her constituents an explanation.

[HiloPuna]

TomK

As you well know (7,102 posts) on Punaweb one must frequently suffer fools, a result of the very nature of this forum. My "pithy" reply was of a kind, since 12 hours before yours (and others) post I had provided basis for my statement. Your insinuating that my post was still suspect was mildly offensive to me, hence the "pith" in my reply.

Good Day, Sir.

[dayna]

I have talked to people who know her personally and it is my understanding her personal reasons are health ones. And I don't feel she owes anyone an explanation about that.

I wish her good health and a long life.

Dayna

www.E-Z-Caps.com

[TomK]

HiloPuna wrote:

"As you well know (7,102 posts) on Punaweb one must frequently suffer fools, a result of the very nature of this forum. My "pithy" reply was of a kind, since 12 hours before yours (and others) post I had provided basis for my statement. Your insinuating that my post was still suspect was mildly offensive to me, hence the "pith" in my reply."

If you look back in the thread, it was others that provided the evidence, not you. I'm sure you understand that hearsay is not evidence although on occasion it turns out to be correct. In my case, I wrote:

"I've emailed Jen Ruggles about this via her county email address. Hopefully, we'll find out the truth soon."

The fact that you found this offensive tells us a lot about you. I followed Rob's rule of thumb. Ask questions and assume the best.

[randomq]

TomK, find another thread to sh*t in please.

[Rob Tucker]

I agree... the bickering is tiresome.

Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator

[carol10]

KeaauRich,

The removal of board members Barbara Arthurs and Peter Houle was not done through loopholes and Bylaws weaknesses. An Orchidland member created the petition (because both Arthurs and Houle ran for Board positions without disclosing they were intending to file a lawsuit, as Board members, against the Association), received enough signatures of other verified members to initiate a special meeting to hear the petition, and then presented it to the Board all in accordance with the Bylaws. Then President, Ricky Turner, in dictatorial fashion, refused to schedule the special meeting (in clear violation of the Bylaws). Then Vice President, Don Stoner, stepped in and in strict accordance with the Bylaws scheduled the special meeting, sent out all the required notices, posted the meeting on their website, and published the meeting in the Trib-Herald. Voting members were encouraged to attend the special meeting and vote their preference.

Houle attended the special meeting, Arthurs did not. Arthurs has since absurdly claimed that the special meeting was “illegal” as she received her notice of the petition and special meeting through email and not by U.S. Mail.

Barbara Arthurs, when being deposed on November 18, 2016, was asked if she was being deceptive to the OLCA membership by running for a Board position while not disclosing that she was formulating a lawsuit against the Association, arrogantly responded, “Did Donald Trump reveal everything?”

As to the low turnout of voters, it is no different than the low turnout of public elections. The Association mails out newsletter, ballots, and candidate statements. Members are encouraged to vote to have their voice heard. The recent OLCA election was in line with the normal amount of voters for many decades.

IMHO, Arthurs is a vindictive nut-job with a few other monied vindictive jut-jobs supporting her inane lawsuit against OLCA consuming funds much needed for roads.

[kalakoa]

inane lawsuit against OLCA consuming funds much needed for roads.

Lawsuits that would be better focused on County who allowed the "privately owned roads (open to the public)" problem to be created.

Go team.

[KeaauRich]

Carol,

As I alluded to in my post, I think the current Board is the more legitimate, and I'm no fan of either group if the truth be told. I don't want to get into an extended back and forth, so I'm going to make two points and then move on to more productive matters.

First, Wirick and his allies were the first to use proxy votes to sway an election. They came to a meeting, announced that proxy votes would now be acceptable, and then entered enough proxy votes to sway the outcome their way. The membership at large was never informed that proxy votes would be accepted (they had never before been accepted in the history of the association) so those who opposed the motion to oust Board members were blindsided. And there was no way to even verify that the proxies were legitimate - they were just pieces of paper with signatures on them (theoretically the actual signatures of property owners). When Board members (including Tegan Green) were challenged regarding the legitimacy of the proxies, their reply was "Do you expect us to verify each proxy to make sure its legitimate? We don't have time for that."

My second point is the carnard of road funds being used to defray legal expenses. One look at the latest budget published on the Orchidland website shows that legal/professional services line item from 2007-2015/16 (the latest years available online) has ranged from $3000 to $5,000, so its impact on the road budget is negligible. In fact, over the same period of time, road expenditures have increased from $132,000 to $188,000.

If you're happy with Ric vote for him. I'm not happy with him, so I won't vote for him. That's the great thing about America - we don't all have to agree.