12-18-2014, 02:11 PM
I am posting to this web site to post the Reprimand letter sent to John Hanor by the Board of Director’s to demonstrate a couple of things. In my opinion, the reprimand was in retaliation by the BOD for nothing more than expressing his opinion about the lawsuit that this BOD has involved the HPP Association in. You may have read here previously one of the claims posted by Mermaid53 as to why Mr. Hanor was escorted out of the meeting by the police? She said “for reading the lawsuit”. He was not reading the lawsuit; he was reading his statement pertaining to it. You can see on ponohpp.com’s web site that the lawsuit is too long for someone to actually read in 3 minutes.
Here are the reasons the BOD’s actions were in retaliation and certainly, broke our Bylaws. You decide!
1. The reprimand is labeled “Attachment G”. Attachment G doesn’t (legally) exist as an approved attachment from the “Official” HPPOA Conduct Policy that was Board approved Jan. 19, 2014. Normal Boards do not create new Association policy in secret and use it to punish members that they do not like. Why secret? Because, Association policy has to be carried out and voted on in open BOD meetings. What other way could they do it? Was this attachment created in the open?
2. Attachment G is actually copied from Attachment B in the Conduct Policy. “B” is to be used by the BOD as a reprimand form for another Director’s misbehavior. “B” was not written for use against members.
3. The reprimand form to Mr. Hanor under the “X Willful misconduct” line says “Disruptive behavior at the General Meeting,…”. It’s true that Mr. Hanor continued to read his statement after the 3 minute time limit had expired. Guilty! Then the form says “… requiring removal by a police officer”. The Officer was told to remove Mr. Hanor not because the Officer “had to”. Mr. Hanor was already walking to his seat (still reading) when the Officer was dispatched to escort Mr. Hanor out. It appeared to me that Mr. Hanor was on his way to sit down and be peaceable, it wasn’t necessary for him to be removed. First of all Attachment “F” Rules of Conduct for Members in HPPOA Interactions states that the Presiding officer of the meeting (BJ Mullenix) is required to issue a “call to order”, this is from Roberts Rules. This “call to order” is a necessary step to run meetings according to Roberts Rules. Did she say this? No, and if she did who could have heard it with the Director from District 8, Roseanne McLean, constantly pressing the timer beeper and yelling for him to sit down (and others in the audience)?
4. Attachment “F” then says, “IF the offending member continues the disruptive behavior, the residing officer will ask the person to leave the meeting”. It was evident when Mr. Hanor left the microphone and was walking back to his chair that he intended to “behave”. He was not given the chance, in other words no second chance as implied by the Policy, but instead he was escorted out of the meeting before he could demonstrate that he would be quite. Question, how many of you have witnessed and even been partakers of the type of behavior that Mr. Hanor displayed? How many of you have gone beyond your 3 minute allotted time? How many of you and how often has such a drastic action taken place by a previous Board to punish the 3 minute time offender? How about zero times? How many people have been allowed to stand up there and talk longer than the 3 minutes without any repercussions? How many times at this very meeting did people break the 3 minutes. One member actually got up and spoke 2 times.
5. You will also notice in the reprimand the partial quote under “HPPOA’s Conduct Policy, s…” where the author of the letter, BJ Mullenix, continues the quote with this, “item A also states “Responses are to be limited to 5 minutes...” Wait a minute! Why did Ms. Mullenix quote a statement from Attachment F having to do with a 5 minute time limit for “open discussion”? It has nothing to do with the 3 minute time for “owner input”. So, either Ms. Mullenix doesn’t understand the policy or Mr. Hanor was rudely and wrongly interrupted before his time was up and “illegally” escorted out.
What is the lesson here for members? Don’t dare go over the 3 minutes during your owner input unless, of course, you are a FOB (Friend of the Board). I will also try to post this on ponohpp.com to get Mr. Hanor's reprimand posted so that you can read it yourself.
I would suggest to Mr. Hanor that he follow the Bylaws and demand arbitration according to Article XV - Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Here are the reasons the BOD’s actions were in retaliation and certainly, broke our Bylaws. You decide!
1. The reprimand is labeled “Attachment G”. Attachment G doesn’t (legally) exist as an approved attachment from the “Official” HPPOA Conduct Policy that was Board approved Jan. 19, 2014. Normal Boards do not create new Association policy in secret and use it to punish members that they do not like. Why secret? Because, Association policy has to be carried out and voted on in open BOD meetings. What other way could they do it? Was this attachment created in the open?
2. Attachment G is actually copied from Attachment B in the Conduct Policy. “B” is to be used by the BOD as a reprimand form for another Director’s misbehavior. “B” was not written for use against members.
3. The reprimand form to Mr. Hanor under the “X Willful misconduct” line says “Disruptive behavior at the General Meeting,…”. It’s true that Mr. Hanor continued to read his statement after the 3 minute time limit had expired. Guilty! Then the form says “… requiring removal by a police officer”. The Officer was told to remove Mr. Hanor not because the Officer “had to”. Mr. Hanor was already walking to his seat (still reading) when the Officer was dispatched to escort Mr. Hanor out. It appeared to me that Mr. Hanor was on his way to sit down and be peaceable, it wasn’t necessary for him to be removed. First of all Attachment “F” Rules of Conduct for Members in HPPOA Interactions states that the Presiding officer of the meeting (BJ Mullenix) is required to issue a “call to order”, this is from Roberts Rules. This “call to order” is a necessary step to run meetings according to Roberts Rules. Did she say this? No, and if she did who could have heard it with the Director from District 8, Roseanne McLean, constantly pressing the timer beeper and yelling for him to sit down (and others in the audience)?
4. Attachment “F” then says, “IF the offending member continues the disruptive behavior, the residing officer will ask the person to leave the meeting”. It was evident when Mr. Hanor left the microphone and was walking back to his chair that he intended to “behave”. He was not given the chance, in other words no second chance as implied by the Policy, but instead he was escorted out of the meeting before he could demonstrate that he would be quite. Question, how many of you have witnessed and even been partakers of the type of behavior that Mr. Hanor displayed? How many of you have gone beyond your 3 minute allotted time? How many of you and how often has such a drastic action taken place by a previous Board to punish the 3 minute time offender? How about zero times? How many people have been allowed to stand up there and talk longer than the 3 minutes without any repercussions? How many times at this very meeting did people break the 3 minutes. One member actually got up and spoke 2 times.
5. You will also notice in the reprimand the partial quote under “HPPOA’s Conduct Policy, s…” where the author of the letter, BJ Mullenix, continues the quote with this, “item A also states “Responses are to be limited to 5 minutes...” Wait a minute! Why did Ms. Mullenix quote a statement from Attachment F having to do with a 5 minute time limit for “open discussion”? It has nothing to do with the 3 minute time for “owner input”. So, either Ms. Mullenix doesn’t understand the policy or Mr. Hanor was rudely and wrongly interrupted before his time was up and “illegally” escorted out.
What is the lesson here for members? Don’t dare go over the 3 minutes during your owner input unless, of course, you are a FOB (Friend of the Board). I will also try to post this on ponohpp.com to get Mr. Hanor's reprimand posted so that you can read it yourself.
I would suggest to Mr. Hanor that he follow the Bylaws and demand arbitration according to Article XV - Alternative Dispute Resolution.