12-25-2014, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by caveat emptor:
It is quite clear that there is no avenue stated in the HPPOA Bylaws for the BOD to legally remove a "Membership" committee person duly voted on by the membership. However..., if the BOD is up to it (and I'm sure they will be after reading this) they may try to argue that such a removal is authorized in Attachment F. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for Joan, they not only created another illegal HPPOA Conduct policy out of thin air and attached it as “F” to her letter barring her from everything but, they left out from the fake “F” the only statement in our Bylaws or Policies that they could have tried to use. That is, assuming they would stoop so low as to take that statement out of context. This is the statement in “F” (the real F)… “Behavior resulting in removal will bar this person from membership attendance at any HPPOA function for 1 year”. That is the last sentence in a paragraph discussing what will/should happen to owners being disruptive during their 3 minute owner input and have to be removed from the meeting… and that is all it is and can be used for. Remember I explained how they tried to use this paragraph against Mr. Hanor and they screwed that up?
My recollection of the incident is that he had to be escorted out by the police because he wouldn't be quiet after numerous warnings that his time was up. He was still talking as he was led away. It appears that the BOD followed the conduct policy you quoted above. I'm not here to defend any of the BOD, just stating facts as fairly as possible.
After the new BOD took over they immediately took drastic and illegal action against most of the previous BOD members with Letters of Reprimand. One letter went to Verne Presnall who was one of the owners voted onto the Finance committee; one down. Another member resigned after the first committee meeting; 3 down. Then Joan got her letter; 2 down.
That's quite an exaggeration as it's 2 out of 9. The 3rd, a new committee member, resigned bc the person didn't wish to work with a bylaw breaking board. (there have only been 2 meetings in 6 months).
Per our Bylaws, the Finance Committee should "meet at least 3 times a year and as needed" so no problem there.
So, I believe that would add up to the survivors as 3 owners and the Treasurer.
I believe your assessment is correct on who's left. There were no ulterior motives to remove anyone from the Finance Committee. It just happened that way.
Readers need to understand why I say Joan's letter and the attachment are illegal. As discussed above they have no legitimate authority to create, let alone send an owner a letter like this. Especially since it is all based on lies, remember Friends of the Board (FOBs), I am ready and capable of posting the real witnesses’ statements of the infamous Escobar Incident. After reading the attached “F” that Joan received, I noticed that the last 3 paragraphs are incompetently and illegally plagiarized from the Conduct Policy’s front page and Attachments A and C. Attachments A and C were written for Board Directors conduct and behavior… not owners.
Attachment C is the Glossary of Terms describing different terms and their meaning, so pertains to board members AND lot owners.
Our Bylaws have appropriate ways in which we can professionally and fairly handle these disputes. Let’s follow them.
A judge friend said the board has an innate responsibility to protect volunteers from those who've acted out against other volunteers even if our bylaws or policies don't describe specifically how it's to be carried out. There will always be a new situation that our bylaws or policies won't specifically address. The ban for one year blah blah blah aligns with action the board could take towards a volunteer who acts out at a meeting and has to be escorted out. For the board to not take action is neglectful. No volunteer should have to be concerned with being harassed or physically lashed out at by another volunteer who may have done so in the recent past. To not have consequences gives the person the impression that they are above the law. The two previous board members banned for 1 yr. coincidentally were on the previous Finance Committee w/the former Pres, GM and Admin Assistant. Some of the current board aren't the only ones guilty of having illusions of grandeur.
Mele Kalikimaka e Hau'oli Makahiki Hou!
It is quite clear that there is no avenue stated in the HPPOA Bylaws for the BOD to legally remove a "Membership" committee person duly voted on by the membership. However..., if the BOD is up to it (and I'm sure they will be after reading this) they may try to argue that such a removal is authorized in Attachment F. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for Joan, they not only created another illegal HPPOA Conduct policy out of thin air and attached it as “F” to her letter barring her from everything but, they left out from the fake “F” the only statement in our Bylaws or Policies that they could have tried to use. That is, assuming they would stoop so low as to take that statement out of context. This is the statement in “F” (the real F)… “Behavior resulting in removal will bar this person from membership attendance at any HPPOA function for 1 year”. That is the last sentence in a paragraph discussing what will/should happen to owners being disruptive during their 3 minute owner input and have to be removed from the meeting… and that is all it is and can be used for. Remember I explained how they tried to use this paragraph against Mr. Hanor and they screwed that up?
My recollection of the incident is that he had to be escorted out by the police because he wouldn't be quiet after numerous warnings that his time was up. He was still talking as he was led away. It appears that the BOD followed the conduct policy you quoted above. I'm not here to defend any of the BOD, just stating facts as fairly as possible.
After the new BOD took over they immediately took drastic and illegal action against most of the previous BOD members with Letters of Reprimand. One letter went to Verne Presnall who was one of the owners voted onto the Finance committee; one down. Another member resigned after the first committee meeting; 3 down. Then Joan got her letter; 2 down.
That's quite an exaggeration as it's 2 out of 9. The 3rd, a new committee member, resigned bc the person didn't wish to work with a bylaw breaking board. (there have only been 2 meetings in 6 months).
Per our Bylaws, the Finance Committee should "meet at least 3 times a year and as needed" so no problem there.
So, I believe that would add up to the survivors as 3 owners and the Treasurer.
I believe your assessment is correct on who's left. There were no ulterior motives to remove anyone from the Finance Committee. It just happened that way.
Readers need to understand why I say Joan's letter and the attachment are illegal. As discussed above they have no legitimate authority to create, let alone send an owner a letter like this. Especially since it is all based on lies, remember Friends of the Board (FOBs), I am ready and capable of posting the real witnesses’ statements of the infamous Escobar Incident. After reading the attached “F” that Joan received, I noticed that the last 3 paragraphs are incompetently and illegally plagiarized from the Conduct Policy’s front page and Attachments A and C. Attachments A and C were written for Board Directors conduct and behavior… not owners.
Attachment C is the Glossary of Terms describing different terms and their meaning, so pertains to board members AND lot owners.
Our Bylaws have appropriate ways in which we can professionally and fairly handle these disputes. Let’s follow them.
A judge friend said the board has an innate responsibility to protect volunteers from those who've acted out against other volunteers even if our bylaws or policies don't describe specifically how it's to be carried out. There will always be a new situation that our bylaws or policies won't specifically address. The ban for one year blah blah blah aligns with action the board could take towards a volunteer who acts out at a meeting and has to be escorted out. For the board to not take action is neglectful. No volunteer should have to be concerned with being harassed or physically lashed out at by another volunteer who may have done so in the recent past. To not have consequences gives the person the impression that they are above the law. The two previous board members banned for 1 yr. coincidentally were on the previous Finance Committee w/the former Pres, GM and Admin Assistant. Some of the current board aren't the only ones guilty of having illusions of grandeur.
Mele Kalikimaka e Hau'oli Makahiki Hou!