06-04-2015, 01:44 AM
From mermaid:
"Another continued on as VP even though she had been deposed. If we want to go w/that the VP was deposed illegally, then Ruth isn't President either."
To repeat what I posted on 5/20:
"The HPPOA Bylaws (Article IX - Officers) and Hawaii Revised Statute ยง414D-156 (Resignation and removal of officer) do not specify a procedure or process for the removal of officers of the Board.
If, as mermaid53 states, the action concerning the removal of the president was taken at an executive session, then it is invalid. An executive session can only consider personnel issues, matters of litigation, or matters of attorney/client privilege (Article VIII, Section 9, subsection (d), 1., b.)
Without a specified legislative process, the Board would need to take this action in an open meeting..."
The previous President and Vice-President remain in office. Any actions taken by their "successors" are, at least, invalid, and, possibly, breaking Bylaws and HRS 414D. I should add that anyone who executes the "new" policies, etc., is equally complicit.
Otherwise, mermaid's second most recent post is spot-on - especially the part about wilful misconduct and gross "negligence". Not one of the Board members (starting from July 1, 2014, through today) or their supporters is so stupid that, by now, they have not realized that they have to obey the Bylaws and HRS 414D or to be able to understand what that entails.
Edited to correct order of mermaid's posts
"Another continued on as VP even though she had been deposed. If we want to go w/that the VP was deposed illegally, then Ruth isn't President either."
To repeat what I posted on 5/20:
"The HPPOA Bylaws (Article IX - Officers) and Hawaii Revised Statute ยง414D-156 (Resignation and removal of officer) do not specify a procedure or process for the removal of officers of the Board.
If, as mermaid53 states, the action concerning the removal of the president was taken at an executive session, then it is invalid. An executive session can only consider personnel issues, matters of litigation, or matters of attorney/client privilege (Article VIII, Section 9, subsection (d), 1., b.)
Without a specified legislative process, the Board would need to take this action in an open meeting..."
The previous President and Vice-President remain in office. Any actions taken by their "successors" are, at least, invalid, and, possibly, breaking Bylaws and HRS 414D. I should add that anyone who executes the "new" policies, etc., is equally complicit.
Otherwise, mermaid's second most recent post is spot-on - especially the part about wilful misconduct and gross "negligence". Not one of the Board members (starting from July 1, 2014, through today) or their supporters is so stupid that, by now, they have not realized that they have to obey the Bylaws and HRS 414D or to be able to understand what that entails.
Edited to correct order of mermaid's posts