07-24-2015, 11:30 AM
I'm sorry, mermaid, I don't understand your contention:
"This one action alone speaks volumes on who the instigator is about a lot of drama that continues today,..."
It is incumbent on all new Board members to learn about the situation of the Association and its operations immediately upon taking office (due to Hawaii's confidentiality laws, non-Board members cannot have access to the Association's confidential files). Then decisions about future strategy can be made on an informed basis. VP Maynard's visit to the office to learn procedures - while only partially moving in that direction - seems commendable. How does that translate into instigating drama?
The fact that no Board members attempted to learn about the Association before taking any action indicates very strongly that last year's new Board members had made up their minds about the Association's situation before taking office. I ask again: On what information did they form those opinions and where did they get that information? Kahunascott's assertion that they relied on hearsay is becoming more credible.
On your other point:
"Regarding protecting HPP property....There are known events across the country of disgruntled employees destroying files before exiting the door after terminations."
If that was the fear that motivated the Board's action last year, the Board members, either together or in shifts, should have been in that office continually from the start of business on July 1, examining and cataloguing the files in question. That would have protected the files until such time as the Board could legally terminate the employees.
Apart from that, I've been in business for over 40 years and this is the first time I have heard of files being listed among an entity's "assets". Ms. Mullenix, in her letter of last January, implied that it was tangible assets that were in danger.
"This one action alone speaks volumes on who the instigator is about a lot of drama that continues today,..."
It is incumbent on all new Board members to learn about the situation of the Association and its operations immediately upon taking office (due to Hawaii's confidentiality laws, non-Board members cannot have access to the Association's confidential files). Then decisions about future strategy can be made on an informed basis. VP Maynard's visit to the office to learn procedures - while only partially moving in that direction - seems commendable. How does that translate into instigating drama?
The fact that no Board members attempted to learn about the Association before taking any action indicates very strongly that last year's new Board members had made up their minds about the Association's situation before taking office. I ask again: On what information did they form those opinions and where did they get that information? Kahunascott's assertion that they relied on hearsay is becoming more credible.
On your other point:
"Regarding protecting HPP property....There are known events across the country of disgruntled employees destroying files before exiting the door after terminations."
If that was the fear that motivated the Board's action last year, the Board members, either together or in shifts, should have been in that office continually from the start of business on July 1, examining and cataloguing the files in question. That would have protected the files until such time as the Board could legally terminate the employees.
Apart from that, I've been in business for over 40 years and this is the first time I have heard of files being listed among an entity's "assets". Ms. Mullenix, in her letter of last January, implied that it was tangible assets that were in danger.