07-25-2015, 03:08 AM
mermaid:
What you say about "hidden" agendas/actions is absolutely correct. Some of what may come out of the lawsuit by the terminated employees may shed light on that and put the membership of the Association in a better position to take action against those who did/do not have the best interests of HPPOA at heart.
Where I disagree with you is the "difference between someone who instigates and plans an action vs those who are followers." Anyone who follows along with an illegal action is equally culpable under law and in the eyes of those who behave within the constrictions. As I've said, and you seem to agree, "no one held a gun to their heads". That is why Hawaii has laws to protect whistleblowers.
How could a director who examined the Bylaws not know that the process used to terminate the employees was flawed? Why would such a Director not insist that the process be corrected immediately (easily done with a legitimately constituted emergency special board meeting) - and worse, make an attempt to justify that action in a public meeting? Such a public display made that Director a willing participant in the original disputed action and set the Association up for the most financially damaging aspects of the lawsuit (if found guilty) - that of defamation of and placing the former employees in false light.
There was no need to justify that Board's opinion that the employees had to be terminated - they were all "at will" employees and could legally be fired for no reason. The crying shame here is that all the Board had to say was "it was time for a change".
What you say about "hidden" agendas/actions is absolutely correct. Some of what may come out of the lawsuit by the terminated employees may shed light on that and put the membership of the Association in a better position to take action against those who did/do not have the best interests of HPPOA at heart.
Where I disagree with you is the "difference between someone who instigates and plans an action vs those who are followers." Anyone who follows along with an illegal action is equally culpable under law and in the eyes of those who behave within the constrictions. As I've said, and you seem to agree, "no one held a gun to their heads". That is why Hawaii has laws to protect whistleblowers.
How could a director who examined the Bylaws not know that the process used to terminate the employees was flawed? Why would such a Director not insist that the process be corrected immediately (easily done with a legitimately constituted emergency special board meeting) - and worse, make an attempt to justify that action in a public meeting? Such a public display made that Director a willing participant in the original disputed action and set the Association up for the most financially damaging aspects of the lawsuit (if found guilty) - that of defamation of and placing the former employees in false light.
There was no need to justify that Board's opinion that the employees had to be terminated - they were all "at will" employees and could legally be fired for no reason. The crying shame here is that all the Board had to say was "it was time for a change".