03-22-2018, 05:43 AM
2018 HPP District Elections
The Nominating Committee announced the qualified candidates for the District Elections at the 21 Mar 2018 board meeting:
District 2: Mary Couch and Ruth Mizuba (serving currently as Dist 2 rep 3 yr term)
District 3: Unopposed Kathleen Shaw
District 4: Tanya Seaver and Malia Ahuna-Alofaituli
District 5: Unopposed Mayelin Stillwell
District 6: Thomas Fuchtman and William Shattuck
All 8 had completed their forms so the Nominating Committee could qualify them through the preliminary screening. Next step is to verify the information on the candidate submission form that they own a lot in that district and are current with their road fees which is the office staff's job, for member privacy purposes.
One District 6 candidate was disqualified. The candidate didn't complete their form by the drop dead date and time. Vital information was missing; no physical address, no TMK # and no contact phone number. The Nominating Committee doesn't give preferential treatment. Reason 2 was that the candidate has an existing conflict of interest:
Article V Bylaws Definitions Sec 14 Conflict of interest. "A conflict of interest exists when any director, officer, member of a committee or employee of HPPOA has a direct or indirect financial interest in any matter involving the Association. An indirect financial interest shall include financial benefit to a relative of any director, officer, committee member or employee when so determined by a majority vote of the board or by policy established under Article VIII Sec 11."
The board said they make the final decision on who are qualified candidates. That this candidate has NO conflict of interest. (His spouse is employed by HPP) The board decision is clearly not based on the best interests of the Association as is evident at how it's now negatively affecting the district elections.
The bylaws give the task to the Nominating Committee to find "qualified" candidates, because it's a conflict of interest for the board to be involved. The board is supposed to AVOID MEDDLING period, during the memberships' elections and they are now treading in muddy waters. Two current board reps were on the board during the 2016's fraudulent district election.
The Nominating Committee, a membership committee, meaning they are given scope and authority as delegated by the membership AND the bylaws, are doing their job to ensure on their end that a CLEAN election occurs for the membership's district elections. That is their job. Please support them to ensure that happens.
The GM overstepped his boundaries as an employee during the NC's report. "This will not stand!!!", "This ain't going to happen!!!" when he and the board discovered who was disqualified from the elections. When reminded TWICE he was an employee, not a board member, and shouldn't be meddling in membership business, he yelled back at the member.
The board pres in a fit of anger, searched and specifically grabbed 2 candidates submission forms (for Dist 3 and Dist 5) off the table, and threatened to disqualify them because it was missing lot # and block #, which his spouse, an office employee, told the Nominating chair wasn't necessary. TMK # was important, as she had called a candidate on the phone on the deadline date to get their TMK # and was added before the drop dead time. The disqualified candidate had no phone number, no TMK # and no physical address.
Watch the elections very closely...
The Nominating Committee announced the qualified candidates for the District Elections at the 21 Mar 2018 board meeting:
District 2: Mary Couch and Ruth Mizuba (serving currently as Dist 2 rep 3 yr term)
District 3: Unopposed Kathleen Shaw
District 4: Tanya Seaver and Malia Ahuna-Alofaituli
District 5: Unopposed Mayelin Stillwell
District 6: Thomas Fuchtman and William Shattuck
All 8 had completed their forms so the Nominating Committee could qualify them through the preliminary screening. Next step is to verify the information on the candidate submission form that they own a lot in that district and are current with their road fees which is the office staff's job, for member privacy purposes.
One District 6 candidate was disqualified. The candidate didn't complete their form by the drop dead date and time. Vital information was missing; no physical address, no TMK # and no contact phone number. The Nominating Committee doesn't give preferential treatment. Reason 2 was that the candidate has an existing conflict of interest:
Article V Bylaws Definitions Sec 14 Conflict of interest. "A conflict of interest exists when any director, officer, member of a committee or employee of HPPOA has a direct or indirect financial interest in any matter involving the Association. An indirect financial interest shall include financial benefit to a relative of any director, officer, committee member or employee when so determined by a majority vote of the board or by policy established under Article VIII Sec 11."
The board said they make the final decision on who are qualified candidates. That this candidate has NO conflict of interest. (His spouse is employed by HPP) The board decision is clearly not based on the best interests of the Association as is evident at how it's now negatively affecting the district elections.
The bylaws give the task to the Nominating Committee to find "qualified" candidates, because it's a conflict of interest for the board to be involved. The board is supposed to AVOID MEDDLING period, during the memberships' elections and they are now treading in muddy waters. Two current board reps were on the board during the 2016's fraudulent district election.
The Nominating Committee, a membership committee, meaning they are given scope and authority as delegated by the membership AND the bylaws, are doing their job to ensure on their end that a CLEAN election occurs for the membership's district elections. That is their job. Please support them to ensure that happens.
The GM overstepped his boundaries as an employee during the NC's report. "This will not stand!!!", "This ain't going to happen!!!" when he and the board discovered who was disqualified from the elections. When reminded TWICE he was an employee, not a board member, and shouldn't be meddling in membership business, he yelled back at the member.
The board pres in a fit of anger, searched and specifically grabbed 2 candidates submission forms (for Dist 3 and Dist 5) off the table, and threatened to disqualify them because it was missing lot # and block #, which his spouse, an office employee, told the Nominating chair wasn't necessary. TMK # was important, as she had called a candidate on the phone on the deadline date to get their TMK # and was added before the drop dead time. The disqualified candidate had no phone number, no TMK # and no physical address.
Watch the elections very closely...