OrchidLand going into receivership

[KeaauRich]

And again, just to be clear, the November 1 Orchidland meeting is really only about a few Board members gathering a minimum number of votes from their local friends to remove two Board members (elected by the membership at large) who disagree with the majority's actions. It's the same tactic many of these same members and their allies used last year to unseat another two Board members who had also been elected by the membership at large. As long as the Bylaws (and the membership) allow this type of minority-mob rule to override the votes of the membership at large, we'll never be able to attract a cadre of qualified, visionary and dedicated Board members. Who wants to live their life always looking over their shoulder?

There may be a vote against the receivership petition, but my guess is that this would just be a "sense of the meeting" vote, not anything legally binding. Again, it is my understanding that a petition for receivership has already been filed, in which case the courts will review the facts and determine whether or not receivership is warranted.

[J Abrams]

As I recall, Barbara Arthurs husband Bob also sued the OLCA about 20 years ago. He was on the OLCA Board, as was I. Bob often found himself in the minority of many Board decisions, and there was a lot of animosity during meetings. He eventually decided his good reputation had been libeled and he sued (either the OLCA Board, or the OLCA itself, I forget which). I think it was because of an article in a newsletter but I could be wrong as it was a long time ago. The Board hired an attorney and we went to court a couple of times. Bob eventually dropped his suit, and resigned from the Board with some bad feelings. IMO, it was really a case of a bruised ego, and being very thin-skinned. In any event, it cost a chunk of money and brought a lot of disharmony to the OLCA, which seems to have continued, in one form or another, to this day.

[Orchidlandowner]

I don't see the purpose in someone suing , it just ends up costing all of your neighbors more money for the roads . Unless they have something behind the scenes that they're trying to get .

[KeaauRich]

So now the Orchidland Board has come up with a new gimmick.. The Bylaws clearly state the requirement for a quorum: "A quorum shall consist of at least fifteen (15) members in good standing who are not directors, and at least four (4) directors present at the meeting."

But the latest newsletter sent out by the Board includes a voting proxy form that includes this option: "If you don't want a vote cast by your proxy, but still want to be counted as present, check the following:

___ For quorum purposes only (which means your proxy doesn't allow the person to vote for you, but only count you as present at the meeting)


So if they can show 15 checked forms of this type, the Board can literally hold a meeting and oust other Board members (or conduct any other business and votes) even if there are only 4 Directors -- and no general members --present in the room.

[terracore]

When I read this on the newsletter I received today (about receivership)

* INCREASE ANNUAL FEES UP TO TEN TIMES! (really... $2000.00/year per lot? That's like four times as much as each lot cost when they were originally divided)

* ENFORCE LIENS AND FORECLOSURE ON ORCHIDLAND RESIDENTS!

* DESTROY OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITY BY FORCIBLE REMOVAL OF FAMILIES UNABLE TO PAY THE HIGH COSTS OF RECEIVERSHIP! (Really? Receivership means tanks and troops rolling in and forcing us to escape unmentionable brutality with barely enough time to scoop up our kids and begin our long journey on foot somewhere far away from the Orchidland receivership apocalypse?)

I wadded up the newsletter and threw it in the garbage. I'm glad I didn't pay my road fees this year and I'm praying we go into receivership. If our current board is the best we can do, and its resorting to outright lies and fear mongering, I'm sorry to say that receivership is our only option.

ETA: more content, bold/underline text

[microage97]

They are supposed to be mailing refund checks.

[terracore]

quote:

---

Originally posted by microage97

They are supposed to be mailing refund checks.

---

I don't understand, who is mailing whom refund checks?

[Orchidlandowner]

I am sure they are from The Obama administration

[msky]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chunkster

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orchidlandowner

So Chunkster how much did the road fees increase when HPP went into receivership ?

---

I had to call some friends and neighbors as I did not own property here until two years after receivership ended. The answer from all of them was that fees went up "little or none." Judge Nakamura appointed a manager, and most of the non-management employees stayed on the job. I spoke to one of those employees, BTW, and was told that efficiency among the workers went up because there was no longer any political interference. Strictly business.

---

The past and present HPP Bylaws do not allow the road fees to go up more than 10% per year. During HPP's receivership the road fees increased no more than the usual 10%. Receivership did not have any impact on the annual road fee increase.

MORGAN

[msky]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chunkster

quote:

---

Originally posted by pahoated

Court appointed receivership doesn't mean it is done as some community volunteer effort. People are going to want to be paid, and some are going to be looking for ways to drain the treasury and skip.

---

Receivership means court appointed professional management under court supervision. No one looking to drain the treasury for personal gain wants a judge looking over their shoulder. The past era of receivership in HPP is now looked back on as a golden age of reason.

---

Much was accomplished during Receivership because of strong outside management. More so because the Board of Directors at the time didn't get involved much with the day to day management......no micro-managaging. They let the Manager manage.

MORGAN