Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership

[My 2 cents]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kimo wires

Does anyone know when Judge Nakamura's decision will be made public?

---

Jury trial is scheduled to start April 30th.

[kalakoa]

we don't have to use licensed contractors, but we cannot use unlicensed ones

With rules like that...

[My 2 cents]

Yes, easily misinterpreted.

Edited to delete snippy retort.

[terracore]

"Even Special Master is not suggesting this."

Agreed that having 11 bank accounts alone doesn't necessarily mean anything, but adding that to the big red flag of refusing to cooperate with showing where any of the money from 11 bank accounts comes or goes, I think it raises questions that needs to be answered. Frankly, it would be inappropriate for the special master to suggest any malfeasance in the report, and I wonder if she is qualified to recognize it. Criminal and civil matters are handled separately and frequently with different outcomes (OJ Simpson for example).

But if there are 11 bank accounts, with 11 sets of fees, I would appreciate an explanation on why that is necessary.

"Where would it come from?"

People sending their road fees in.

"And why would they put it into a another OLCA labeled account?"

More accurately, 10 other OLCA labeled accounts?

[carol10]

Ric Wirick posted a response to the 11 accounts question on Orchidland FB. First the "Wirick Group" did not establish ANY of these bank accounts, they inherited them from prior boards.

There are 3 FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, HFS credit union, CU Hawaii credit union, Central Pacific Bank. Credit unions require accounts to have BOTH a savings and checking account. So here are the 11 accounts that the current board INHERITED...

Active accounts 4: General Fund (2) checking and savings
Road Fund (2) checking and savings.

Inactive/frozen accounts 7: Administrative Fund (1) checking
Paving Fund (2) checking and savings
Community Lot Fund (1) savings
Capital Fund (1) savings
Legal Fund (2) checking and savings

That totals 11 accounts. Check http://orchidland.org/association-busine...inancials/ and you can see the balances month-to-month in all the accounts. Pretty easy to see which accounts are frozen (By Barbara Arthurs) as their balances don't change. I would say that is this current board being transparent. No other board in the history of Orchidland ever posted info like this.

The prior boards were largely run by the "Arthurs Group" for the last 20 or 30 years, so I find it suspect that Arthurs is now the one claiming that the finances are questionable.

[My 2 cents]

Carol10, thank you for providing this. And to answer Terracore's question "why that is necessary", it is necessary because the bylaws require it. It helps in keeping the funds from being co-mingled and keeping them within budget.

Having said that, I agree that the unwillingness to provide the requested documents has the appearance of fishiness. And until those documents are provided, or we get a valid explanation of why they are not, the smell will linger. But I still don't think there is any embezzlement. Between the low MRMA compliance rate, the legal costs, and the impressive amount of road work, I just don't see any room for it. Plus, under this kind of scrutiny, who would be that stupid?

[carol10]

It's so nice to have a breath of reason with you my 2 cents.

The Orchidland FB thread is a long read, but Wirick did provide some important info in there.

From what I read it seems that the Master (Nancy Cabral, the same person who got to manage HPP and make a ton of money while they were in receivership. Now that seems suspicious to me.), requested additional records from the bookkeeper just days before her report was due, after she had already had the books open to her and spent a few hours with the bookkeeper. Bookkeeper informed her that his extra work would be an additional expense to the Association so the board would have to approve it. Bookkeeper informed the board, board arranged to present a motion to cover extra expense to both remain in compliance with the bylaws and transparency for the membership. It seems this was not good enough for the Master and she stated incorrectly in her report "despite several requests" she was unable to obtain the records. I smell a rat. If these allegations are true, then Nancy Cabral has an issue with candor. As you stated, with the board being under this kind of scrutiny, I also doubt thy would be so stupid as to lie about this.

Interestingly, the thread also mentions that there is a recording of the meeting between Nancy Cabral and the "Arthurs Group" from November 18th and will be posted on Orchidland.org. I can't wait to hear that!

[terracore]

Who is eligible to provide the receivership? Common sense would indicate the person who recommends it should recuse themselves from being the one providing the service.

[KeaauRich]

Well, at this point I don't take *anything* that either "Board" says as fully credible-- there has been too much stretching of the truth and shady dealings on both sides. While I have serious issues with the Wirick group, I think they have a better clam to legitimacy than the Arthurs group (tho they achieved control of the Board by gaming the system, beginning with the surprise Proxy voting event). The Arthurs group, on the other hand, has presented itself as the legitimate Board by calling general membership meetings and issuing official-looking newsletters in a manner that suggested they were in control of the Association. Both Boards have full-term members that were elected by the membership as a whole, but I suspect that between the two Boards, you probably couldn't cobble together a full slate of full-term, entire-membership elected members. So I think I'd err towards believing the Special Master, though I agree that she (or her firm) should not be considered for the Receivership position if that's what the Court orders.

I think it's also important to note that the Special Master appeared to be more critical of the Wirick group (ignoring Bylaws, withholding info) than of the Arthurs group, though both groups were criticized for dissing the other. And she appears to have gotten the Wirick group to admit that they used an unlicensed contractor for roadwork despite past their declarations that the contractor was licensed. So, in a nutshell, she appears to basically agree with the Arthurs group's initial complaints. Having said that, I think the most positive step we could take to get the Association back on track would be a new election for the entire Board that would be overseen by a neutral third party (such as the League of Women Voters, who I believe provided this service in the past). And I'd stipulate that members of both the Wirick and Arthurs groups would be ineligible to run for office during that election.

[Midnight Rambler]

Both boards held "elections" after the dispute began in which the pre-selected slate were the only candidates listed. Surprise, they each won!

KeaauRich, my take is basically the same as yours. The complaints the Arthurs group brought against the Wirick group are valid, but they don't have any legitimacy as a board themselves, and on top of that have shown no indication of competence in trying to act like one.