Posts: 1,265
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2014
quote:
Originally posted by janet
The most recent post by mermaid 53 is thought provoking and an excellent contribution to the debate.
However, I disagree with one small aspect of the consideration of adherence to the Bylaws:
"Would mandatory bylaw education for their 1st 3 months on the board help?"
The Bylaws are written in simple, clear declarative sentences that a high-school student can easily understand (I've tested this). There is no need for education. And they do not need to be memorized. Using the "search" feature on a computer brings one to the relevant citation.
The fact is that the transgressions that have been made are because Directors do not follow the Bylaws if the Bylaws counter what those Directors want to achieve.
Janet, you are partially correct on your last statement. The other side of this is that there are honest intelligent people who perceive our bylaws differently and are adamant that they are correct. We've all seen a number of problems occur over this past year alone. It'd be a good idea to tweak some of our bylaws to clarify those particular areas that seem to be problematic.
Posts: 173
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2014
The bylaws don't require a letter of resignation. When Rosanne, Tom Nickerson, and Frances quit they didn't give the Association a letter they said "I quit". It's no different then when you quit a job it's a done deal. Rosanne made it very clear that she quit.
What is most important is that the President doesn't have the power to appoint anyone as I made clear in a previous post.
Can't anyone read the bylaws? After 6 months this small group of directors is doing what ever they want. This is because they are running the operations of the Association and not managing the policies and procedures as they should!
Posts: 1,265
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2014
[quote]Originally posted by hppwatchdog
The bylaws don't require a letter of resignation. When Rosanne, Tom Nickerson, and Frances quit they didn't give the Association a letter they said "I quit". It's no different then when you quit a job it's a done deal. Rosanne made it very clear that she quit.
I have 1st hand info that neither Roseanne or Francis resigned. I believe Robert's Rules recommends a resignation letter if the outgoing director doesn't resign verbally at a meeting. Tom Nickerson resigned over a year ago and I wasn't privy to how he resigned. If you mean Tom Jennings..he did give a resignation letter, as did June and Bruce.
What is most important is that the President doesn't have the power to appoint anyone as I made clear in a previous post.
Can't anyone read the bylaws? After 6 months this small group of directors is doing what ever they want. This is because they are running the operations of the Association and not managing the policies and procedures as they should!
I think most would agree with you on the rest of your post. The lines are getting blurred and after this long it may be an adjustment to share responsibilities w/a new GM.
Posts: 218
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2005
"The other side of this is that there are honest intelligent people who perceive our bylaws differently and are adamant that they are correct."
The matter of interpretation raises new questions:
First, an "honest, intelligent" person would never insist that s/he is unalterably correct.
A discussion among reasonable interlocutors should be able to reach consensus on what a disputed Bylaw is stating. If any participant is "adamant" on having the only correct interpretation in opposition to the rest of the deliberating body, that person could vote his/her opinion but would be in the minority.. Majority rules.
Second, who would "educate" Board members (or the general membership) on the Bylaws? Would not that person (those people) just be conveying his/her (their) interpretation?
"It'd be a good idea to tweak some of our bylaws to clarify those particular areas that seem to be problematic."
Who would do the "tweaking"? Is that not just putting a particular interpretation on them?
It will be impossible to write Bylaws that will not be subject to differing interpretations. Some of them might be "tweaked" to make them appear to be more clear than they are now, but, again, that is the interpretation of the tweaker(s).
Posts: 173
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2014
quote:
Originally posted by mermaid53
[quote]Originally posted by hppwatchdog
The bylaws don't require a letter of resignation. When Rosanne, Tom Nickerson, and Frances quit they didn't give the Association a letter they said "I quit". It's no different then when you quit a job it's a done deal. Rosanne made it very clear that she quit.
I have 1st hand info that neither Roseanne or Francis resigned. I believe Robert's Rules recommends a resignation letter if the outgoing director doesn't resign verbally at a meeting. Tom Nickerson resigned over a year ago and I wasn't privy to how he resigned. If you mean Tom Jennings..he did give a resignation letter, as did June and Bruce.
What is most important is that the President doesn't have the power to appoint anyone as I made clear in a previous post.
Can't anyone read the bylaws? After 6 months this small group of directors is doing what ever they want. This is because they are running the operations of the Association and not managing the policies and procedures as they should!
I think most would agree with you on the rest of your post. The lines are getting blurred and after this long it may be an adjustment to share responsibilities w/a new GM.
If Francis didn't resign why is he still not on the board?
Posts: 4,533
Threads: 241
Joined: Jan 2006
quote:
Originally posted by janet...
Second, who would "educate" Board members (or the general membership) on the Bylaws? Would not that person (those people) just be conveying his/her (their) interpretation?
Non profit board training -
http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/...ffers.html
Although this one was in Oct, they may have others for next year.
Posts: 1,265
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2014
There's a board meeting this Wednesday...maybe the issue about Francis's non resignation will get straightened out then???
The ByLaw Committee has several members who are working on tweaking areas that are problematic in interpretation. To include inserting items for preventative and proactive measures as well. It consists of current board members (one is brand new on the board), former board members (one of them resigned a couple months ago) as well as 3 lot owners who've been association volunteers; 7 in all. A variable mix of individuals and welcomed perspectives whose goal is to work on these problematic areas for the good of all members. They know their work is important and has to stand the test of time as best as can be accomplished for hopefully another several years. Members' ideas and concerns are also welcomed.
I think a professional group as was brought up by kapohocat, would be the way to go in training our board members every year. That might resolve the issue of getting too many interpretations.
Posts: 218
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2005
Thank you, KCat. That would be exceeding helpful to the HPPOA - and associations of other subdivisions. An "outside", impartial interpretation.
A requirement for all Board members to undergo such training would have to be put in the Bylaws and/or included in the Oath of Office. It would need "enforcement", such as "refusal to undergo the training would mean automatic immediate removal from the Board".
The same enforcement should be added for not abiding by the Bylaws. By now, it is painfully obvious what happens when the Bylaws are ignored.
Posts: 703
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2013
posted by Kapohocat.....
Non profit board training -
http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/...ffers.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mahalo Kapohocat, HANO is one of 2 organizations we have personally used . Both have been suggested to the current Board.
We have found HANO and FRED PRYOR to be extremely beneficial in assisting us in understanding Corp. management . Seminars and assistance are provided on a continuous basis.
appreciate the current direction of this thread.
Posts: 1,265
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2014
Originally posted by janet:
A requirement for all Board members to undergo such training would have to be put in the Bylaws and/or included in the Oath of Office. It would need "enforcement", such as "refusal to undergo the training would mean automatic immediate removal from the Board".
The same enforcement should be added for not abiding by the Bylaws. By now, it is painfully obvious what happens when the Bylaws are ignored.
_____________________
It appears that most of us agree that mandatory yearly bylaw education for board members is key. With a bylaw committee active again, it's certainly possible to add it to our bylaws. Taking note as Janet suggested in making board members accountable if any of them refuse to go through the process. But here again, we have the issue of enforcement.
Per our 2014 Conduct Policy, attachment D, "As a Board Member, more is expected of those in leadership roles. Signing this statement solidifies your commitment to ethical Board service and appropriate conduct. As a Member of the Board of Directors of HPPOA, I will..." (Here are a couple quotes that are applicable to our discussions on this thread) "Never exercise authority as a Board Member except when acting in a meeting with the full Board or as I am delegated by the Board" and "I am aware that failure to observe the HPPOA Bylaws or failure to maintain the rules governing Board operation may result in reprimand and possible removal". Under Attachment C "Glossary of Terms, C. Gross misconduct-....significant levels of insubordination. Repeatedly and knowingly violating Board and HPPOA Bylaws..."
This could be a viable venue where lot owners could address broken bylaws by board members but there's no discussion on how to enforce this policy towards a board member. Perhaps just as the board acts uniformly to reprimand a lot owner using this Conduct Policy, several lot owners could initiate a reprimand towards a board member. ??? The conduct policy was recently used by the board to bar a lot owner from membership attendance at any HPPOA function for 1 year after the police had to remove him from a meeting. So why can't the membership also utilize the Conduct Policy as needed? After two reprimands towards a particular board member/s, a request for resignation would be made. If they refused, then what? Arbitration?
Currently what usually happens is a few voices out of thousands confronts the board face to face only to be glared at and perhaps targeted hoping you'll go away never to return. Then they continue on with business as usual. A frustrating vicious cycle that has no resolution.
Because there's nothing in place to hold anyone accountable is why I believe board members continually and arrogantly break bylaws knowing most members won't take the time to follow through with a labor intensive and expensive recall process.
Which brings me back to asking, how can we enforce our bylaws? Now's the time to try and come up with something while there's a bylaw committee actively working. OR would utilizing this Conduct Policy work if it was amended to add how members would enforce the policy? Please remember that this policy exists and was passed by the previous board January 2014. It seems that any board members on a whim can get rid of any policy behind closed doors if they don't like it. No matter the hard work people put into writing the policy and prior board's approval after.
