Posts: 299
Threads: 13
Joined: Jan 2008
Posted by HPPwatchdog:
"Both the HR Handbook and Conduct Policy are confidential and if your not a member of the HR Committee or a director you are not privileged to this information. Sorry."
Why is this? Secret society?
How about?
All pigs are equal,
but some pigs are more equal than other pigs.
Want good ideas? Here is one starting point:
Board shall not vote to modify the bylaws at all during their standing term except to make advisory vote to be voted on by all members of HOPPOA who shall ratify or deny all changes by majority vote on a case by case basis with all exact language to be voted on available to any and all members at least one month prior to general membership meeting.
Posts: 1,265
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2014
The conduct policy discusses rules of conduct for board members, staff and members. Because of the issues these 3 groups were having interacting with each other, a talented writer who was a board member at the time, wrote this policy up which was board approved.
Based on the contents, I believe there's nothing that would be considered for board members or HR members eyes only. If the board is using this policy to reprimand owners, then members should be able to have access to it.
i.e., Attachment F "Rules of Conduct for Members in HPPOA Interactions", covers expected behavior at meetings and interactions with employees. "Members who are dissatisfied w/interactions w/Staff can contact the GM or District Board Representative......". Sounds to me like this policy should be accessible to lot owners.
I agree that I should clarify that "some" lot owners behavior was disrespectful, aggressive etc. towards the board members. I've seen bad behavior at previous meetings but not as extreme as "some" of these people towards this board. I'll reiterate that no volunteer deserves that kind of bashing.
Last year our road shoulders looked exactly the same as it does now. I have pictures to prove it...only difference is that the tall grass was brown from all the massive spraying that was going on all over the park. Dead tall grass looks way worse than green tall grass. Not to mention the expense of all the round up and the potential fire hazard. I would've liked to have seen how much the round up cost us last year. The grass is taking over the asphalt again and narrowing the lanes.
Some roads have bushes or low hanging trees in the road knocking the tops or sides of taller vehicles. The growth is over 6 mos old. The signs that go down aren't necessarily maliciously pushed over. All it takes is a wide, turning vehicle to knock over a sign that is installed too close to the road's edge and corner. Especially if it wasn't installed deep enough into the ground. There are signs all over the park w/posts that are wobbly from poor installation. Hence, the policy to install signs to county specs that wasn't/isn't popular with the working staff.
Going to be using the new railroad highway through the park from Nanawale starting next week. Wondering what is the best, easiest, or fastest road to take back up to the highway and make a right towards Walmart, especially during mornings?. Also which street has the general store? Hope the coffee is hot and they add another brewing pot next week. Maybe a subdivision general roads repair donation box could be at this possibly expanding general store. Just trying to gain a bit of understanding about this alternate driving experience to begin soon.
Posts: 128
Threads: 35
Joined: Apr 2012
Gypsy,
There will be a temporary-type traffic light at RR & Maku'u. Just turn left on Maku'u and go straight on to the highway.
1 island 2 another
Posts: 1,219
Threads: 52
Joined: Dec 2014
What general store?
Please do not cut across the subdivision after reaching Maku'u, the county is only taking care of Maku'u and Railroad getting beat up by extra commuters, not the cross streets, and the people who live on those streets really don't need all that extra traffic.
Posts: 14,115
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
The conduct policy discusses rules of conduct for board members, staff and members.
Landowners who pay the dues to fund the creation of said policy "should" have every right to read and understand that policy.
Unless the HPP board is taking a few pages from the "secret surveillance" handbook used by our elected officials... what a lovely precedent.
Just, wow.
Posts: 173
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2014
quote:
Originally posted by mermaid53
The conduct policy discusses rules of conduct for board members, staff and members. Because of the issues these 3 groups were having interacting with each other, a talented writer who was a board member at the time, wrote this policy up which was board approved.
Based on the contents, I believe there's nothing that would be considered for board members or HR members eyes only. If the board is using this policy to reprimand owners, then members should be able to have access to it.
i.e., Attachment F "Rules of Conduct for Members in HPPOA Interactions", covers expected behavior at meetings and interactions with employees. "Members who are dissatisfied w/interactions w/Staff can contact the GM or District Board Representative......". Sounds to me like this policy should be accessible to lot owners.
I agree that I should clarify that "some" lot owners behavior was disrespectful, aggressive etc. towards the board members. I've seen bad behavior at previous meetings but not as extreme as "some" of these people towards this board. I'll reiterate that no volunteer deserves that kind of bashing.
Last year our road shoulders looked exactly the same as it does now. I have pictures to prove it...only difference is that the tall grass was brown from all the massive spraying that was going on all over the park. Dead tall grass looks way worse than green tall grass. Not to mention the expense of all the round up and the potential fire hazard. I would've liked to have seen how much the round up cost us last year. The grass is taking over the asphalt again and narrowing the lanes.
All you have to do is look at the budget from June 2014 it is clear what was spent you can still see it. Then, look at 2010-2013 and compare the cost, you will see that all the years are inline with each other except 2013 where there is a major deduction in the budget for that item.
Some roads have bushes or low hanging trees in the road knocking the tops or sides of taller vehicles. The growth is over 6 mos old. The signs that go down aren't necessarily maliciously pushed over. All it takes is a wide, turning vehicle to knock over a sign that is installed too close to the road's edge and corner. Especially if it wasn't installed deep enough into the ground. There are signs all over the park w/posts that are wobbly from poor installation. Hence, the policy to install signs to county specs that wasn't/isn't popular with the working staff.
Posts: 143
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2014
I am posting to this web site to post the Reprimand letter sent to John Hanor by the Board of Director’s to demonstrate a couple of things. In my opinion, the reprimand was in retaliation by the BOD for nothing more than expressing his opinion about the lawsuit that this BOD has involved the HPP Association in. You may have read here previously one of the claims posted by Mermaid53 as to why Mr. Hanor was escorted out of the meeting by the police? She said “for reading the lawsuit”. He was not reading the lawsuit; he was reading his statement pertaining to it. You can see on ponohpp.com’s web site that the lawsuit is too long for someone to actually read in 3 minutes.
Here are the reasons the BOD’s actions were in retaliation and certainly, broke our Bylaws. You decide!
1. The reprimand is labeled “Attachment G”. Attachment G doesn’t (legally) exist as an approved attachment from the “Official” HPPOA Conduct Policy that was Board approved Jan. 19, 2014. Normal Boards do not create new Association policy in secret and use it to punish members that they do not like. Why secret? Because, Association policy has to be carried out and voted on in open BOD meetings. What other way could they do it? Was this attachment created in the open?
2. Attachment G is actually copied from Attachment B in the Conduct Policy. “B” is to be used by the BOD as a reprimand form for another Director’s misbehavior. “B” was not written for use against members.
3. The reprimand form to Mr. Hanor under the “X Willful misconduct” line says “Disruptive behavior at the General Meeting,…”. It’s true that Mr. Hanor continued to read his statement after the 3 minute time limit had expired. Guilty! Then the form says “… requiring removal by a police officer”. The Officer was told to remove Mr. Hanor not because the Officer “had to”. Mr. Hanor was already walking to his seat (still reading) when the Officer was dispatched to escort Mr. Hanor out. It appeared to me that Mr. Hanor was on his way to sit down and be peaceable, it wasn’t necessary for him to be removed. First of all Attachment “F” Rules of Conduct for Members in HPPOA Interactions states that the Presiding officer of the meeting (BJ Mullenix) is required to issue a “call to order”, this is from Roberts Rules. This “call to order” is a necessary step to run meetings according to Roberts Rules. Did she say this? No, and if she did who could have heard it with the Director from District 8, Roseanne McLean, constantly pressing the timer beeper and yelling for him to sit down (and others in the audience)?
4. Attachment “F” then says, “IF the offending member continues the disruptive behavior, the residing officer will ask the person to leave the meeting”. It was evident when Mr. Hanor left the microphone and was walking back to his chair that he intended to “behave”. He was not given the chance, in other words no second chance as implied by the Policy, but instead he was escorted out of the meeting before he could demonstrate that he would be quite. Question, how many of you have witnessed and even been partakers of the type of behavior that Mr. Hanor displayed? How many of you have gone beyond your 3 minute allotted time? How many of you and how often has such a drastic action taken place by a previous Board to punish the 3 minute time offender? How about zero times? How many people have been allowed to stand up there and talk longer than the 3 minutes without any repercussions? How many times at this very meeting did people break the 3 minutes. One member actually got up and spoke 2 times.
5. You will also notice in the reprimand the partial quote under “HPPOA’s Conduct Policy, s…” where the author of the letter, BJ Mullenix, continues the quote with this, “item A also states “Responses are to be limited to 5 minutes...” Wait a minute! Why did Ms. Mullenix quote a statement from Attachment F having to do with a 5 minute time limit for “open discussion”? It has nothing to do with the 3 minute time for “owner input”. So, either Ms. Mullenix doesn’t understand the policy or Mr. Hanor was rudely and wrongly interrupted before his time was up and “illegally” escorted out.
What is the lesson here for members? Don’t dare go over the 3 minutes during your owner input unless, of course, you are a FOB (Friend of the Board). I will also try to post this on ponohpp.com to get Mr. Hanor's reprimand posted so that you can read it yourself.
I would suggest to Mr. Hanor that he follow the Bylaws and demand arbitration according to Article XV - Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Posts: 1,265
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2014
[quote]Originally posted by caveat emptor
I am posting to this web site to post the Reprimand letter sent to John Hanor by the Board of Director’s to demonstrate a couple of things. In my opinion, the reprimand was in retaliation by the BOD for nothing more than expressing his opinion about the lawsuit that this BOD has involved the HPP Association in. You may have read here previously one of the claims posted by Mermaid53 as to why Mr. Hanor was escorted out of the meeting by the police? She said “for reading the lawsuit”. He was not reading the lawsuit; he was reading his statement pertaining to it. You can see on ponohpp.com’s web site that the lawsuit is too long for someone to actually read in 3 minutes.
___________________
I hadn't read the lawsuit myself yet and John Hanor had just recently advertised on PunaTalk that he had taken an ad out in the Tribune discussing the lawsuit. He was reading material that was quite lengthy and went well beyond the 3 minutes, as he was reminded several times that his 3 minutes was up. I wrongly made the assumption it was the lawsuit he was quoting.
Posts: 218
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2005
This is truly disturbing.
A member has been "disciplined" based on a policy to which only a select few have access. This is the most clear expression of this Board's intentions toward the Association to date. My disgust cannot be articulated in polite company.
What's next, secret police?
|
