Posts: 2,151
Threads: 73
Joined: Mar 2007
quote:
Originally posted by shockwave rider
Executive sessions are only allowed for very limited reasons, usually personnel issues which would be a violation of the employee's privacy to discuss in open meetings, or sometimes when discussing bids for contracts if proprietary information is involved.
Consultations with legal counsel are also a legitimate reason for exec session, IIRC. They've needed a lot of that lately. Regardless of which allowable subject matter was discussed, they have to disclose it and any outcome that does not violate employee confidentiality or client-attorney privilege.
Posts: 1,406
Threads: 25
Joined: Jun 2013
" Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this District, a new Subdivision, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that Subdivision, or any Subdivision so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."
-Abraham snorkle
Posts: 173
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2014
quote:
Originally posted by shockwave rider
That is standard procedure for executive sessions, the board has to convene an open meeting to then have a motion and second to go into executive session, then reconvene afterwards. Usually the minutes show when the board goes into and comes out of executive session and what motions were made and carried, but not the discussions that took place. If the HPPOA is hiring a new GM this would be the proper way to do it. If they hire one of their own for that position any qualified person who was not hired could have a case that the process was not fair, and that the person hired had access to insider information not available to all the candidates, especially if that person had been involved with either the hiring committee or drawing up the job description.
Executive sessions are only allowed for very limited reasons, usually personnel issues which would be a violation of the employee's privacy to discuss in open meetings, or sometimes when discussing bids for contracts if proprietary information is involved. This is why various board members getting up there at the general membership meeting and detailing their version of why people were fired put the entire organization at risk of a lawsuit. You can fire people for just about any reason, or no reason, in Hawaii, but you still have to obey the law on employee confidentiality and due process, or be liable for damages.
And all that defamation has been recorded on video and noted. It will be used in the plaintiffs case against the Association (for letting it happen) and each defendant for violating an employees right to confidentiality. I'm told by one of the terminated employees that the treasurer has the most accounts against them, she was way out of line.
Posts: 173
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2014
quote:
Originally posted by mermaid53
Katarina, please read my post again. I did not put words in your mouth. Your posts are also difficult to read and long winded BTW.
Yes Janet the meeting was held.
The Special Mtg in September was a travesty. Neighbor turned against neighbor. Half the membership left early because it was so negative and volatile. It pushed members away who washed their hands of it all and won't be back to another meeting. How can this be considered a good thing??? In hind sight June admitted it seemed like a good idea at the time.
I understand the concerns with our monies. HPP's fortunate to have a volunteer Treasurer who is trustworthy and has extensive acctg experience. Ask anyone who has worked with her on the board or on a committee. She has welcomed those with knowledge and experience and shows a willingness to learn from them. She didn't want June or Bruce to resign and valued their experience. I believe she's not "in the loop" always with board goings on because of this. Same o same o.
Oh, she's in the loop she is one of them and always was!
I guess you just don't get it! There has to be a check and balance in ALL cases of accounting for a company. The employee (bookkeeper) provides the months accounting and the treasurer reviews the process. It would be Susan's job to provide the months end accounting and turn it over to the treasurer for review. I'm told that Susan is not capable to do the bookkeeping that's why the treasurer is doing it. What does Susan do? Not accounts payable, accounts payable or answer the phone, and then she states that the salary the previous BOOKKEEPER was making too much and that she will take less then Cathy was making because the job doesn't require that high of salary. She should, she is only doing 25% of what Cathy did!
I agree that this board has been managing HPP on their own way too long. I don't understand why it's taking more than 6 mos to fill the majority of those vacant positions. I think the bylaws need to be changed that interim anything should be less than 6 mos. Now that we've lived it, we know it doesn't work.
Who in their right mind would run for the board and put themselves in harms way of a law suit. This case is just starting with subpoenas for many documents and then comes the depositions. Just think you could be commenting at a future meeting and become the next John or Jane Doe! Good Luck!
If you read our bylaws, it states that what's been discussed in executive session should [Not should but would be reported in the minutes, there is NO option here] be reported later at a board meeting. Hiring, firing, salary changes, BUT no details if it's personal info. Not all our board minutes states when an executive session has taken place. I agree with the discussion about the GM situation and conflict of interest on the HRC. I've put myself out there for the HRC to fix this matter to no avail.
Stand up at the next meeting when they request to approve the agenda and tell them to add the release of the actions taken at the 2 executive sessions in December 2014 and January 2015 this information is due to all owners!
Posts: 1,265
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2014
[quote]Originally posted by hppwatchdog:
Oh, she's in the loop she is one of them and always was!
You are incorrect on this one. And she's not the only one who's being left out of the loop.
Perhaps there were reasons the TE's needed to go. It was the lack of proper process but there were many members relieved the TE's were gone, they still are and they don't want them coming back. I don't know why you speak as if the TE's have the upper hand. Who knows how this will turn out so don't rush to judgement.
The treasurer happened to be the spokesperson at those meetings bc the Pres can't handle, the VP is very quiet and/or was absent at one of those big meetings, and unfortunately bc of this, she has the most defamation charges. I don't see how that can stick legally when she was speaking for the whole board. "You're not supposed to kill the messenger."
Stand up at the next meeting when they request to approve the agenda and tell them to add the release of the actions taken at the 2 executive sessions in December 2014 and January 2015 this information is due to all owners!
Why don't you stand up at the next meeting? Someone's got to do it. I've done my share of standing up during owner input at many a meeting. It's time for others to come forward and speak up. You can do it watchdog!
Posts: 173
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2014
quote:
Originally posted by mermaid53
[quote]Originally posted by hppwatchdog:
Oh, she's in the loop she is one of them and always was!
You are incorrect on this one. And she's not the only one who's being left out of the loop.
Perhaps there were reasons the TE's needed to go. It was the lack of proper process but there were many members relieved the TE's were gone, they still are and they don't want them coming back. I don't know why you speak as if the TE's have the upper hand. Who knows how this will turn out so don't rush to judgement.
The treasurer happened to be the spokesperson at those meetings bc the Pres can't handle, the VP is very quiet and/or was absent at one of those big meetings, and unfortunately bc of this, she has the most defamation charges. I don't see how that can stick legally when she was speaking for the whole board. "You're not supposed to kill the messenger."
It's not the messenger it's the message. Employers are held under strict confidentiality laws both State and Federal. The laws were created to protect the RIGHTS of the employees. Even if the allegations she made are true, as an employer they are forbidden to discuss any particular situation that took place while the employees were employed by the Association.
Only after the case is adjudicated can certain discussions be made public.
As to the outcome of the suit, I've been privileged to see the video's from the two meetings and let me tell you Janice went way over the top.
Stand up at the next meeting when they request to approve the agenda and tell them to add the release of the actions taken at the 2 executive sessions in December 2014 and January 2015 this information is due to all owners!
Why don't you stand up at the next meeting? Someone's got to do it. I've done my share of standing up during owner input at many a meeting. It's time for others to come forward and speak up. You can do it watchdog!
I've tried before at a couple of meetings and they won't listen to me.
Posts: 218
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2005
hppwatchdog
"It's not the messenger it's the message. Employers are held under strict confidentiality laws both State and Federal."
hppwatchdog is only half right. It most definitely is the messenger. Because of those strict State and Federal laws enjoining employers to keep personnel matters confidential, any employer who states in public what Janice Ashford stated at the July 28 meeting is up to his/her neck in excrement.
mermaid 53
"The treasurer happened to be the spokesperson at those meetings ... I don't see how that can stick legally when she was speaking for the whole board. "You're not supposed to kill the messenger."
When "the message" is not allowed by law to be made public, any person doing so is guilty of contravening the laws, whether or not s/he is speaking "for the whole Board". Period. Was a gun held to her head?
And ignorance of the law is no excuse. Just as we all agree that the original Board members should have been familiar with the Bylaws before they swore an oath and signed a contract to uphold them, as employers they should have researched the laws that would govern them. Would any right-minded person undertake such obligations without knowing the ground rules?
Based on this example, I seriously doubt Ms. Ashford's qualifications and judgment to act as Treasurer - especially now, when there are no checks and balances. Even a simple error, not caught by someone else's oversight could plunge the Association into deep trouble.
Posts: 1,265
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2014
Enough on the lawsuit...how about focusing on HPP's operations? We know who's been fired, how about who's been hired? HPPWatchdog, nothing different in board's hoping you'll go away when pointed questions are asked. Same o same o. Don't give up. We have a lack of transparency AGAIN w/this board.
Who's the new GM? How many road crew do WE employ and who are the new hires? Who's the new Road Crew Supv? What are the new ofc position titles, their descrips and who are they? What kinds of road equipment have WE purchased? When's the district rep email adrs's going to get straightened out so we can email our district rep?
What quarry are we dealing with? Hopefully not the quarry who gave us sub base coarse on many occasions during the last board's tenure, instead of bonafide road material. How many times did we hear the last mgmt say they were trying to save us $ while crap was being laid down? Instead our $ was being wasted bc the sub base coarse turned into blue rock and cinder dust. Did we get what WE paid for? Those decisions are still affecting us today w/what was laid down.
This was the biggest gripe amongst lot owners during the previous mgmt's tenure and didn't get resolved for unknown reasons. Solutions that were researched for some reason were disregarded by the mgmt. As one upset lot owner stated so well, "how long does it take to figure out what the best road material is?" Keeping the DOH at bay, the previous mgmt decided an expensive remedy, using our money, watering our roads in the heat of the day, evaporating in minutes. We don't want a repeat of poor and expensive mgmt decisions. Has anyone on this board figured out the best material and quarry yet? Where are we at w/all that? Has anyone heard anything about this?
Is this board going to pursue the contractor who didn't finish the clearing and grubbing job? After all was said and done at approx $186,000.00 of our money, it was approx $30,000.00 over the 2nd contractor's bid. The intention of going cheap was a poor decision. We don't even know how much more of our monies it cost us on top of that in man hours, fuel costs, wear and tear on our road equipment, dump runs while our employees attempted to finish sorting the green waste accumulated which was the contractor's job. Too enormous a job for our crew, a hauler hauled it away for approx $67,000, w/out full board vote at a board mtg. We have until June 2015 to take care of this unfinished business.
Why was our asphalt cracking shortly after it had been laid? Why was this good contractor laying asphalt down in the pouring rain w/out compaction, per a lot owner witness, a prof'l road man who was home bc of the rain. Is it bc we weren't that contractor's first order of business? Why? Were we being fit into their rainy day schedule? Why? We hired and paid an engineer to oversee both projects in the last phase of paving. Did he do his job? I know the lava's coming which takes precedence, but let's not forget that there's still unfinished business involving lots of our money during the last phase of paving project. Since the previous mgmt didn't fix this, unfortunately it's up to our current mgmt to attempt getting our money's worth.
Posts: 218
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2005
All good questions, which deserve clears, honest responses. However, based on this Board's track record, I fear there won't be any forthcoming. Their statements to date indicate that they are convinced they know what they are doing and they do not have to answer to mere members.
If you will re-read my post (above yours), you will see that I did NOT mention the lawsuit. I spoke about Board members breaking State and Federal laws. Those actions are for the Prosecutor's office to take up, not the attorney for the plaintiffs.
If the Board members cannot abide by the laws affecting employers, how can they possibly oversee the current or future staff? And what caliber of employee would want to work for them?
And they will need that staff to research the contracts to which you refer, so that the Board can rectify the situations vis-à-vis the contractors.
And if the Board cannot abide by the laws for employers, what others will they violate? Let us pray not the ones related to fiscal responsibility.
You may get your answers about the staffing soon. The Board is holding its first valid meeting in more than three months to consider "personnel matters". As we are two weeks short of six months from the terminations of the previous staff, it's about time.
Posts: 299
Threads: 13
Joined: Jan 2008
Over a week ago I called the office to request that they grade out/fill some ever growing potholes at the end of our street, as had been done in past years prior to the winter rains. Nobody answered the telephone so I left a clear message on their machine with my contact info and requested some service for the hundreds of dollars a year I pay to have our roads maintained. To date nobody has returned my call, nor have they done any work that I can see. Why am I paying hundreds of dollars a year to some clown show that seems incapable of doing its primary job....maintaining our roads?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as rewriting the bylaws in the future: The biggest change I see necessary is to make it easier to remove board people who are not serving their constituency. Currently, a recall election of useless board members requires:
"(a) A recall election for a director may be called by two-thirds majority of the board, or by a petition of not fewer than 200 signatures of members from the director's District." (Page 9, section 7 Removal, from HPPOA bylaws)
Some of our districts probably have fewer than 200 voters, and I would suggest that the process be changed to a percentage of actual votes from within each district the prior election. (Say 10% for example, so if only 120 people voted in a district then it would require 12 signatures to initiate a recall election, and I would also suggest that the recall vote be determined by a simple majority, not a 2/3 vote, since they got into office and started abusing their duties on a simple majority.
|
