You're Fired!

[Katarina]

I am pleased that my identity has remained unknown because of the nasty likes of people like Mermaid. She can dish out the nasty comments eh? To bad for you Mermaid. You are wrong again. And again a confirmed liar which makes anything you say non legit.As I said before, some horses can not be to high.

[mermaid53]

quote:

---

Originally posted by caveat emptor

Ok! Because VP Jo was at a meeting this afternoon acting in her roll as the VP.
Ummmm!

---

That is very interesting indeed. Did she say she was the VP? This can't be changed until a meeting occurs to vote her back. The motion was carried by a majority board vote to oust her as VP. Again, there's also the issue that Craig may have been voted in her place as VP. If so, they'd have to bump him off first to put her back. This also means she shouldn't be signing any checks until this is remedied at a meeting.

[janet]

Posted by Mermaid53:
"The friends of HPP facebook lady announced she was called in for a deposition 1-2 days after the board meeting."

Would you know to what legal action this deposition is related?

Without identification of "the lady" - which I understand you may be reluctant to disclose - I cannot see how it could be related to the lawsuit by the terminated employees.

If not related to the TEs, what other lawsuit is the Board facing?

[hppwatchdog]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karma96749

To those of you who are concerned about Jamie and issues hppwatchdog posted here about Jamie:
Please check out these allegations directly with Jamie.
I will not post about employees issues, but strongly suggest verifying if any of these allegations are the truth.
Get your info directly from the source. The answers are short and simple.

Karma

---

I was over Jamie's house today, he resigned last Friday because of the pay issue. Now it's off to the Labor Board.

[mermaid53]

The Friends of Facebook lady has been coming to all the board and gen'l membership mtgs since October I believe. She speaks during owner input most of the time, is very visible and is open about running this facebook page. The deposition has nothing to do w/the terminated employees. It "may" have something to do with what was said at the last board mtg bc of the timing of her deposition chatter.

I didn't hear anything that would be worthy of a "deposition" IMHO. What the facebook lady heard that was different than I...????

[Orchidlandguy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mermaid53

quote:

---

Originally posted by caveat emptor

Ok! Because VP Jo was at a meeting this afternoon acting in her roll as the VP.
Ummmm!

---

That is very interesting indeed. Did she say she was the VP? This can't be changed until a meeting occurs to vote her back. The motion was carried by a majority board vote to oust her as VP. Again, there's also the issue that Craig may have been voted in her place as VP. If so, they'd have to bump him off first to put her back. This also means she shouldn't be signing any checks until this is remedied at a meeting.

---

This sure did not happen in a Board meeting. This must be information that you are sharing from executive meeting?
The VP information you are posting is not on the HPPOA website.
Are you privy to executive board meetings?
Is this a leak from executive sessions?

[caveat emptor]

If, what Mermaid has posted is correct, that the BOD voted to replace Jo as the VP and replace her with Craig, then it had to have happened at Executive Session after the last BOD meeting this month. It appears to me, after reviewing the Bylaws in "Article IX - Officers", that there is no authority to make a vote to either oust or install an officer (other than an officer resigning and needing to be replaced) at any Executive Session other than at the meeting where officers are originally elected by Board Directors at the June meeting. I couldn't find any other Bylaw that allows such an action, maybe there is but I didn't see it.
After what we saw and heard from BJ at the last BOD meeting and considering that 4 Directors were absent, including Jo, I bet (assuming that there was a vote) that the vote was at BJ's insistence. And, if what I think what the Bylaws have to say on that matter is correct, then we have another example of a rogue and lawless BOD President.
Maybe someone else knows how the removal, if possible, is supposed to be handled according to the Bylaws.

[shockwave rider]

The only people who know what happens in executive sessions are the board members, and they aren't supposed to talk about it with anyone. It is very disturbing if what was said or done in executive sessions is being gossiped about; the minutes for executive sessions should show when the board went into and out of the executive session, motions made, votes taken, and motions passes, but nothing else, and no one on the board should be talking about it. I've been on boards where we didn't even allow board members to take personal notes during executive sessions. Every board I have served on it was grounds for removal to discuss what was said in executive sessions.

[hppwatchdog]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orchidlandguy

quote:

---

Originally posted by mermaid53

quote:

---

Originally posted by caveat emptor

Ok! Because VP Jo was at a meeting this afternoon acting in her roll as the VP.
Ummmm!

---

That is very interesting indeed. Did she say she was the VP? This can't be changed until a meeting occurs to vote her back. The motion was carried by a majority board vote to oust her as VP. Again, there's also the issue that Craig may have been voted in her place as VP. If so, they'd have to bump him off first to put her back. This also means she shouldn't be signing any checks until this is remedied at a meeting.

---

This sure did not happen in a Board meeting. This must be information that you are sharing from executive meeting?
The VP information you are posting is not on the HPPOA website.
Are you privy to executive board meetings?
Is this a leak from executive sessions?

---

This type of business is restricted from ES and must be held in an open regular board meeting. If it was not held at a board meeting then it was done in private again, 9 months later.

[janet]

Posted by Mermaid 53:
"The Friends of Facebook lady has been coming to all the board and gen'l membership mtgs since October I believe... The deposition has nothing to do w/the terminated employees. It "may" have something to do with what was said at the last board mtg bc of the timing of her deposition chatter."

I am now seriously confused. A deposition is part of a legal process:
It is the out-of-court oral testimony of a witness that is reduced to writing for later use in court or for discovery purposes. To ensure an accurate record of statements made during a deposition, a court reporter is present and transcribes the deposition. Prior to taking a deposition, the court reporter administers the same oath or affirmation that the deponent would take if the testimony were being given in court in front of a judge and jury.

Depositions - including lawyers' and the court reporter's fees - are very expensive.

Perhaps someone in this situation is misusing the word "deposition". If not, I repeat my question, what other lawsuit is the Board involved in. And, if there is another lawsuit, I'll add the question - Why hasn't the membership been informed?