OrchidLand going into receivership

[Orchidlandowner]

I was talking to a colleague who told me orchid land was getting sued to go into receivership . Has anyone else heard this and how much will that make the road fees Increase ? I hope it's not too much or I will have to start eating fried Coquis

[Chunkster]

Your fees might actually go down with court-appointed competent management. If only someone would do this for HPP!

[Obie]

General Announcement

On September 29, 2015 an OLCA Community petition was received and posted for all Board members to review. A Special Membership meeting has been scheduled for Sunday, November 1, 2015 at Ainaloa Longhouse at 2:30pm (check-in begins at 2pm) to address the issues presented in the petition:

PETITION TO REMOVE TWO OLCA BOARD MEMBERS & VOTE AGAINST RECEIVERSHIP

This petition is for the purpose of calling a Special Membership
meeting to remove Peter Houle and Barbara Arthurs from the current
OLCA Board of Directors, for the following reasons:

1. They have engaged in conduct intending to damage the Orchidland
Community Association (OLCA) by initiating a lawsuit against former
and present board members as well as the OLCA.
2. The Orchidland Voice, a dissident organization whose officers
include Peter Houle and Barbara Arthurs, filed this lawsuit. They have
a blatant conflict of interest by simultaneously holding office in
both organizations.
3. They have initiated a lawsuit against the Orchidland Community
Association, which will cost the Community $25,000 in defense costs.
4. In their lawsuit they are threatening to force OLCA into Receivership.

This petition also demands that OLCA NOT move into Receivership for
the following reasons:

1. Orchidland would lose all current protections that keep our
Community unique.
2. Outside forces will dictate how much money will be collected from
each landowner. Could be more than ten times present rates.
3. Owners would have no control on how the collected money is spent.
—————-

[Jeffhale]

While I have no involvement in this, boy that's one H of a conflict of interest. Controlling officers descending on the corp and forcing bankruptcy? Sound like they were not able to impose conditions on current owners so they plotted to endure it into their debt. And what debt might that be? not paying officers? What? Loans to the corp. which they couldn't resolve? Smells berry, berry fishy, boarding criminal.

This is gonna be interesting, and who's going to collect the $25k for the defense? presumably, joker 1 and joker 2? LOL

Of course I have no rhyme or reason to point fingers at them, but, I am going to anxiously await disclosure cause, crime, manipulation, and deception is inside this whole thing somewhere, one or the other (landowners) has fouled. And most importantly, I can't imagine how, land owners purposely fouled "Joker 1 and Joker 2" Or how in the H did they wittingly or il witted, manage to get indebeted to em?

I've always been one who can't stand the delusional conspiracy theories, but, this case, has me leaning. LOL

[Orchidlandowner]

I have seen many improvements on the road's sense the new board took over why would someone want to sue them for that ? I guess I will have to make sure my road maintenance fees are paid so I can vote at that meeting . Guess I'll be eating Coqui frog's tonight .

Kw

[KeaauRich]

Once again this Board demonstrates why receivership is the only logical solution. Houle and Arthurs were voted into office by a vote of the entire membership, but members of the Board are setting the stage for a small gang of their cronies (using questionable proxies) to override the will of the membership (since only a small number of members constitutes a quorum for a meeting -- less than 20 as I recall). I'd check the Bylaws to give a more definitive assessment of the situation, but they have apparently been removed from the Orchidland website. a mere coincidence, I'm sure...

Arthurs and Houle took an oath to serve the community, and in their opinion receivership is the appropriate action to serve the community. Anyone is free to disagree with that opinion, but forcing opposing viewpoints off the Board is not the way to encourage active discussion.

Edit: The Bylaws link on the website doesn't work, but if you know where to look and drill down further, a copy of the Bylaws is available. A meeting quorum is 15 members and 4 directors, and a vote to remove a director only requires a majority of the quorum - so 10 special meeting votes could override the opinion of hundreds of members.

[Jeffhale]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeaauRich

I'd check the Bylaws to give a more definitive assessment of the situation, but they have apparently been removed from the Orchidland website. a mere coincidence, I'm sure...

---

Tip 1.: In crime, there are no coincidences.

[Chunkster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pahoated

Court appointed receivership doesn't mean it is done as some community volunteer effort. People are going to want to be paid, and some are going to be looking for ways to drain the treasury and skip.

---

Receivership means court appointed professional management under court supervision. No one looking to drain the treasury for personal gain wants a judge looking over their shoulder. The past era of receivership in HPP is now looked back on as a golden age of reason.

[Orchidlandowner]

So Chunkster how much did the road fees increase when HPP went into receivership ?

[kalakoa]

Receivership means court appointed professional management under court supervision.

Professional management ... supervised ... what could possibly go wrong?