Roads Are Easements Not Planned Communities Or HOAs

[Patricia]

This is total fiction and could be considered slander.

It is NOT fiction, the minutes are there in black and white.

In what way do you consider the truth slander?

---

Yet, Obie, being nasty, making fun, calling names, "joking" about mental health issues (which I am fortunate I do not have, BUT I am very empathetic with those who do) is totally acceptable and NOT banned on PW?

[TomK]

Substandard blah blah blah..

You know, at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if some caring individual suggested to the department of mental health a wellness check is in order..

You are suggesting people call and ask for armed police to visit and possibly enter someone's home for no reason. It could end up violently because whoever called started a chain of events where the police are nervous because they're being asked to go into a situation they know nothing about; the person in the house will certainly be surprised, and who knows what happens after that?

I suggest you Google "Janet/Lauren The Mortician lawsuit" to see what an idiotic and dangerous suggestion you've just made. I might disagree with Patricia, but there is no way I would ever call the police to visit someone's house because I don't like what they say. No caring individual would do that; only a particularly vindictive and stupid one would.

[HiloJulie]

You know, at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if some caring individual suggested to the department of mental health a wellness check is in order..

You are suggesting people call and ask for armed police to visit and possibly enter someone's home for no reason. It could end up violently because whoever called started a chain of events where the police are nervous because they're being asked to go into a situation they know nothing about; the person in the house will certainly be surprised, and who knows what happens after that?

I suggest you Google "Janet/Lauren The Mortician lawsuit" to see what an idiotic and dangerous suggestion you've just made. I might disagree with Patricia, but there is no way I would ever call the police to visit someone's house because I don't like what they say. No caring individual would do that; only a particularly vindictive and stupid one would.

You bring up a very valid point Tom. And in as much as I too may disagree with Patricia, what MyManao has suggested here can only be suggested by someone who is “a particularly vindictive and stupid one…”

Having said that, some of the more deviant proclivities displayed by MyManao are so predictable. A while back, on a thread where a fellow PunaWebber was asking for suggestions on a possible squatter situation and how to go about peacefully getting them to leave, well, I quote:

Any thoughts..

SWAT the place. Repeatedly.

Of course, my response to MyManao about that just lead to the typical sexually deviant mindset he so commonly loves to display against a woman.

You can read the whole thread here, if you want to vomit

[TomK]

In the last couple of years, I've had to deal with squatters and trespassers. I just ask the police to deal with them, and all I need to do is provide proof I'm the actual owner of the property. They deal with it; so far, no SWAT was sent in, and no guns were fired. Some ended up in jail, others didn't, but no neighbor had to watch an assault team move in.

As I'm sure you appreciate, if someone calls the police to make a wellness check on someone for no good reason, they might be charged with making a false report to law enforcement. It's a criminal act. I don't think posting

"I wouldn't be surprised if some caring individual suggested to the department of mental health a wellness check is in order"

would make a jot of difference; instead, I suspect other charges might be appropriate.

I'll read the link you posted later. I'm just so disgusted that someone here wants to shut down the ability for someone to post with the threat of someone sending the police to their house.

---

Can we temporarily close this thread—just for a few days—so people can reset? I think it's clear most people disagree with Patricia's views, and yes, she keeps digging a deeper hole for herself. But MyManao has taken things too far by suggesting to others the police become involved because of posts on PW (he will disagree with this, but we all know what he meant).  

I'd be OK with that if someone posted about their bank robbery on PW, for example, but posting your opinion here should not result in the police making a wellness check at your home.

[Patricia]

Can we temporarily close this thread—just for a few days—so people can reset? I think it's clear most people disagree with Patricia's views,

My father was a cop, a high ranking one.

I am not concerned about police being sent in and a SWAT team overrunning my family home. While I love Christmas Vacation as much as the next person, this is real life. So, I do not understand why some of you get so upset about MyManao. He is what he is.

As for "most" people disagreeing with my post, that has not been proven. All that has happened is that a half a dozen or slightly more regular PW posters have been loud, obnoxious, and not always nice- which seems to be the way of the world anymore, when people do not like what is being said. Still, this post has more than 12,000 views so...

What the HPPOA board is doing is wrong. And there are a lot of issues that need to be considered, discussed, and hopefully worked out for the better of ALL Substandard Subdivision owners in Puna, Hawaii. Empowering the behavior of MyManao and others who are being nasty, in closing down any discussion, would set bad precedent.

[TomK]

FFS, OK, you do what you think is best.

"Still, this post has more than 12,000 views so..."

That's it. It's views you're after, even if you don't know the difference between a post and a thread. You are one sad sack.

[Obie]

Here is a post from 2018 and it includes information from the membership meeting that leads to Patricia's accusations about the 2018 and 2023 boards.
I'm going to reply to all of Patricia's posts from now on a with previous post from Punaweb to prove to her that we have already discussed everything she has been posting.

mermaid53 Offline
Posting Freak
*****
Posts: 1,265
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2014
#89602-26-2018, 08:20 AM:

Originally posted by Eric1600
It was my first meeting, so I don't know what others are like. I thought the guy in the blue shirt with the big belly and the grey beard who shouted out "I have nothing to say" was the GM. But I don't know. There were no introductions made and it appeared like no district Representatives where there.
Eric1600 thanks for attending the meeting yesterday. It was a long meeting and I applaud all of you that stuck it out. In thanks to those that did, the Bylaw Committee got all the proposed bylaw amendments approved to go to ballot. The board and office staff are actively trying to shoot the whole shebang down. This is absolutely NO SURPRISE. We knew it'd be coming.

The GM was not at the meeting. The guy w/the navy blue shirt was the newly elected board president, who was board president before. Under his past "leadership": road material $ was diverted to chip seal; chip seal roads are failing; huge potholes became prevalent in HPP; he signed a document giving the GM absolute authority to hire/fire and sign contracts, all of which is the board's responsibilities. And it's his spouse that works in the HPP office. She was working at the meeting yesterday.

As for the sound system, the controls were in a locked room and the mixer was not functioning. The whole system wasn't set up properly and tested before the meeting.

The people who hung around for the Rooster portion of the agenda were VERY VERY VERY patient. Interestingly, because they were there, they learned about the dysfunction going on with the board and management that they had no clue about. They voted for a lot of the bylaw amendment proposals.

Most of the votes were yea in the 80-97 range, no's were in the under 15 range. Those numbers maintained throughout the whole Bylaw Committee presentation voting... those numbers were a FIRST for me in all the years I've been attending membership meetings. Some people left around 5 but amazingly most people hung in there.

Process of bylaw amendment proposals that will be a new or amended bylaw: At least 600 ballot votes returned w/an affirmative 2/3 (400), once counted by the League of Women Voters (it's in the approved motion), are automatically effective. The recall petition signature number for the process to remove one's director on the board are proposed to be changed from 200 to 100. This should help make it easier to get the process moving to remove your director. The proposed bylaw amendment for conflict of interest has more teeth in it w/clearer description and enforcement measures which is lacking currently. This will make it more difficult for anyone to skirt around defining what a conflict of interest is, or write illegal conflict of interest policies as they've done under Crelly's watch in 2016.

A new bylaw was created for forensic analysis to get the first one initiated and contracted w/in 90 days upon at least 600 ballot votes returned w/an affirmative 2/3 (400) If it becomes a new bylaw, then at any membership meeting in the future, the membership can vote for a forensic analysis when they feel they need one. The new bylaw also states the Finance Committee will have oversight of the whole process. The motion was tightly sewn to hopefully leave no wiggle room to do anything other than what the directives are in the motion in getting the forensic analysis started and completed. The forensic analyst will have freedom to go where the analysis takes her/him.

There was a proposal to approve the Bylaw Committee to work on the bylaws to align with professional management IF we get a 2/3's vote of at least 600 votes returned (400). The Bylaw Committee was tasked to amend the current bylaws so they needed permission from the membership to amend the original task they were given. There is a bylaw that cracks the door open to professional management and what the Bylaw Committee did was open that door wide open. Now the BLC needs to start putting things in place once the membership approves it. The membership will always be involved every step of the way, getting updates and there will be future ballots down the road.

Another item voted on was to approve that a Professional Management Research Committee be formed yesterday, to start researching professional management for HPP. Ten people signed up. One person is from the Finance Committee and one from the Bylaw Committee.

The tide has turned FINALLY. People are getting it! They want positive change. During owner input there were many dissatisfied people with their road conditions, the chip seal condition, the outrage of the conflict of interest w/board rep and employee was passionately expressed...

Part of the Bylaw Presentation was informing members of the deed restriction of the 20 acre lots and discussing the repercussions if the board mailbox committee violates it. A membership mailbox committee was formed yesterday. One of them mentioned starting on researching the deed restrictions to see if there is a way to change it. This is a good start.

The former president L Laucik and former Dist 3 rep K Shaw both did a great job chairing the meeting. It's in our bylaws, the president presides over the membership meetings and only chairs "as needed". So it was w/in our rights to choose another person to chair.

The Bylaw Committee submitted a request to do a presentation well over a week ago with the former secretary D Roe Dist 9. When the agenda was posted and reworked by new board secretary, Dist 6 rep P Murdoch, he removed the Bylaw Committee presentation. Why would he do that? This is one of the reasons the agenda was amended. The board secretary is supposed to actively seek agenda items from the membership. The agenda looked like a board meeting agenda.

Thanks again for all those that attended the membership meeting and stayed to take care of very important business.

---

The membership passed all of the bylaw revisions at their meeting but the bylaws have always stated that anything passed by a committee or the membership is subject to BOARD APPROVAL !!!

[Patricia]

I'm going to reply to all of Patricia's posts from now on a with previous post from Punaweb to prove to her that we have already discussed everything she has been posting.

What you have "already discussed" is not the issue here. What is of concern is that there was and STILL ARE LOADS of issues with the HPPOA boards (past and present).

All anyone has to do is READ. 

The "member BLC meeting minutes" appear to be back on the HPPOA website. I suggest you read the June 24, 2018 Report, given by the BLC. The report is accurate and informative, outlining the typical HPPOA board obstruction that was occurring then (and still does). 

https://www.hppoa.net/committees/bylaws-...e-minutes/

Also, Obie, not sure where you get your "subject to board approval." That isn't part of the bylaw process:

Section 2. Bylaws Committee. As per Article X,, there shall be a bylaws committee of the membership. Subsequent to its being elected, the committee shall make recommendations to the members at a membership meeting. Any proposed amendments to the bylaws to be sent to lot owners for a vote shall first be passed by a two-thirds vote of the members present and voting at that or a subsequent membership meeting. 

I wonder how many other owners who live in substandard subdivisions in Puna, Hawaii have been obstructed and bulldozed by runaway boards?

[Obie]

"What you have "already discussed" is not the issue here. What is of concern is that there was and STILL ARE LOADS of issues with the HPPOA boards (past and present)."

"All anyone has to do is READ. "

And all they have to do to read anything is use the handy search at the top right hand side and search by entering (HPP 2018) or any year you want research and the posts from that subject and year will pop up.

Issues with past boards is history.

The present board is doing an excellent job and the roads are better than anytime in History. It's true that the main entrance roads are shot but it's being addressed.

PATRICIA PLEASE GO AWAY !!!

[Patricia]

PATRICIA PLEASE GO AWAY !!!

So... Is this the new tactic? Try to get this post "closed down?" There are currently over 13,500 views on this post. Why do you feel that is?

The 2018 "issue" was never resolved and is tied to the current issues (the use of restricted road fee money for non-road projects and the illegal dissolution of the prior BLC).

As is very evident (and again all anyone has to do is read) that anytime an HPPOA board feels owners wishes will conflict with their agenda the HPPOA board will stall, block, and eventually take over and squash ANY "dissent" (in the case of the "members BLC," VALID work).

What the board did in 2018 was illegal. And the current board is following in those same footsteps-

As:

"If a membership passed a motion at a meeting that, according to the bylaws, should have been carried out by the board but was ignored, this constitutes a violation of the bylaws and could potentially lead to
legal action against the board members, as bylaws are legally binding documents that govern the organization's operations."

---

"That's it. It's views you're after, even if you don't know the difference between a post and a thread. You are one sad sack."

I am not "after" anything except informing other owners (of all the substandard subdivisions) that they have rights. And that perhaps they may want to start paying MORE attention to what some of these subdivision "associations" and their boards are doing.

My pointing out "the views" is simply saying that it APPEARS that there are others who may be concerned/interested as well. 

Oh, and thanks for educating me on the difference between "post" and "thread."