Hawaiian Shores -- Miscellany

WATCHDOG © 2011

As 2011 draws to a close and the dawn of a new Board year begins to peak Watchdog feels a potpourri of issues might be topical before shifting gears to issues which may be determined by the election.

The Candidates Forum:

It was decided by consensus by the Election Committee [EC] to recommend a format and date for the Candidate's Forum. The Board did not consider the report for that consensus until it's December regular board meeting thus leaving little time to comply with the concordant opinion of the election committee. The first date certain the board could come up with was a week from the election when traditionally most folks have cast their votes. Watchdog agrees it was a massive undertaking to accommodate in the short span of time from EC agreement. 

That being said it would have been very doable had the EC been formed in July as is traditionally done with an agenda to encourage nominations; general broadcast of the filing deadline; and organization of matters respective of the EC. In the past, the Community Relations committee has handled the Candidate Forum -- but, it seems logical the EC be responsible. Had the Board looked at the 'wisdom' in having the EC formed in July, the campaign to encourage interest in the community to serve and then the follow through on behalf of a community who has suggested and minimally supported the past annual Candidate Forum the schedule and event would have been practicable. So, now, an email between EC Members to determine the level of interest is the 'token' gesture given. 

If one was to paint a canvas with the upcoming election as the subject -- but with the components of the election process as a backdrop to the election -- a very clear picture of the intent of the artist would be evident. A portion of the canvas would have to be holographic to show the fading in and out of the 5 missing candidates from the ballot. Rumors are beginning to percolate right now the Sequel to this year's election process will be another one for the books. But that is an article and topic for 2013 election. 

The Newsletter:

Watchdog finds the Newsletter reflective of the overall 'character' or 'vibe' of the current leadership. It is informative; it is no frills; it is what has been called by others 'propaganda' or 'spin' ala this Board. Watchdog has no issue with the various boards having their own style of communications. Of course, the double standard never applies when it is 'your' team that is in the seat of power. [No one will cry foul and say it is all 'spin' to hide this or that.] While there is much that might be discussed about the 'content' Watchdog thinks where revisionist history is concerned the author and editor of this year's newsletter might have checked her sources to determine whether such statements as: one of the employees left her position to 'pursue other opportunities' just after the statement the position the employee held 'ceased to exist as of Oct. 31st...' might cut mustard. If she'd checked her sources she'd find that she is on record as stating --in essence --the position and 'employee' would be meeting the same end. It  appears the disingenuous spin "...we will miss her expertise!" is more prophetic than simple lip service!!! [This may become self evident.] For the record, the Watchdog misses both of the office employees whose positions were terminated by edict of the Board of Directors. It is not a quantum leap to assert many Members will more than 'simply' miss them both! Time and reality; revolving door?

Members Survey: Will this be a topic of the upcoming Annual Member's Meeting? Will those surveys be available for review by Members? With nearly double the number of surveys from the first summation of results [70%] a couple of  'hot button' items:  1]Use of pool by non members; 2] Cell Tower; the percentages seem interesting. They were 58% [now 64%] and 66% [now 61%] respectively in the October 2010 report of 100 surveys. Will there be a full accounting of the Survey results showing 'all' the "expressed concerns" of the members who took the survey? Perhaps this should be requested. Considering costs associated with the Survey borne by the Membership -- together with the 'interest' in soliciting feed back by the Board from the Membership -- [regardless of the low respondency [15%]]  an implied if not intimated demand for a full publishing of the results would be beneficial to Members in seeing and contemplating their neighbor's 'expressed concerns'. 

What say you?

Hawaiian Shores -- Time and Reason

Yesterday the Watchdog reported on an unfortunate and deliberate act of vandalism on the property of a director. Time to set the record straight. As the day light became brighter and the facts of the case began to make their way through out the subdivision with different ones having a little piece of knowledge added to a little piece of another FACTS began to emerge that require Watchdog to correct 'first breaking' news from yesterday to present to Watchdog Readers some other views.

Initially, Watchdog had received an email unrelated to the incident from the President. In the initial email this statement was made: " This morning S..... is in shock and dealing with police/detectives due to a deliberate and violent act of property vandalism/damage that is horrific..." The name of the individual, a director, was removed from the email for security reasons. Watchdog then posted the alert stating the 'property of a director' had been vandalized. Actually, in a follow up email from the president she explained that it was not the director's property but a friend's with whom she was staying that was defaced. That changes the dynamics altogether. How?

Who knew of these living arrangements? It became an unfolding surprise to many this director was not residing at her own home. Perhaps an unintended consequence by folks not directly affected by this criminal act.

WATCHDOG © 2011

Some intended consequences however were to play law enforcement and members like an instrument! Also part of the day unfolding were reports of members receiving calls from directors informing them the police may be contacting them; or actual visit by the police! Then, there is this: " The police are considering whether this might be a retaliatory action against S...... as a board member given how many threats she has received after her impassioned outburst at the Nov. 10^th board meeting.  Unfortunately, our community has a history of persecuting past board members and the issues of terroristic threatening at HSCA meetings  are well known to the local police." an email from a director. Now, why would the police consider this retaliatory unless someone suggested it? If the director has received 'threats' it is wrong. Of course, there continues to be a subjective use of such terminology. People exercising the 1st Amendment right to state an opinion [sometimes referred to as spewing vitriol] is not the same as a 'threat' against the 'person' of someone. Yet, later in the same email this statement is made: " The police may want to review our meeting tapes so they can evaluate whether anyone making threatening remarks at meetings might be a suspect.  There is also a lot of vitriolic language on websites that has been documented and will be submitted to the police as well to assist with their investigation. " Watchdog missed the last Board meeting but as to meetings before that 'threats' made were actually statements made directed from some members' belief the actions of the Board may constitute a civil action. The police will quickly recognize the difference between disillusioned members over political differences and someone who would deliberately commit a criminal act. 

So the facts:

1. It appears only those who are close to the director would know of her personal living arrangements with another person not in her own home.
2. The vandalism closely resembles that which has been done to the Honu Street Facility in the past; twice.
3. The police who investigate crime have been given a 'slant' to follow which as they follow it will quickly release them to follow other clues. By casting aspersions against at least one other member in the community [terroristic threats] and by default the innuendo that any one who has spoken against the current election debacle infers that it may be one of them delays the apprehension of the real criminal while painting [pun not intended] fellow members with a criminal brush and malice intent! Reality check: 'the malcontent' are not close to the director and would not be aware of the living arrangements! And isn't it convenient to use the misfortune of one of our members who apparently designed her own gate that was defaced to fan the flames of division all the more by immediately tasking the police and some members with the idea it was 'incidental' to the mishandling of the 2012 nominations. 

Watchdog hopes the criminal is immediately identified so the community can go back to a sense of personal/property security. Watchdog hopes the trauma associated with this incident for the homeowner affected begins to fade with each new day and as her creative mind begins to see a way through this. Watchdog hopes that wisdom will prevail and the interruptions to those member's lives who will be contacted by the police will meet them with a keen desire to help the police do their job and find the REAL criminal, not the fabricated one! Watchdog, for one, is appalled at the attempt to deflect the guilt for having subverted the elections to assigning probable guilt to those who have been denied a fair election compounding their own disappointment all the more.

Remember, the vandalism is real. Please be observant and report suspicious behavior. 


 

Hawaiian Shores -- Serve and Protect

WATCHDOG © 2011

ALERT!

Watchdog readers beware. Watchdog has just received an email [unrelated to the event about to be shared] which mentioned a despicable criminal act has been committed on the property of one of the Directors for our Board. It may be a random act against no one in particular and time will tell if more of the same begins to occur. It is common knowledge a different part of the subdivision has had a few criminal incidents of late as well. No community is immune from criminal activity but when it is one's own it is far and away more personal. Please keep your eyes and ears open to anything/one who is not generally part of your neighborhood environment and report suspicious behaviors.

 If this was a deliberate act against this particular person because of their current status in the community, this is totally UNACCEPTABLE. Having served in that seat for a few years and being the recipient of death threats, assaults and verbal and email criminal acts the Watchdog can attest there is NO JUSTIFICATION for any such activities against someone regardless whether they are a friend or not; regardless if you support the person or not; regardless of whether you agree with the person or not. NONE WHATSOEVER. While these people wield a certain power in their directorship they are still volunteers and while many may question motive, impugn motive, the Watchdog included, it is not OKAY to turn any of that against the individual Director in any way criminal. 

The Watchdog dealt with this sort of personal attack for several years by collecting evidence, witness testimony, pictures and voice mails and filed a police report simply to have a record of it in case it escalated to an actual physical event. A direct request not to be pursued by the police was made; merely to file the report. The body of evidence together with written concern for personal welfare was sufficient to cause a case to be opened and filed. It never abated. For the full 4 years there was non stop assault in one way or another which tends to make one very empathetic when it is done to another. 

Please bear in mind; the directors are here to 'serve' the Membership; the least the Membership can do in this instance is to 'protect' the directors as good citizens. If you live near one, or more, please keep an eye out that no criminal activity be committed against them. Watchdog benefited greatly by having friends who lived nearby and reported when things happened or witnessed an incident.  

Watchdog is hoping it is a random act and the offender will be immediately discovered. Hawaiian Shores Community is better than any one person committing a criminal act against another member/director in the community. 

Again, please be observant and notice things; report what you believe to be suspicious.

 

Hawaiian Shores -- Ode to Candidate Forum

WATCHDOG © 2011

Season's Greetings Watchdog Readers,

Tiz actually passed the Season for the Candidate's Forum traditionally held mid November. However, with a new Board and a heavy agenda it was understood that a mid December Candidate's Forum would be effective. As a matter of fact, at the Election Committee's last official meeting there was a consensus by that committee to recommend to the Board the Forum be held at Honu Street Recreational Facility on Saturday, December 17! That would be today... You plan to attend? Save the trip...

Lacking any sort of evidence that such an event was organized -- considering the extent to which the Election Committee recommended the event be handled -- Watchdog emailed the Chair of the Election Committee to ascertain whether or not the Board had accepted, approved or changed the recommendation. Excepting a single committee member the idea of a Forum was most assuredly desired. Following is the email Watchdog sent and to this date never answered. I also copied the email to the office because they would have been instructed to set up. They too neglected to answer. This is rather interesting in that the previous office staff suffered many an email chastisement because email sent to them was not immediately responded to no matter what the busyness of the day may be. My email:

Aloha S, [full name removed for privacy]

I do not see the 'Candidates Forum' listed on the calendar for the 17th of December. The election committee filed the following for the Board's consideration:

• By consensus the committee agreed to set the date for the candidate forum for Saturday, December 17, 2011 beginning at 10A pending availability of the Pavilion
• By consensus it was agreed to invite members to submit their questions via a form on the website; email, by dropping them at the office or at the event.
• By consensus it was agreed the deadline for submission of questions would be December 14, 2011.
• By consensus it was agreed the office would have a drop box for questions for the candidate forum.
• By consensus it was agreed a transcript of the answers to questions asked at the Candidate Forum be made available on the website with copies made available in the Office.
• By consensus it was agreed to choose a moderator at the Election Committee meeting prior to December 10th Board meeting for approval by the Board.

Can you share what the final decision was for this event? I know some in the community hoped to attend.


Mahalo in advance for your response. I listed the office email in the event they know it will be happening as they would have been directed to set up for it. 

One could surmise a rationale on behalf of the Board to question 'Why' should they have a forum? It could be as simple as the ballot was designed such that 5 candidates could not compete for a seat at the Board table leaving 4 of 5 candidates remaining who will appear on the ballot having a track record established. The new face on the ballot? The 'MBA'? She is just up the river. But, is this fair to the Members? Should they not be able to come and ask questions of all candidates whether or not they have served on the Board and especially the new face about concerns that have arisen from the past year or to even address former directors about issues that existed during their tenure? If it was arbitrarily decided there would be no Candidate Forum why? Why not communicate this to those who have inquired? How does this show respect for the Members who had this date marked on their PERSONAL calendars as important enough to attend. 

There are so many answers to those questions yet nary a one positive. With this election looming just a month away let's look at the evidence of election manipulation:

August 2011 -- President's Report announces the candidacy of the current President, the current Secretary and a neighbor of the current President on Papio Street. [the current new name for the Association and Board some have begun to use as in "The Papio Street Board of Directors"] 

September 30, 2011 -- Deadline for receipt of nominations. Done!

October 2011 -- Election Committee Chair announces to committee at its initial meeting the Board submitted 7 nominations to the corporate attorney for his opinion with the desire to have the 7 disqualified because they were submitted on what has been interpreted as association 'letterhead' and the attorney told them they could not. He did offer that signatures not legible enough for immediate identification without the printed name or lot# might be disqualifying. However, at that first meeting each signature was verified 'again' [the first time it was verified by 22 year veteran employee PA moments after submission 9/30] even to the point of asking one member to come and attest to his signature in person. 

November 2011 -- A letter went out to the 7 Candidates addressed in part 'Candidate' informing them of the customary practice of providing a small written blurb about themselves.

November 10, 2011 -- In a completely unexpected move the discussion of the 7 nominations arose at the Board meeting where the Chair of the Election Committee lifted a stack of paper in her left hand and waved it in the air whilst castigating and impugning all the nominees for alleged vile and vitriol on the internet. Though many of the same candidates were present there was never an opportunity allowed for those candidates to examine the paperwork and deny nor confirm authorship. The Chair of the Election Committee surmised that such written materials was evidence enough for her to brand them unqualified to be on the ballot. [Those who clamor for freedom of speech were absent this event and subsequent to this event not a single protest has been lodged for using freedom of speech by anyone as reason to disqualify a candidate. The focus instead has been on the lack of democracy by such restrictions. There are a few issues here: 1) Whether or not the candidates scribed the alleged 'vitriol' is immaterial. Even if they had and even if it was they have 1st amendment rights to share their opinion on anything especially where their interests may be at risk. 2) Since NONE of the Candidates were allowed to review the materials being held as evidence against them they were denied an opportunity without due process! 3) Our bylaws allow for any member in GOOD STANDING to seek a seat at the Board table. Good Standing has always been understood as current in all payments and no disciplinary action against them that would deprive them of their membership rights!] The motion was made by director PK to deny 5 of the 7 candidates their right to seek election to the Board because their signatures could not be verified by the close of business on September 30. He referenced bylaw 5.03 which has nothing to do with signature verification. The 'yes' vote prevailed and the 5 candidates were denied.

November 17, 2011 -- At a special meeting of the Board called to review the ballot director RP introduced a motion which was seconded by direct KW to add the 5 candidates previously disqualified to the ballot. Discussion ensued but when the members in attendance wished to 'participate' which was their statutory right the Board decided to disallow the discussion. As you might assume the less than quiet displeasure in such a decision resulted in a quickly recessed meeting during the discussion phase of a main motion. The chair did not announce when the recess would conclude nor where. The Board members cleared the tables and went into the very small office and resumed the meeting. TO DATE members know not what the vote on that motion was. As of this writing, 12/17/11 @ 0751 Minutes have yet to be posted!

November 2011 -- The Election Committee met and recommended the disqualified candidates receive a letter stating they have been disqualified. As of this writing no such letter has been received.

December 2011 -- The year end packet materials including the Ballots were to be approved. 5 candidates still do not know their standing. The election is just a month away. Even if they were allowed to seek election precious campaign time has slipped by due to ineptitude on the part of this Board excepting of course the President, Secretary and the President's neighbor all of whom announced their candidacy via the Membership's monies in the costs associated with translation and printing/distribution of the President's Report in August 2011!

The Candidate Forum was initialized at the suggestion of a member who was distraught over the 2007 removal of 7 directors via Membership vote. She felt the Candidates seeking office in 2008 should be fully vetted by all members in a forum. In 2007 the Board agreed to allow the event that became an annual event each November until this year. As a matter of reference: This year the following things were not done according to customary practices nor historical demonstration:

• No announcement in print or on the community billboard the nominations for the board were due by 9/30/11
• No discussion during board meetings to this deadline
• No change of procedures, customary practices, historical protocol were made in public as to how the nominations would be submitted, what form they would take nor that they would need to be 'verified' by the end of day on the filing deadline.
• Election Committees have never been authorized to verify nominations
• Letters were sent to the Candidates based on an election committee recommendations to provide their written statements before the Board had a chance to read the election committee report and accept or deny the recommendations.
• Letters sent to the Candidates were sent ONLY to the 7 nominees whose nominations were of people not listed in the President's Report as seeking election; signed by the President [a candidate]  and requested by the chair of the Election Committee. 
• The Board had an opportunity to back away from the responsibility they now fully bear in this egregious abuse of power. They did not.
• A Main Motion to include the 5 disqualified candidates was recessed and determined in 'secret' and to date the 5 candidates have only the letter addressing them as a 'Candidate' as proof of their candidacy. This despite being faced with opposing motions to disqualify and then add with no letter informing them from the Board as to their ultimate status. The only approved communication refers to them as a Candidate.

 Any way you slice this it is suspect. Members who have been in touch with the state and local offices of the League of Women Voters have been told this is not an optimum election development. [Not a verbatim quote] They have recently been provided with a body of evidence that outlines what has transpired. Time will tell if they decide to conduct the elections or not. 

So, after all of this, WHY ISN'T THERE A CANDIDATES FORUM? And why hasn't the community been informed as to the situation? That is other than on the internet by members who are exercising their individual freedoms. Kudos to the 5 Candidates whose candidacy is still in the balance for not creating a divisive issue of all of this. It is a novel approach to community compared to the recent past. WHY ISN'T THERE A CANDIDATE'S FORUM TODAY?  

Hawaiian Shores -- December Board Meeting

WATCHDOG © 2011

Aloha Watchdog Readers,
A reminder this month's regular Board meeting is scheduled for this Saturday, the 10th, commencing at 10a at the Honu Street Recreational Facility. 

As noted in this post: 

 http://hawaiianshoreswatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/12/hawaiian-shores-topics-for-discussion.html  there are a number of topics any or all Members might want to develop dialogue and discussion during the portion of the meeting the agenda refers to as: "Comments on Agenda Items by Members".  As the memory of the last open meeting this board conducted, November 17th, may have diminished somewhat, it is Watchdog's fervent request Members gathered will make every effort to speak and passionately if desired, about topics relative to the agenda. If allowed to speak during discussion of any motion, do so with utter respect. Remember, the Hawaii Revised Statutes does allow for DISCUSSION and PARTICIPATION by members and that should be acknowledged by the Board. However, having said that, if they should decide to disallow this remember there is a 'HOW' to do this and thus far 'recessing the meeting' is not the HOW. 

Also, as a reminder, please do your research and have your facts straight. If, for instance, you wish to address the topical item of the 'ballot as approved by the LWV', you might ask where the motion is reflected in the record of the Board's decision to use the Leaque of Women's Voters; or where the statement in the record exists prior to 12/10/11 that reflects a consensus the Board agreed to use the LWV? This should clearly be evident. There was a positive vote by the Membership when queried about using a 3rd party to conduct elections was fine but it is not a law. It was a question and the answer resulted in a "Yes" vote. The Board should still reflect their action to do so in the record for obvious reasons. Thus, having the ballot approved by a 3rd party without a formal motion/consensus is somewhat like having cart before the horse. 

Obviously, with the lack of knowledge as to the disposition of the motion made at Nov 17th Board meeting to add the 5 disqualified nominees to the Ballot, it is a most obvious question to inquire as to the names which will appear on the Ballot. [Remember, the last communication the nominees received from the board was addressed to CANDIDATE! That letter had directions to send in their bios..etc.]  Since none of the nominees have received a letter informing them their nomination has been disqualified there is no reason to believe they were. Since they are not privy to the Minutes unless they have been posted on the approved for Members, again, there is no reason to believe the nominees will not be on the ballot. But, for verification it would be good to ask.

Additionally, with regard the ballot, the election committee recommended seeking a comparable bid for translation to Japanese from Silver Bridges to use as a reference when paying a seated Board member to do so. Was that done? Since we were not privy to the motions made during the 'recessed' meeting to the 'office' on Nov 17th and since the record will not be available for review before that the Members have no idea what transpired in the way of election committee recommendations. 

On the Topic of Dog Park at Maikoiko: Why is this on the agenda? Is it there simply to introduce the topic to see if the Board is ready to move on adding this to 2012 Capital Improvements list for 2013? Is this a definitive option being discussed? There are many paths one might take when discussing this, some are at the link above, but primarily, the idea that ANY monies are committed to anything not an urgent need until the WATER SYSTEM is addressed and upgraded to out of the 'danger zone' is folly! Fiduciary responsibility requires precedence be given to NEEDS of the community, chief among them the water system, rather than the WANTS of the Board. 

These are simply a couple of the topics one might research and be prepared to sound off on as a reference to the Board and other members gathered at the Board meeting. 

Please do not hesitate to comment and share your thoughts. By doing so you are carving out your future as it relates to your property values.

Hawaiian Shores -- Topics for Discussion

WATCHDOG © 2011

Aloha All,

Time to plan for the upcoming regular Board Board meeting Saturday, December 10 @ 10A.

The graphic on the side has a few of the topics Watchdog is keeping forefront for consideration. The following topics are of interest:

1. Election Committee: 'Finalize ballot as approved by LWV' Major question: Will the approved ballot reflect the ALL nominees or only 5? 
2. Old Business: 'Finalize Annual Year end packet materials' What materials will be included? Have the various materials been final drafted so the approval will immediately result in the production of some ~1280+ copies? Has each of the Board Members fully read and understood what they are approving for dissemination to the Membership because once out they will be fully responsible for the ramifications/consequences of anything that may land the Board in their respective 'hot' seats? 
3. New Business: 'Dog Park'. If this is just for discussion; if there is some presentation; or, if this is to get a feel from the members their thoughts this is fine. But until and unless the Water System is no longer at peril NO MONIES should be spent on ANYTHING not essential until the life saving water system is finished!
4. Executive Session: "Status  of PER and ER"; "Status of Solar Farm". Again, this is in Executive Session, why? Clearly it is not listed as 'contract' it is merely an update. This is not covered by Executive Session. If there is a reason it should be then the Executive Session should correctly reflect why. The Chair needs only state they will be considering personnel issues, contract issues, client/attorney issues. To suggest there is a 'status' update on an item, in Watchdog's opinion, does not correctly correlate to Executive Session nor does it situate the Board in a favorable light with the appearance of 'secret meetings' and stuff being done deliberately outside of the members influence. This is a huge problem: Communication. They may be doing nothing wrong but by not doing it right they bring undo consternation. Or, they are doing wrong and the appearance of wrong doing is rightly raising concern. Why isn't the member who troubles themselves to attend a week end Board Meeting unable to determine the status of two topics of great concern to members as a whole, like the progress in upgrading our Water System? 

Please exercise your member rights and prepare for the meeting, attend the meeting and participate in the meeting. 

Hawaiian Shores -- Customary Practice

WATCHDOG © 2011

The Watchdog site was conceived and initialized to bring forth discussion on items or issues of interest to 'some' who may own or are considering ownership in the Hawaiian Shores Recreational Estates subdivision, commonly referred to as HSCA. [Interestingly, if one were to research those four initials outside the context of this particular community it would be an interesting venture to embark upon. For Hawaii alone this is a sampling: Hawaii Sailing Canoe Association [HSCA]; Hawaii State Chiropractic Association [HSCA] and they incorporated the letters into their logo; Hawaii Sustainable Community Association [HSCA]. There is obviously no shortage of the use of this particular acronym.]

Customary Practice is the topic of this post. With little research an individual can ascertain that the laws set out to govern in this country -- including criminal law -- initially looked at customary practice. It is generally accepted, for instance, that the law's foundation for this country has as its underpinnings the Ten Commandments. For those who define their religious tenet from the Judea-Christian faith even the Ten Commandments saw time and circumstance alter the emphatic scripted stone from exact and literal application to adopt and conform to culture or ideology that was far removed from the culture that received the Commandments. The finality for the Christian for instance is the word of their Lord "Two Commandments" was what the law rested on. Over time, 'Thou Shalt not Murder' was defined by 'intent' so there are classes of murder. Customary practices evolved. While there was provision in the Deuteronomic Code for 'intent' or circumstance of murder it was not as evolved as our Legal Code in the US or in the various states and protectorates. As customary practice has been challenged laws and regulations attending the long time practice begin to evolve to accommodate culture as well.

Watchdog presents to you here Customary Practice as known to Watchdog from as early as the deadline for the 2006 nominations.

• Email sent to the directors current in September 2006 notifying the Board nominations for the secretary and the treasurer [then] needed to be made and concurred for 2007 elections. The nominations were made and the concurrence received by email. No questions ever arose as to the legitimacy of this practice.

• Allegations were made via court record this 'customary practice' was done in the alleged nomination of an appointed director for the election of 2008.

As a result of the alleged fiasco written nomination and concurrence were then looked to as an obvious way to thwart the opportunity for someone who contends that an email nomination/concurrence was sent but not received. Thus, the customary practice was adopted or evolved through a change to the bylaw 5.03 to accommodate a formal written notification of both the nominator and the nominee as concurring. Paperwork was in the office if they preferred. Through the 2011 elections, regardless of the informal practices from the past [bylaw 5.03] or the more formal practice of the more recent past [updated bylaw 5.03], it was always the customary practice of the Board of Directors to rely on the Office Staff, in the person of the long time staff whose tenure over arched the many general managers of 20 years, who knew the subdivision and everyone's standing because she accepted payments from the owners, to report to the Board if all were members and in standing. As a matter for consideration here the Bylaw that was used as the premise for the recent motion to deny 5 candidates their rightful place on the ballot for 2012 elections is posted:

Section 5.03. Nomination of Directors. Nominations for Directors shall be made by any Member in good standing by submission in writing with the written concurrence of the nominee to the Association office by September 30 for election the following year

There are specific actions set out in this section. Please note to whom they are set forth.

A.    

N OMINATIONS shall be made by any Member in good standing

B. NOMINATIONS shall be submitted in writing

C.  Concurrence of the nominee confirmed in writing

D.   Submission to be done

a.     To the Association office

b.    By September 30^th.

c.     For election the following year

Please note: the words signature and/or verified/verification are absent from the Bylaw.

The idea that the 'Customary Practice' of verification was changed this year with NO NOTICE to the members either by consensus, by motion, is suspect, and here is why. Moments after the submission of candidates the president sitting in an adjacent office actually did what was Customary, she 'asked' for verification of all by the same senior staff member who'd done it for decades. The President in her capacity exercised CUSTOMARY PRACTICE and quite naturally and had the confirmation of the standing of all signatures by the one person who could indeed recognize them all. 

Different individuals wrote letters to the Board asking for reconsideration. A motion was made to add the 5 names disqualified to the ballot of 2012. It is unlikely at this point if that was done because the motion made in an open session was voted upon in secret and the Minutes for that meeting may not be approved for dissemination for up to 2 months the entire Membership is hanging in limbo. Why? Because 'Customary Practices' were not adhered openly by the Board of Directors. On Saturday, October 29th, at the first meeting of the Election Committee the election committee was informed that all signatures had been confirmed in the customary way by the senior office staff to the president moments after submission. The chair of the Election Committee seemed surprised at this knowledge. This is the same person who raised a stack of papers at the next Board meeting suggesting that in her hand was a collection of evidence that she believed disqualified the entire 7 nominees they did not want on the ballot because she believed them unworthy to serve the Membership considering the things they had written on the internet. Not one of the 7 nominees had been given an opportunity to read and confirm or deny whether the allegations made against them were true. It was a fist of paper with print on it and her personal statement ON THE RECORD that disqualified them all in her mind. The signatures were only another 'reason'. Personal opinion so forcefully spoken that it caught many by surprise. 

The motion was made to disqualify 5 candidates based on signatures not being verifiable or even verified in time to make the deadline; a complete and erroneous statement of fact as well as misapplication of bylaw 5.03 where the verification process is neither required nor referenced. The nominators had to be a member and in good standing...but the nominations and concurrences delivered in writing is all that is required by the bylaw. They were. Everything else is smoke and mirrors in what appears to some as a feeble attempt to cover up a personal agenda of a majority of the Board in subverting a process that has until now served the Membership well notwithstanding the sole exception of the allegations made in the 2008 ballot. 

The deadline is fast approaching but it is not too late to do the right thing regardless of one's personal disgust, disenchantment. For the Membership as a whole, abiding by the Customary Practices -- which when all is said and done was in fact PERFORMED EXACTLY as it had been for years and years and years by the staff for every election! No excuse can be given to deny the democratic process going forward for those disenfranchised 5 candidates! 

FYI, this has already been addressed in former litigation...the customary practice. It could be an embarrassment for anyone to appear to stand in defiance of something that has already been addressed in deposition and part of the decision process arriving to the agreement that eventually concluded the litigation. Hearkening back to last campaign season and the Board's gracious consideration of the 'confusion' over the first ballot the Board decided to err on the side of caution and took a lot of heat from all sides for doing it. It is history now, but a history that stands in stark contrast to the current stand in similar circumstances. Watchdog respectfully requests this Board let democracy ring.