Felled Proposal Razes Questions

WATCHDOG © 2011

Okay, took a little liberty in using homophones to make a clever point! What proposal and what questions? 

On Saturday, March 12, 2011, a majority of the Board rushed to approve a proposal by a resident member to remove 'up to 20-30 palms' from the Ocean front property at purchase price of $300 ea.' But, the proposal had to be approved that day!!! There was some deadline. During the rushed discussion, concerns arose by two members of the Board, both from the 2010 Board, regarding possible SMA conflict and regarding the harvest without replacement of trees! Another motion was made to repopulate the area with native plants/trees and a committee of one  was formed with its single member a self acclaimed insurance guy. [Reference: Meet the Candidates Forum Nov 2010]

To sum up that morning's events related to this proposal, the motion passed to sell the trees to the resident owner for the purchase price of $300 each. How many trees did we have in inventory? Who would be ultimately responsible for monitoring how many are harvested? Who would be responsible for making sure payment for each of the harvested was received within 30 days of harvesting? How will we pay for the native species to replace the palms? Who will have oversight to make sure none of the existing native species are not damaged by cranes and whatever other large machinery will be used? How was this proposal submitted to the president, who whipped it right out of a manila folder right there at the Board meeting and handed some copies around for all the directors to look over BEFORE the discussion took off? Anyone on the Board making any money from this deal at any level for anything? Why the rush to HAVE TO approve it that day? Just some questions posed by some members who were present at the meeting and felt the whole thing was handled oddly.

One person, the Dir. of Ops and Mgt, had the presence of mind to request proof of insurance, workers' comp policy if there were employees, etc. WOW! What a concept....legitimize a business seeking to make substantial money from the sale of palm trees to Disney Corporation by asking for basic items of business. Bobbing heads all around the table thought better of going forward first without such items. But, let's not get too attached to the level headed Dir. of Ops & Mgt, referred to by some members as 'nothing' and others in even less endearing terms.

So, due diligence being what it is, our insurance agent provided her list of concerns and suggestions which was forwarded from the Dir. of Ops & Mgt to the board. Lo and behold! HOLD YOUR HORSES! An item of insurance should be provided. 

Let us do a recap right here: Motion made on Saturday, March 12, 2011 and passed by a 'majority' vote for the president to sign the proposal, accepting its terms. Terms, by the way, that went from the super sensational number of 20-30 trees to ONE! Yep! ONE, with the caveat the 'actual number to be determined'. Not a proposal for 20-30 trees, but ONE! Mind you, from a business perspective, the bidder actually was savvy in stating ONE, but that is not how it was marketed, presented, discussed and in fact, never once was it stated that ONE is all the proposal stated with the caveat the actual number would be determined. Back to the motion to sign; the president could sign it. 

Imagine the surprise of the members who have gone in to review the proposal, mostly to find out who it was awarded too, only to find out that the proposal discussed and approved by a majority vote is not the proposal that was eventually signed by both the president and the resident owner/bidder. Nope! The actual proposal now has HSCA on the hook for a monetary liability of $250 for the very insurance we were supposed to get copied from the bidder AND to add insult to injury, the policy the president signed for clearly states on the paperwork is being purchased from an insurance company who is not licensed in the state of Hawaii; is not bound to regulations from Hawaii, and there exists a possibility the company could be insolvent by the time a claim might be made in any case! So? Beyond the $250 dollar liability, a claim which might be made would then become the responsibility of 'whom'? It isn't money that is being taken from our account to pay this insurance, it is money being deducted from the harvest of a tree. Let's see, if it turns out to be ONE tree, that means HSCA benefits by $50.00 AND a nifty insurance policy from someone not licensed therefore not accountable to Hawaii's Insurance Commissioner. 

Please note: At no time have some of the Board been notified by the president that she signed this document with the added liability. At no time have 'some' of the Board been notified that in order to satisfy the need for insurance we had to get our own policy, despite the president's assurance the resident owner has been in business for a long time and would have insurance. Of course, that may be true. The thing is, the insurance was purchased to cover the 'sub contractors' the bidder is farming the job out to! 

Transparent? Accountable? Will the confused and 'fair' minded among the membership who have chided the 2010 Board for not being 'transparent, accountable, fair' begin to demand justification from their new board? 

This article has not even scratched the surface of the questionable position this signed document may have placed HSCA.

Appreciating our Employees

WATCHDOG © 2011

When one hears 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease' it is generally understood to be someone who 'complains' and then gets attention. Yet, what if we could turn the concept of a parade of compliments to the same level of audible awareness as the 'complaints' heretofore propagandized by those with a 'special interest' motivated from rumors or personally skewed opinion? Is a 'special interest' necessarily a bad thing? What if it is a 'special interest' for the community? Or, for an Association? Say, the Membership?

As is often the case when we are content we do not make it a matter of discussion. In fact it is such a character of human nature, folks who do market research understand the fundamental fact: If a customer is happy they will generally only say as much when directly asked, or in general conversation where the opinion is relative to the discussion. Yet, if someone is 'unhappy' the facts support an individual will tell everyone, anyone especially soon after the most recent experience which confirms their opinion.

How has the fact that many many Members have remained quiet about their full support and level of contentment with the staff played out? Sadly, those few community neighbors who have beat the whole community with fliers, letters and disrespectful discourse in public and via communication about the office staff and other staff to outside agencies and companies have managed to secure the power they needed to 'do something about it!' But what exactly will they do and what will it cost the Membership?

If you know the answer to that question and have sincere concerns, now would be the time to step up and support what you are content with and to do so until you are sure you have been heard.

The personal experience of this household with each of the current staff members has been professional, warm, informative, sometimes comical and all times respectful. They are like family members they are around the community so frequently in the performance of their job. How could anyone stand by and watch a member of their family be maligned or held up for derision via fliers, letters or open discourse? Don't know a healthy family that would not immediately rush to support them.

Do you want someone you do not know, at least on sight, traipsing through your property for any reason? Do you want someone you do not know, at least on sight, having access to your information? Do you want people who would not be supervised by someone who is not familiar with the culture of our community? Do you want people in charge of our precious water system who do not have intimate familiarity with our system? All its quirks, all its components? Some of our staff lives in Hawaiians Shores. They come to work with gratitude for a job, for its proximity to their home and family, their neighbors and they come to work with a proven work ethic of integrity. Are you ready to have our security outsourced? 

Why not become a positive squeaky wheel and let everyone know how much you appreciate the staff; doesn't matter if it is just one person you know or each person you have had experience with. Speak up in their support at the meeting; write to the Board in support of them. You do have the power and authority to speak up about the security and well being of your investment; that investment includes the roads, the road shoulders, the recreational facility, the office, the water system, as well as your property. 

Thank you in advance for making more noise than the proverbial negative 'squeaky wheel'!

 

Is the new 'abstain' Tabled?

WATCHDOG © 2011

Someone recently asked, "Do you suppose the new 'abstain' is 'Tabled?'" Hadn't thought of that but it seems to have been used a couple of times by a director whose previous voting record reflected 'abstain' frequently.

There is nothing wrong with 'tabling' something. If used properly, it is actually an effective way of disposing of a time consuming issue which may need further research, which may need to be sent to committee, or any number of time consuming reasons. Really, the monthly meeting should be confined to business that can be addressed in a timely fashion. One has to ask, why slam the Agenda when you know you will only have a 2 hour meeting? When the next Agenda has 9 tabled items in the general portion of the meeting and 2 tabled items under the 'Minutes' there would be little room for any 'new' business that may need to come before the Board because the meetings are only 2 hours and the portions of the agenda to be discussed which have been tabled will likely eat most if not all of that time!

It should not escape anyone's notice however that when you inundate an agenda with list of aggressive goals and you state that you 'are not inclined to conduct meetings longer than 2 hours' then you will create a meeting which will be largely tabled. So, what was tabled at the March Regular Board Meeting? Great question. It is time for a recap of the last meeting so let's take the Agenda and just proceed through it line by line:

Adoption of the temporary agreement for recordation of the Minutes by and outside firm. √

Jan 2010 Annual Membership Minutes [Address the corrections] √

Jan 2011 Annual Membership Meeting √

Feb 8, 2011 Reg Board Meeting - Tabled

Feb 19th, 2011 Adjourned Membership Meeting Minutes √

Feb 28th, 2011 Special Meeting of the Board --Tabled

Feb 19th, 2011 Annual Meeting of the Board --Not on the agenda *

Clarification on submission of items for a Meeting Agenda √

Director of Operations and Management Report √

Required Addendum to the Dir. Ops and Mgmt report --Tabled

Request for a Member to review the 2 Petitions submitted to the President from a member on Feb 19, 2011 to recall two seated directors. √

Responses from corporate counsel [we now have 2 to do the work one has done for 15 years] √

Action on tabled motion regarding current counsel --Tabled [it was tabled once on Feb 19; once on Feb 28 and once on Mar 12.]

Status of transfer of power to financial institutions and cost comparison between current and other institutions--Tabled

Website and Blog policies--Tabled

Cost incurred for 2nd ballot election √

Question about Dir. of Ops and Mgt sitting at the Director's table. -- Withdrawn [Now, this was an interesting one. The question was posed to the Board in written form and and received by the former Board. However, the agenda item came up under the authority of the new Board and the member who submitted the question did not require the new board to answer the question despite the fact that the Dir. Ops & Mgmt has been seated at every one of the 3 Board meetings they have conducted. The member clearly stated he wanted the 'old board' to answer the question. Reasonable assumption could cause someone to conclude that the member was not actually looking for an answer. So, what was the intent of such a question?]

Stable Demolition discussion -- Tabled

Petty Cash fund and policies regarding reimbursement to staff members who use their personal credit cards  for purchases for HSCA ** -- referred to the Finance Committee

Develop Search Committee to for new accounting services -- referred to Finance Committee

Establish Schedule for Water Board Meetings --- Tabled

Notification of members regarding board and committee vacancies -- Tabled

Appoint Committees √

Request to review annual assessment and monthly water fees --- Tabled

Submission of Tax Appeal for HSCA Ocean Park properties -- Tabled

Decision on proposal to sell coconut palms √

What is still outstanding but has not found its way to the Agenda yet?

Proposed By Law change that would address 'appointments' to the Board

Proposed By Law change submitted by election committee

PGV Presentation

Unfinished House issue

Sale of large equipment

Quotes for Pool remodel and ADA compliant restrooms

What does this mean for the next Agenda? Under 'old business' there will be 9 [tabled] items to discuss before ever getting to new business. Yet, we have outstanding business from Feb 8 that has not found its way onto the busy agenda. The committees have been formed now and it is a matter of time and having the different committees begin their meetings to move the business along. For instance, the two items for the By Laws committee should be taken up before any new business for the By Laws committee and referred on to the Board with recommendations. The changes under discussion relate to elections and should be done and out to the Membership with the mid year packet.

NOTE:

* Feb 19th, 2011 Annual Board of Director's Meeting. These Minutes were amended on Feb 28th to reflect something the video of the meeting does not support. When presented with the information so the Minutes could be amended to reflect the accurate record -- deflection from the discussion about the correction was made by accusations of infringement on proprietary rights, video being posted online, and then an attempt to convince one of the directors that Minutes were approved and agreed to by everyone when in fact the record does not reflect that. A motion was made to review the video before the next meeting. Once viewed, this will allow further discussion as to whether or not the previous secretary will leave the Minutes in question as they are or will request an amendment to correct them to reflect the actual record of that meeting. 

** For the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 the office staff have used their own personal monies to purchase goods required to manage and maintain the business. This is not because there are insufficient funds available but because the account that had been historically used for petty cash was frozen in January 2008 by the bank in due in part to the instigation of meddling members who were upset with the duly elected board and the power change that election brought. Other venues were investigated. The staff was always reimbursed as quickly as they wanted reimbursement. They were never asked to use their own finances. Now, the Board has decided to create a policy to dictate to the staff how they will use their own credit cards? The matter has been referred to the Finance Committee then on to the Board.

Heads Up March monthly Agenda

WATCHDOG © 2011

The avowed 'no more than 2 hour' Monthly Meeting Agenda has been posted on the HSCA knock off site for the past few days. You can find it here: http://hawaiianshores.org/meetingsminutesmore/meetingagenda.html

It is a very ambitious Agenda, yet, it is missing key components left over from the previous Board's Agenda. It is also missing the Minutes for February 19th Annual Business Meeting for 'correction'. [Please see this site: 'Keeping it Transparent and Accountable] There are no less than 5 sets of Minutes to be considered; just not Feb. 19, 2011.

Also on the Agenda, and should be of interest, is the first in an anticipated series of outsourced functions. For years the Minutes were done by the Office Staff at the cost of their staff time instead of by the Secretary of the Board. Then, in an effort to cut the costs of doing the Minutes and because they are customarily done by secretaries of boards/committees, from January 2008 through February 19th 2011 the Minutes were done by the Association's Secretary. Among the first items of business by the newly elected Board of Directors was the search for someone to outsource this function to at a cost. 

The next Agenda item of business of interest is the years long discussion of the Stables! For two years the Finance Committee and various Boards of Directors have under taken a deliberative course of action to determine whether to refurbish the building or to demolish it. The board solicited cost bids for the destruction to get an idea whether it would be feasible economically to refurbish or demolish. The Board decided to demolish. One of the Directors offered to put together a report with a summary of costs not covered in the bids received. A follow up report was supposed to be presented to the Board at a subsequent meeting. However, the Director responsible for this report, who served on the Finance Committee and the Boards and who has extensive experience in the 'construction' industry departed from the direction of the Board with the announcement that he felt it would be better to 'refurbish'. The back story on this 180 degree direction change will be the topic of one of next week's blog. 

Also of interest, the Board will be appointing Committees and staffing them at the March 12th Meeting. Members from the community/membership at large, should be very involved in committee participation. It is from these committees that changes are made to the Homeowner's Association. Please insist on a list of Committees, their functions and their meeting times. Notice the change of name for our standing committee. A natural question would be 'is there a motion to send the name change out for vote as it is referenced in the Association's CCR's as the 'Architectural' committee? '

You may also be interested in participating -- or at the very least watching -- the discussion on the Annual Assessment and the Water Consumer Fees. Those fees were set and approved by the Board of Directors in October 2010 for the Fiscal Year we are currently in...2011.It is the funding for this year's fiscal commitments and business.

Folks, it is imperative that you keep an eye on what is going on. If you can attend meetings, DO! If you cannot, get the videos and watch them. If all you can do is visit the places where a recap of the meeting is provided, like this Blog, then do so. If you have questions about anything please email. Be specific in your inquiry. 

Is Cheap always the best?

On occasion in life one finds out that getting something 'cheap', or in this case for FREE, is not always the best choice. 

For the past 3 years, the website costs and maintenance was provided as a donation from a member couple in the community. The Membership paid nothing for a quality resource updated as needed to keep the Membership informed while easily navigable when they arrived there for information. In that case FREE or 'cheap' was not a bad thing. 

Effective the last week of February 2011 the newly seated Board of Directors, primarily in the unilateral decision making person of the President, found a venue for the Website that is 'free' to the Membership. On the face of it, that is a good thing. The Membership as a whole may want to have things provided with less costs so long as it does not compromise the standard of service or a vital resource in the process.

At 0451 Tuesday March 8th I went to the 'official' website to look at the Agenda for the upcoming meeting. Lo and behold! The website was 'temporarily unavailable'. I snapped this picture at a little after 0500:

watchdog© 2011

Just to be fair, I also took a snap shot of the former site just a moment later:

watchdog© 2011

Now, I ask you, is this a harbinger of things to come? The short answer is: keep checking their site [which by the way, at 619 is finally back up] and look for the Agenda for the upcoming meeting. Some interesting goodies await the Membership and the 'whole' Membership may not feel like it bodes well for them. If you live on Popa'a Street or a couple of streets up you will love what they are doing!

Stay tuned. The expose is just revving up! 

You heard it first here: Those who have been ringing the bell for Dissolution of the Association and who have jumped on the 'cheap' bandwagon are jockeying themselves into a position to reap their reward. As a guess ventured, what do you think the 'state of the community/Association' will be in a year?

CHANGE IN NEXT REGULAR MEETING TIME

In what appears to be a unilateral decision made by the President of the Board, the Regular Meeting time for the next two monthly meetings, March 12 and April 9 have been changed from what was approved by the Board @10A the 2nd Saturday of the month, to 9A for the next two meetings!

SO HEAD'S UP...Mark your calendars, or schedule your calendars -- whichever way you use a calendar -- to attend the next regular meeting at 9A instead of 10A.

Of course, inquiring minds want to know WHY?

At the Annual Business Meeting of the Board of Directors during discussion about when to have the monthly meetings it was suggested by a member it be on Saturday mornings.

Member Contributed

EDITED INTO ORIGINAL POST 3.4.2011@ 0932: This picture of the Marquee was taken on Mar. 4, 24 hours after it was posted. Their Website Calendar and their FB page says nothing about the change of time. Notice to the public seems to be limited to those who live and leave the community whereupon their return they might 'notice' the subtle change. 

Edited into original post 3.5.11 @ 1055: Just checked, no mention on the FB Open Spaces page yet. No change on the Calendar for March or April. Where's the accountability? How is this fair to those who do not live in the community? 

From the video please notice the small discussion about the use of the Park by Members for activities on Saturdays. When informed by the Director of Operations and Management that the office maintains a calendar of all such activities and even suggested that some activities could be scheduled in the small pavilions if there was a scheduling conflict with the Board Meeting -- no one asked her if there was a scheduling conflict for Saturday Mornings for the year. No one followed up, apparently. 10 Days from the next scheduled Monthly Board meeting and the community is informed of a time change. Some one on the Board should be designated to ask the questions no one is thinking to ask. Like, HELLO..Is March 12 @ 10A available? How about April 9th?

As you begin the video, how would you answer the question "Does anyone care about confidentiality?" 

Fortunately, for March and April, IF they have time for an executive session it will be during the time the park is closed. This is a potentially litigious concern. There is a time when transparency is limited to 'topical' acknowledgment of what will be discussed in Exec Session while 'accountability' requires the confidential nature of that business session remain confidential.

Keeping it Transparent and Accountable

2011 Board of Directors 2/19/11

So the hew and cry of the Members for the past several months and the campaign rhetoric for the candidates for the same time was 'transparency and accountability'.

While the 'newly elected' board is in its infancy and will necessarily have to try and nest into their new responsibilities we must not let down the vanguard of idealism espoused at every opportunity lest the TRUST issues that were claimed to exist prior to the election should begin to disintegrate!

To rightly and legally establish the transition of one Board and its officers to the next, Minutes by the Secretary of record at the commencement of the Annual Board Meeting must be approved by the Board and signed by the Secretary of record at beginning of the Meeting. That record must conscientiously reflect what happened/was done at the meeting. Because those Minutes are crucial to the 'business of the corporation' they should be done as quickly as possible to allow the newly elected Board to function. However, expedience cannot be the sole motive.

On February 28, 2011, during discussion of the very Minutes, the President of the Board disagreed the statement from the Minutes: " The President called for the formation of a Search Committee to find a local attorney with experience in Homeowners Association law.   The committee is made up [See Approved Minutes for list of names on website.] and tasked with reporting back on their search results by the next Regular Board Meeting.

The motion by Mr. [see copies of actual approved Minutes; names are available on the website] and [see copies of actual approved Minutes; names are available on the website] was tabled until the next Regular Board Meeting." 

As a result of her objection to the word 'Regular' another director moved to amend the Minutes to remove the word Regular and it was seconded by another director. During the discussion the comment was raised by yet another director they recalled it was in fact the 'regular' meeting where the discussion was set to happen. The President disagreed using faulty recollection and equally faulty reasoning. She contended that because other motions subsequent to this one said 'special' this one should say 'special' as well. Please request a copy of the Video from the Business office and watch the portion of the video that starts about 17 Minutes into the meeting.

Now, is this important? As to the way the reality of the discussion worked out, NO! In fact, the actual findings and discussion of replacement attorneys is immaterial to the actual statements made during the previous meeting. It is however imperative to have a complete and correct legal accounting of what is done at all Corporate Meetings. For instance, simply because someone may have 'intended' for something to be done one way, if it was in fact done another, and intent is not represented then the intent is inconsequential at least as far as the actual record is concerned. 

Now, what should happen? The Minutes should be amended ONCE AGAIN to reflect what actually happened at the meeting. Will the same folks who cried for 'transparency and accountability' while they sat in the audience feel so inclined now when faced with a mistake as Directors? Time will tell. I hope so. It would be great to see the transition of all matters cleanly and quickly completed for the good of the Membership. We certainly learned what happens when a disgruntled bunch refuse to work for the Membership by refusing to sign Minutes and then distributing rumors as truth to the Financial Institutions being used at the time.

In case you don't get the sequence clearly the following evidence exists the Motion to Amend the word 'regular' from the Minutes was wrong because:

• 1.     The Director of record making a motion to terminate our current counsel requested a deadline when the search for a new attorney would be completed. He agreed to ‘the next meeting’ before he ‘withdrew’ then changed to ‘table’ his motion to terminate Michael Thomas.

• 2.     When the Secretary wrote the motion she specifically clarified with a question ‘Regular Meeting?’ and no one corrected her. If you look to the right of the Secretary, the director seated there nodded her head yes.

• 3.     The notion of a Special Meeting was not entertained until the Board found out the Minutes of that meeting had to be approved in order to complete the transition with regards the financial institutions. That discussion happened immediately after the discussion of the Attorney.

 What should you do? First, check back here to find out the determination of the President on this matter. Then, be at the meeting on Saturday, March 12th at 10A at the Recreational Facilities. Be prepared to raise an objection if the Minutes do not correctly reflect the historic record of the 2011 Annual Board Meeting as evidenced by the video record of the meeting. Remind them of their repeated concerns about 'transparency and accountability'.