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.