Firm Footing

WATCHDOG © 2011

A Commentary and update on Progress of the new Board

Their Agenda has historically and typically remained full and ambitious. The June meeting was no different. With Committees primarily peopled by individuals who live in the same neighborhood; who share ideological interests regarding their neighborhood; who have goals set to achieve in the year they have to achieve them before 3 new Directors will be elected, the Committees too have ambitious, if not out right aggressive, agendas. Having said that, none of what is written is necessarily a bad thing. If you don't have goals set and the verve to see them through nothing is accomplished. Certainly, neighbors working together reflects a positive indicator of a strong community. The 'Community' so far as HSCA is concerned however  is not just the homes built and people who live in them, at least not in this instance. This 'Community' incorporates 2/3 of the owners who have purchased a lot/s in the 'Community' and who -- as yet -- have not built their homes nor do they live here. 

The authority and responsibility of the HSCA Board of Directors is primarily to Manage and Maintain the HSCA assets which also includes the ancillary services  connected to some of those assets. It is quite a juggling act to balance the responsibilities of the whole community if half of the Board of Directors have a common 'interest' and perhaps live within a neighborhood with a fairly dense population of owner occupied homes. For decades the battle of the Boards and the contention between the Members and the Boards have been skewed somewhat like the Hatfields and McCoys. Only locally that translates to those who live within a few blocks of the Ocean and those who do not. The collection of personalities that live there range from driven visionaries who see a potential for the community upon which they could profit if the vision were brought to fruition; some who simply want to live somewhere with a combination of Ocean view, natural flora and quiet and peaceful living; and others who simply want to be left alone but are susceptible to sensational rumors and have no natural tendency to investigate the rumors to verify the veracity. Those who are active in the neighborhood are the visionaries and their vision is expansive. 

The rest of the community [the owner/members whose properties lie outside the few blocks by the ocean] is a hodge-podge of social, economic and cultural composition most of whom are easy going 'live Aloha' sorts who have demonstrated an interest in what the various Boards do and the motivation behind the deeds. 

The current clash was born in February 2011 and is gaining momentum with each meeting. The Board itself began its life as a cohesive group of individuals [the newly elected] who came to the first couple of meetings organized -- with their motions typed and assigned -- with a singular focus to approve the motions. Since that time, as Directors settle into the business of the Association common sense is starting to develop cracks in the forward motion of the 'Agenda'. Those who are not on the same page do provide a kink in the chain and have slowed the forward momentum with objections and reasonable resistance. The clash at this month's meeting [between Members and the Board] regarding the Ocean Park is currently building and began to seep out from 'old timers' who have lived here for years. The point of contention? The same thing that has fully eaten away chunks of time spent by Boards for YEARS! Ocean Front Parcels vs Ocean Park! Some on the current Board appear focused on providing the 'Park' environment [some Members believe to be motivated by self interest] from their first business meeting in February 2011.

The whole development of a Park on the Ocean is not at all wrong, bad or a misuse of assets. The surreptitious manner it has been handled -- 1) bringing information to the Board and Community 'after' the fact, 2) allegedly holding Committee meetings with absolutely no notice to the Community so that Members are not part of any deliberation or discussion, 3) being unabashedly brusque in response to Members who consider 'fairness' an ideal any Community should promote -- has begun the battle anew. The Community does not need a new rift. And frankly, the Watchdog assumes the folks who herald 'the Park is for the Community' would want a majority support for their dream and goal realized. Instead of alienating Members every effort should be made to bring them into the fold. As the future unfolds their bias will hopefully soften towards the Members or they may find themselves out on a limb of one of the only trees left standing in the Papio Ocean Park. [Has the name been formally moved and approved by the Board? Before the Community? In a noticed meeting?]