 |
| WATCHDOG © 2011 |
Aloha Watchdog readers,
The following is a recap of the discussion at the last By Laws Comm meeting held on August 22, 2011. Please see 'opinion' comment at the end of the page regarding the highlighted entry below.
Agenda Items Discussed:
· Minutes from June 27, 2011 approved by consensus
· Discussion of Park Rules per Board request [See Below]
· Discussion of By Law 10.05 [See Below]
· Discussion of By Law 3.02 and Article 8 deferred until next meeting.
· Definition of Member [See Below]
· Definition of Easement [See Below]
Proposed Recommendations for Board of Directors:
1. Honu Street Recreational Facility “Park Rules” revised 6/2011
a. Recommendation: TITLE: Current Title “Hawaiian Shores Community Association Park Operating Rules’ Change to: ‘Hawaiian Shores Community Association Honu Street Recreational Facility Operating Rules”
b. Recommendation: Rule #3: “All guests will be required to wear wristbands”…[pending input from office]
c. Recommendation: Rule #7: Include ‘motorized recreational vehicles’ to the list.
2. Papio Ocean Park Rules
a. Recommendation: Rule #1: Park Hours: Sunrise to Sunset
b. Recommendation: Rule #2: Pedestrian access only – No vehicles allowed
c. Recommendation: Rule #3: Remove all trash and pet waste.
d. Recommendation: Rule #4: Stay away from Cliff’s edge – Danger!!
e. Recommendation: Rule #5: No illegal activities allowed on property.
i. Recommendation: Rule #6: Loud music and gatherings with 10 or more people must contact office – 965-8140 –If the event is longer than 2 hours the guests must park on side streets.
ii. Recommended Fees:
1. 10-50 Guests: $50.00
2. 50-100 Guests: $100.00
3. Over 100 Guests: Negotiate
f. Recommendation: Rule #7: No riding of skateboards, roller blades, bicycles or motorized recreational vehicles allowed.
g. Recommendation: Rule #8: Not responsible for personal belongings.
h. Recommendation: Rule #9: Anyone may be immediately removed for any conduct that is deemed detrimental to other users or employees.
i. Recommendation: Rule #10: No smoking allowed.
3. By Law # 10.05:
a. Current: Section 10.05. Veto of Assessments. If at any time the Board of Directors either (a) increases the last prior regular annual assessment by more than thirty three percent (33%) or (b) declared any special assessment, the Members, by an affirmative vote of a 2/3rds majority of the Members of the Association present either in person or by absentee ballot, may veto such increase or special assessment at a special or regular meeting duly noticed for that purpose. Unless such a meeting is held within sixty days of the notice of assessment, the assessment as declared by the Board shall be effective as of the date originally announced. A petition by the members for (a) a special meeting to veto any such increase or special assessment, or (b) to have the matter placed on the agenda at the annual membership meeting, must be presented to the Board within fifteen (15) days of the notice of assessment, pursuant to Section 4.03.
b. Motion was made to recommend the following changes [italicized] be made: change meeting held from 60 days to 120 days; petition presented from 15 days to 60 days. The Vote was 3 Yes/1 Abstain.
c. Recommendation: If at any time the Board of Directors either (a) increases the last prior regular annual assessment by more than thirty three percent (33%) or (b) declared any special assessment, the Members, by an affirmative vote of a 2/3rds majority of the Members of the Association present either in person or by absentee ballot, may veto such increase or special assessment at a special or regular meeting duly noticed for that purpose. Unless such a meeting is held within one hundred twenty (120) days of the notice of assessment, the assessment as declared by the Board shall be effective as of the date originally announced. A petition by the members for (a) a special meeting to veto any such increase or special assessment, or (b) to have the matter placed on the agenda at the annual membership meeting, must be presented to the Board within sixty (60) days of the notice of assessment, pursuant to Section 4.03.
4. Definition of ‘Member” – still being researched.
5. Definition of “Easement” – to be provided by office.
Meeting adjourned 710P. Next meeting of the By Laws/Policy Committee Monday, September 26, 2011 at 6P
OPINION: The suggestion is being made for a change to Articles of Incorporation and to By Law 3.02. This change in essence is to change the 'vote' from one vote regardless how many lots owned to one vote for each lot owned. This would change the historical way this Association has counted votes since its inception in the early 1970's. This is also the gateway step to changing the way a vote can be cast to include 'proxy' as the next change . When this was suggested as a follow up possibility the statement was made with nary a pause for breath or thought 'correct, that is likely to be the case.' Here in this country, regardless how many properties you own in any of the 50 states you are only allowed to cast a single [one vote] for President. There is sound reason for such a vote.
While it is natural to defend the ideology that a person who is more vested in a community should have a 'say' in how it is run which equals the responsibility they bear in their investment. Currently, there are approximately 3 individuals who currently attend all Board meetings [most of them directors and must attend] and 1 who consistently attends all meetings who are multiple lot owners. The rest of those who are 'vested' have not proven a sense of informed responsibility -- being at meetings and participating during any of the discussion phases when decisions directly impacting their investment are being forged -- which would garner far more credibility in the minds of fair thinking individuals. If attending the basic meetings is a responsibility they are quick to shirk then why would anyone naturally assume their multiple votes would be 'informed' and in the best interest of the 'Membership' as opposed to using those same votes to promote a special interest, personal agenda, etc. The current 1 vote for all is a level playing field for all. [Those who have 1 lot and who attend meetings changes the dynamic up a little.]
If abuse of power is the ultimate gain -- which would be intensified should 'proxy' voting also be permitted -- then this is the sure way to get there. The question here is this: Will you care enough to come to the next By Laws committee meeting and discuss your thoughts on this matter? Doesn't matter which side of the argument you come down on, your point of view will lend itself a broader discussion. Hope to see you there.
No comments:
Post a Comment