Hawaiian Shores -- President's Report 2011

WATCHDOG © 2011

WATCHDOG © 2011

Aloha Watchdog Readers,

By now you may be one of the few who received your 'mid year packet' [2 months before the end of year packet is due to be approved for mailing] and may have read the enclosed materials. For this blog entry the Watchdog is going to begin to deconstruct the President's Report and provide some context to the statements made. As a reminder, she is the candidate most believed to have written the campaign materials distributed door to door twice last year and to the mailboxes of select individuals. Her business/personal Post Office Box was used as the return address. Within those two communiqué’s was embedded editorial license to use gross misstatement as facts; some believe facts were actually not present in much of what was delivered to your door, personally or by mail. As it turns out, that theme continues through the President's “campaign” piece mailed out under the guise of a report. Make no mistake, as you read through the report and arrive at the closing paragraph it fully sums up her intent to solicit your vote for she and another director and a vouch for yet another candidate who has an 'MBA'. 

Now to the first of a few blog entries about this “campaign" piece. This one is going to address the gist of the opening paragraph: "Many Positive Changes". Listed below are some of the  'changes' listed throughout the body of the “Campaign” piece. Please remember, when you are reporting an emergency you make a brief summation of the emergency, i.e., "The forest is on fire!"; "A car accident just happened, the Driver is hanging out the door!"; "Someone has been shot!"  That is all the 'information' necessary other than the location that needs to be said for an 'emergency' report. However, in court, you will hear the context of how the forest was set ablaze, what the consequences were. You will hear how the accident happened and what the consequences are. You will hear what led up to the gun shot and what those consequences were and can be. In essence, this “campaign” piece is nothing more than an emergency report with highlighted details you were intended to get. Only once did you get context and consequence/benefit. You should demand context and consequence!

• Packet materials for 'mid year packet' itemized. Everything you have before you from the packet was ready to be mailed months ago! In two months HSCA will incur additional costs to mail the end of year packet to you. So late in the year, could the two packets have been combined and sent for a small additional charge for weight with the end of year packet? Where is the savings in mailing two packets 2 months apart? However, please remember, because this is a CAMPAIGN piece it had to go out this month because the 'ballot' nominations must be in the office no later than end of day on Friday, September 30th. For the first time the Membership has paid for “Campaign” rhetoric for two sitting directors who have declared their candidacy with this mailing!
• Alleged 3 part time positions eliminated to contain operating costs. Please be aware of the following: Those 3 positions were 'temporary' positions that were likely to expire at the end of this fiscal year. 2 of the positions were voluntarily vacated when the employees quit their jobs; one was promoted to full time status. There was no savings gained for the operational budget by the 2011 Board.
• Office is no longer open on Saturday. The office was open for 4 hours on Saturday because it was closed for 8 hours on Tuesdays. The Saturday hours were actually welcomed by individuals who work during the week and cannot make it to the office to take care of business during the office hours. Tuesdays now find the office open for 4 hours. Saturday's wages amounted to about $50 per week for access to those who work during the week.
• New organizational structure to be implemented by November 1. This Board terminated the 'Dir. of Operations & Management' position effective the transition and training of responsibilities to the NEW Hire/Maintenance ForeMAN. Additionally, they will be terminating the position of Executive Administrative Assistant effective the transition period of responsibilities to the Office Manager. Ostensibly, by November 1, 2011 none of the current office staff will be in their current positions. This was all done to 'save' on employee costs. Between the two new positions currently being filled by the Dir. of Ops & Mgt and the cost of  replacing her with two new employees winds up being a grand savings of? ZERO DOLLARS! Actually, it may amount to a $20,000.00 gain in payroll by salary, benefits, taxes, insurance, etc. for those two individuals. The big savings will be in terminating the Executive Administrative Assistant's position because that position will be  replaced or restructured to be part time,  hourly and called 'office clerk'. A significant savings but will cost this organization a terrific, tried and seasoned asset in the person who currently serves as the Executive Administrative Assistant, Pake! Both of the women who have worked in the office, one for 20 yrs, one for 6 but who served as a director for 10 years before and much of that as the President, should be treated like family! They have unequivocally held true to a work ethic that honors the Membership especially in the balancing act between the questions from the Members and the directions from their bosses, the Board. They have been outstanding during the roughest period in recent history and they are being rewarded with being laid off because their positions have been eliminated. Now, THAT's a POSITIVE change for the newly hired; likely not so for the Membership and definitely not for the long standing devoted staff. During a time when even the President of this country is trying to create and keep employment opportunities HSCA is eliminating two positions! There has been no offer to keep the positions and negotiate for a lower salary.
• Enforcement of Covenants: How? Who exactly has been forced to concede to compliance with Covenants? Exploding feral chickens? [That was a horrible mental image!] Someone forgot to mention feral pigs, feral cats and feral dog packs. Covenants does mention you are not allowed to have certain kinds of critters ... sadly, the fact that the word 'feral' is included in the Campaign piece manifests a gross lack of understanding of what the Covenants cover and what they do not. More on the 'exploding feral chickens' later. FYI, for the folks who may not know:

fe·ral

¹    [feer-uhl, fer-] Show IPA adjective

1.existing  in a natural state, as animals or plants; not domesticated or cultivated; wild.

2.having  reverted to the wild state, as from domestication: a pack of feral dogs roaming the woods.

3.of  or characteristic of wild animals; ferocious; brutal.

 

The facts? There is no way to enforce the Covenants due to gross mismanagement by years of an impressive list of Directors. When you have people building fences on easements that should not be; when you have absentee lot owners who have been recalcitrant in dealing with their lot maintenance to the detriment of the water system or even personal property; when you have people who routinely neglect securing their dogs letting them run free; parking heavy equipment on the road shoulders-- no amount of letter writing from the office whose authority is pretty much restricted to informing someone of the violations will rectify things. For far too many years Boards have shied away from developing a fee to impose on someone for not being compliant. Removing huge Albizia trees costs thousands of dollars the Association does not have to remove them with any expectation that doing so and then imposing a special assessment against the violators will be repaid. This Board has done nothing to enforce violations either. As a matter of fact, this Board has dangerously demanded -- regarding feral chickens -- letters are to go out to property owners who appear to have 'feral chickens' with a 30 day notice they must get rid of the chickens. If they don't the staff has been directed, in fact the last statement was 'they have been sanctioned' to go onto the private property of any Member and 'remove' the chickens...what if they are not feral chickens? What if they are keeping chickens in violation of Covenants? Is it 'legal' for our staff to go onto private property and remove personal property as a means to 'ENFORCE COVENANTS?' Will they then be admonished to go onto a Member's property and remove vehicles that are being worked on but not in their carport or garage as specified in the Covenants?  

This concludes the first discussion for this blog under 'Positive Changes'. The next article will deal with Paragraph 3. As you read the “Campaign” piece with merely the 'emergency' information please ask yourself what the back story, context, truly is because the answer will eventually tap your bank account as this 'progressive' board moves their agenda along. 

The September Board meeting is this Saturday, September 10 beginning at 10A. Please come and share your thoughts on the Agenda items that will directly alter the way Membership deals with elections, directors, individual lot maintenance, depletion of critical funds, loss of equable staff members and more! Now is not the time to bury your head in the sand or to shy away from unpleasant interaction...if you do the next time you bury your head it will not be in the figurative sand but perhaps your own hands as you realize the cost of living here may be greater than you thought! One last thought: While the current Board has 'cut employee' costs by tens of thousands, it is the only category where costs were cut and yet they will be considering a recommendation by the Finance Committee to assess you for this coming year for the exact amount they were upset the former Board assessed you last year! With approximately $61k in overall employee cost cuts no reduction to the assessment is being recommended. If you thought a vote for these candidates meant your assessment would go down along with the employees you may be wrong! There may be a POSITIVE CHANGE you can make when you choose NOT to vote for anyone who campaigned last year on 'reducing costs'. Two were mentioned in the final paragraph of the Campaign Piece.