Hawaiian Shores -- Customary Practice

WATCHDOG © 2011

The Watchdog site was conceived and initialized to bring forth discussion on items or issues of interest to 'some' who may own or are considering ownership in the Hawaiian Shores Recreational Estates subdivision, commonly referred to as HSCA. [Interestingly, if one were to research those four initials outside the context of this particular community it would be an interesting venture to embark upon. For Hawaii alone this is a sampling: Hawaii Sailing Canoe Association [HSCA]; Hawaii State Chiropractic Association [HSCA] and they incorporated the letters into their logo; Hawaii Sustainable Community Association [HSCA]. There is obviously no shortage of the use of this particular acronym.]

Customary Practice is the topic of this post. With little research an individual can ascertain that the laws set out to govern in this country -- including criminal law -- initially looked at customary practice. It is generally accepted, for instance, that the law's foundation for this country has as its underpinnings the Ten Commandments. For those who define their religious tenet from the Judea-Christian faith even the Ten Commandments saw time and circumstance alter the emphatic scripted stone from exact and literal application to adopt and conform to culture or ideology that was far removed from the culture that received the Commandments. The finality for the Christian for instance is the word of their Lord "Two Commandments" was what the law rested on. Over time, 'Thou Shalt not Murder' was defined by 'intent' so there are classes of murder. Customary practices evolved. While there was provision in the Deuteronomic Code for 'intent' or circumstance of murder it was not as evolved as our Legal Code in the US or in the various states and protectorates. As customary practice has been challenged laws and regulations attending the long time practice begin to evolve to accommodate culture as well.

Watchdog presents to you here Customary Practice as known to Watchdog from as early as the deadline for the 2006 nominations.

• Email sent to the directors current in September 2006 notifying the Board nominations for the secretary and the treasurer [then] needed to be made and concurred for 2007 elections. The nominations were made and the concurrence received by email. No questions ever arose as to the legitimacy of this practice.

• Allegations were made via court record this 'customary practice' was done in the alleged nomination of an appointed director for the election of 2008.

As a result of the alleged fiasco written nomination and concurrence were then looked to as an obvious way to thwart the opportunity for someone who contends that an email nomination/concurrence was sent but not received. Thus, the customary practice was adopted or evolved through a change to the bylaw 5.03 to accommodate a formal written notification of both the nominator and the nominee as concurring. Paperwork was in the office if they preferred. Through the 2011 elections, regardless of the informal practices from the past [bylaw 5.03] or the more formal practice of the more recent past [updated bylaw 5.03], it was always the customary practice of the Board of Directors to rely on the Office Staff, in the person of the long time staff whose tenure over arched the many general managers of 20 years, who knew the subdivision and everyone's standing because she accepted payments from the owners, to report to the Board if all were members and in standing. As a matter for consideration here the Bylaw that was used as the premise for the recent motion to deny 5 candidates their rightful place on the ballot for 2012 elections is posted:

Section 5.03. Nomination of Directors. Nominations for Directors shall be made by any Member in good standing by submission in writing with the written concurrence of the nominee to the Association office by September 30 for election the following year

There are specific actions set out in this section. Please note to whom they are set forth.

A.    

N OMINATIONS shall be made by any Member in good standing

B. NOMINATIONS shall be submitted in writing

C.  Concurrence of the nominee confirmed in writing

D.   Submission to be done

a.     To the Association office

b.    By September 30^th.

c.     For election the following year

Please note: the words signature and/or verified/verification are absent from the Bylaw.

The idea that the 'Customary Practice' of verification was changed this year with NO NOTICE to the members either by consensus, by motion, is suspect, and here is why. Moments after the submission of candidates the president sitting in an adjacent office actually did what was Customary, she 'asked' for verification of all by the same senior staff member who'd done it for decades. The President in her capacity exercised CUSTOMARY PRACTICE and quite naturally and had the confirmation of the standing of all signatures by the one person who could indeed recognize them all. 

Different individuals wrote letters to the Board asking for reconsideration. A motion was made to add the 5 names disqualified to the ballot of 2012. It is unlikely at this point if that was done because the motion made in an open session was voted upon in secret and the Minutes for that meeting may not be approved for dissemination for up to 2 months the entire Membership is hanging in limbo. Why? Because 'Customary Practices' were not adhered openly by the Board of Directors. On Saturday, October 29th, at the first meeting of the Election Committee the election committee was informed that all signatures had been confirmed in the customary way by the senior office staff to the president moments after submission. The chair of the Election Committee seemed surprised at this knowledge. This is the same person who raised a stack of papers at the next Board meeting suggesting that in her hand was a collection of evidence that she believed disqualified the entire 7 nominees they did not want on the ballot because she believed them unworthy to serve the Membership considering the things they had written on the internet. Not one of the 7 nominees had been given an opportunity to read and confirm or deny whether the allegations made against them were true. It was a fist of paper with print on it and her personal statement ON THE RECORD that disqualified them all in her mind. The signatures were only another 'reason'. Personal opinion so forcefully spoken that it caught many by surprise. 

The motion was made to disqualify 5 candidates based on signatures not being verifiable or even verified in time to make the deadline; a complete and erroneous statement of fact as well as misapplication of bylaw 5.03 where the verification process is neither required nor referenced. The nominators had to be a member and in good standing...but the nominations and concurrences delivered in writing is all that is required by the bylaw. They were. Everything else is smoke and mirrors in what appears to some as a feeble attempt to cover up a personal agenda of a majority of the Board in subverting a process that has until now served the Membership well notwithstanding the sole exception of the allegations made in the 2008 ballot. 

The deadline is fast approaching but it is not too late to do the right thing regardless of one's personal disgust, disenchantment. For the Membership as a whole, abiding by the Customary Practices -- which when all is said and done was in fact PERFORMED EXACTLY as it had been for years and years and years by the staff for every election! No excuse can be given to deny the democratic process going forward for those disenfranchised 5 candidates! 

FYI, this has already been addressed in former litigation...the customary practice. It could be an embarrassment for anyone to appear to stand in defiance of something that has already been addressed in deposition and part of the decision process arriving to the agreement that eventually concluded the litigation. Hearkening back to last campaign season and the Board's gracious consideration of the 'confusion' over the first ballot the Board decided to err on the side of caution and took a lot of heat from all sides for doing it. It is history now, but a history that stands in stark contrast to the current stand in similar circumstances. Watchdog respectfully requests this Board let democracy ring.

 

Hawaiian Shores --- Is this digression?

WATCHDOG © 2011

Was tonight's Special Meeting of the Board indicative of a trending backwards in time to 2006 when the Board then was given to halting meetings to thwart Member participation and then holding them in the office or as some would say in 'secret meetings'? 

Tonight's meeting was called to order, a motion was made, the Directors discussed their thoughts, well, some did; Member frustration was palpable as the motion under consideration was to put the 5 candidates previously disqualified back in play by including them on the ballot. The motion was in the 'discussion' phase which according the HRS 421j-5 allows for discussion from members. When Members began to chime in the Chair asked if Board  wanted to entertain any member comments before calling the question. When one of the directors said 'NO!' the Board was reminded by an audience member, very directly, of HRS 421j-5; a terse back and forth between the chair and the member quickly resulted in the Chair calling a 'recess' but no announcement as to when they would resume. Members were left dumbfounded not realizing what the Board intended to do. As the audience began to notice the various directors taking their personal belongings off the table and departing the Board area it only enhanced the level of confusion. As it turned out, though no notice to the audience, the Board wound up moving their meeting into the cramped office. 

There was a main motion on the table under discussion. A recess was called but with no notice to the board or the audience as to when the meeting would resume. Nor, was the audience informed the meeting would resume in the office a place too cramped to allow members to attend. 

Some in the audience were there for conciliation. The community has been here before. Closing out the Members from Board meetings was general practice until 2007 when it was made known that members have a statutory right to participate in discussions to a point. The general practice of the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 Boards was to invite member discussion! Though there were times any one of those Boards could have flexed its muscle and denied the Members input the various Boards in fact welcomed the repartee. How is a Board to know how the members feel if they do not permit their topical opinions, thoughts or sage? Again, there has been abuses by some who for any number of reasons stepped out of what was socially acceptable address to the Board but generally that was understood either as one's style of self expression or in many cases outright frustration. 

Tonight, this move, this giant step back 5 years to the shutting out of members hardly beckons conciliation, demonstrates a deplorable lack of understanding of different styles of communication and denies a venue for the venting of frustration over actions that will now merely provoke and intensify the huge divide that is separating the community. Rather than a move towards 'WE' we are seeing a more defined US [Board] vs. YOU [Member] by some on the Board. There are successful community associations out there in this country. Watchdog has been told there have been times of tranquility and sense of community interspersed with character and personality differences, historically here.

The Board has an opportunity to reverse this and take the high road by reevaluating their developing stand to deny members the chance to voice their concerns whether or not it is phrased in a tone of voice or with perfect elocution. People appreciate being able to get things off their chest. They may not agree with the Board's response but when it is obvious the Board is going the distance to try and understand the member concerns when they do have to move on in a discussion the member is far more compliant. Tonight was poorly handled. The Watchdog truly and sincerely hopes this was an isolated instance. Another instance of a meeting being recessed to other quarters as a means to 'control' the crowd instead of using the Current Edition of Robert's Rules of Order for a 'small board' where more informal latitude is permitted may see a localized insurrection which could only end badly. With the built in divide over the appearance of a Board thwarting democratic process -- will they add insult to injury by the stifling of a member's voice too? 

Members should work through their network of friends and neighbors to really put the Membership first in encouraging the various Directors on the Board to allow dissent from the Members present regardless of the level or tone of voice and regardless of verbiage. If you can unaffectedly look beyond the individual communication style and appreciate the point being made -- whether you support it or not -- 'hearing' it simply adds to the dialogue and can only be better for all!

Hawaiian Shores --- Makes History?

WATCHDOG © 2011

Will the Board of Directors make yet another Historical move for Hawaiian Shores Community? 

Will they approve a ballot to be sent out with only half of the nominees whose paperwork was marked received in the office by the required Sept. 30th deadline? 

If you are sitting at home tonight with little else to do and happen upon this blog please feel free to grab your keys and drive to the Honu street facility; join fellow members as observers to what may be an historic act of the Board of Directors.

Hawaiian Shores -- Board shows Wisdom

WATCHDOG © 2011

Aloha Watchdog Readers,

The Board of Directors considered recommendations for changes to the Bylaws and CCR's at their recent Board meeting. In consideration of a proposed change to "Section 4.05 Quorum", the Bylaws committee had recommended the current 100 members present in person or by absentee ballot be reduced to 70. A motion was introduced for discussion by the VP to leave the current required 100 members as it is. The discussion was intelligent and mirrored the thoughts of some who serve on the Bylaws committee and who made the case for just the reason introduced last night. After careful deliberation the Board voted to approve the motion. 

Additionally, the Board wisely corrected a flaw in the Bylaws "Section 11.01 Procedures" to bring that bylaw in line with "Article Ninth" of the Articles of Incorporation which states any changes to the Bylaws and CCR's must be made by a 2/3 vote of the members present in person or by absented ballot. The inconsistency in Bylaw 11.01 may have been adopted by the Membership in January 2006. It is most certainly in print in the Bylaws approved 1/2006.  It may have been part of a sweeping change to Bylaws by the 2005 Board of Directors who approved the changes for a Membership vote late that year. Kudos for that catch. Further research would pin point exactly when the language of Section 11.01 was actually changed to fifty one [51%] percent.

The Members in the audience were witness to the practicality of how an organization self corrects and moves progressively forward via the Committee process. HRS and Bylaws recognize the intrinsic value of a committee formed by the Board. It defines the limited authority to recommendations to the Board for the actual implementation through various methods of adoption/approval etc. The Bylaws committee met for several months developing the agenda for the next election cycle and those recommendations were individually taken up by motion and discussed ultimately ending in a vote.

All proposed changes approved by motion at that meeting are pending voter adoption of a 2/3 vote.

Wisdom in two key motions was demonstrated through the parliamentary practice of deliberation and vote. It is now up to the Members to vote their conscience which is the final application of the process for change. Well DONE on these! 

Hawaiian Shores -- Nov Board Mtg

WATCHDOG © 2011

Why is it 4 days before the next regular Board meeting, a meeting that has taken place on the 2nd Saturday of the month for 7 consecutive months, has not been changed on the website? The announcement was made on Oct. 8th the meeting would be changed to Thursday, November 10th @ 6p; the community bulletin board called the 'marquee' has had the notice of the meeting up for a week or so, the calendar was updated to reflect it last week end, but what? The WEBSITE is not updated at the same time? Not to mention no Agenda is posted! This month's meeting time is an anomaly but one that was planned over a month ago and the meeting notice on the website could at any time from Oct 9th to now been changed for as much advance notice as possible! The conspiracy theorists could ask "Why not?'.

WATCHDOG © 2011

In case you haven't driven into the community the past couple of weeks; haven't looked at the calendar this past week or did not attend last month's meeting, this month's meeting was changed -- unilaterally --to this coming Thursday night. At no time at the last Board meeting did the Chair ask any or all of the director if it was convenient for them to meet on Thursday, or even for a consensus agreement. She simply announced the meeting was going to be changed. That old saying, 'there is no 'I' in TEAM' can be changed to 'there is no 'I' in BOARD' either. 

And the Agenda! Talk about timely presentation of matters for discussion so Members might be able to prepare for the part they may have in the section "Comments on Agenda items by Members'. All items due in the packet for the meeting are to be in the office on the last Friday of the month at close of business. That was 9 days ago.

UPDATED: 1212 on Monday, November 7, 2011. It WORKED! A friendly reminder here and POOF it appears on the official website. Now, for those who want a copy of the agenda to begin planning for the meeting it is available. 

The Watchdog commented on this provision to allow Members the opportunity to speak for 3 minutes before the meeting started as a positive step for communications. It is. However, it is only lip service when you do not provide the Agenda early enough the Members who wish to speak to an Agenda item would have sufficient time to research an item and prepare an intelligent comment. Even if it is only to give kudos to the Board it takes time to look over the Agenda, research a topic and speak to it. The Agenda is being posted online later and later each month. It is evidence of both a dilatory and lackadaisical attitude or interest of and towards the Membership! Last month it was posted two days before the meeting. Within a couple of hours after the Watchdog posted noticed the community still had no notice on the website about the meeting --it appeared and was made available! The Board may be feeling a little bogged down with meetings running a lot longer than those 2 hour meetings they thought they were going to wiz through back when they began planning the meetings and they may attribute that to an active Member audience but that is what the Board meetings are all about. The audience is there to watch and interact on those issues that are of most interest to them. If the Agenda was not filled with such aggressive goals it may well be they could keep it to 2 hours. The busier the agenda the more opinions are going to be voiced. 

It would be unwise for Member interaction with the Board to be curtailed. One could most certainly perceive such action as a direct result of a brewing problem involving many on the Board and many Members from the community who may be present to speak to the issue of Speed Humps. Elections are coming up and stifling the Membership in any way does not bode well. 

Please plan to attend; please plan to speak to any of the topics on the Agenda. If you want a copy of the agenda perhaps an email inquiry as to when it will be posted would be in order. 

Email the Board of Directors
Email the Business Office

Hawaiian Shores -- The Road to Truth

WATCHDOG © 2011

Winston Churchill is quoted as saying: "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. "

It is to truth and discovering it - that this post is created. 

Recently, a series of comments have been made, personal observations really, but presented as 'truth' or 'facks' -- as the individual opined elsewhere -- relative to statements made by the Watchdog here. Since this is the appropriate place to address the Watchdog it seems reasonable questions asked, statements made and conclusions reached would see rebuttal here. Following will be a point by point response; sometimes rebuttal, sometimes personal reflection all the time 'truth' as Watchdog knows it and of course inevitable opinion. 

WATCHDOG © 2011

Now to the task.

Q: How did Da ROC. get a list of candidates before anybody?

A: "Da ROC" is a grassroots group of members who realized  when July and August came and went with no election committee established; and when they received their individual copies of the President's Report, which served as an introductory campaign piece, the members better do the job the election committee had always been tasked with doing --soliciting members who might be interested in running for Director. It required no effort whatsoever. The President's Report and actions taken by the Board or by individuals on the Board created sufficient impetus to step up.

Q: How did Da ROC know the collective experience before anybody else?

A: True. Many of the members who are currently supporting Da ROC and those who are seeking election are long time residents of this community and they are known by many in their individual neighborhoods and beyond. 

Q: Does Watchdog have a special interest in getting 3 of the 7 on the BOD and not the other 3

A: One can only wonder what is meant by this statement. There are only 3 seats available to fill. Only 3 people can be elected. The Watchdog endorses no one person over another. The Watchdog has never designated any 3 candidates. If the statement above alludes to the Watchdog endorsing the seven candidates listed on this site over the 3 listed in the President's Report, it is a false premise and faulty reasoning. The Watchdog listed the candidates known to the Watchdog as having submitted their nominations through Da ROC. The Watchdog listed their community service and ties in this post.

Q: Why did the 7 nominees use  HSCA "NAME" to endorse their candidates?

A: Seriously? Again, the election committee was not formed in July/August as it had traditionally been to facilitate the election process through candidate solicitation. Again, without the election committee there was no 'procedure' put into place to deal with 'how' candidates could be nominated. The By Laws are specific as to who qualifies and when the filing deadline is but is silent on how that happens. Previous Boards have worked with the Office to facilitate that process. In 2008 due to an alleged discrepancy on a ballot that Board decided to initiate an election committee and task them with securing candidates from a solicitation process to the nomination process and then later to work through the actual election process at the time of the annual meeting. For the years of the July/August Election Committees EVERY effort was made to create a desire and awareness in the community of the deadline. The Marquee was used, announcements were made at meetings, on the blogs, and letters sent  out to those members who had attended meetings through the year and who offered their thoughts at the meetings. One year the Board approved sending out as many as 25 letters. The election committee aggressively campaigned JUST to get people interested in serving on the Board. What happened this year? NADA! Zip! The deadline came and it went. BUT, though the deadline was not mentioned, the 3 candidates mentioned in the President's Report managed to gain an unfair advantage which is still in effect. They announced their candidacy 10 weeks ago! Yep! Where was your outrage that the President knew the candidates and their qualifications? Yeah, don't worry. That was a rhetorical question. Where was your outrage that she/or the Board used REAL HSCA letterhead AND YOUR MONEY to begin their campaigns? Yeah, don't worry. That was a rhetorical question too. 


Because there was NO guidance in place and because HSCA does endorse the NOMINATION process via the BL the designation of Hawaiian Shores Community Association as the 'corporation' for which the nominees were being submitted for election was appropriate. What is not appropriate is letting the deadline date slip by quietly in hopes there would be no competition for the 3 seats. What is not appropriate is the Board not providing the Office with the Board's policy in how to handle the nominations. What is not appropriate is the time that is still elapsing without the Membership being privy to the 'whole' list of candidates nor the 7 candidates not having an open forum to campaign because the Board has not made their nominations known. Yet, for some 10 weeks the ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP has known the President, the Secretary and a family member of the President's neighbor are candidates. Where is your outrage? That's okay. Also a rhetorical question. The Watchdog understands how 'confusing' this all may be.

Q: The olny reason I can think of is that Da R O C is going to do a mailing to the lot owner on the mainland so it look like HSCA has indorse these 7 candidate and not the other 3 candidate knowing that most of the lot owner don't pay attention or don't care what is going on hopping they will get there vote because HSCA has indorse them and not the other 3. How else will the mainlander know about there indorsemen if they don't tell them. VERY SNEAKIE.-- verbatim hypothesis

A: This is an interesting conspiracy being promoted on the global internet. It is a red herring statement. It has no basis in fact, history or truth!  Question: If you are a member reading this when was the last time you personally received in the mail an actual copy of the nomination paper submitted by a candidate to the office? Did you receive copies of the actual individual nomination paperwork last year? The year before? Before that? Again, rhetorical because EVERY Member would have to say NEVER to that question. That paperwork is merely submitted to the Office and the IF the Board wants to see it they do. Otherwise, it is kept on file in the office, period! If anyone wanted to question HSCA endorsement of candidates they might want to question the President's intent in her August Report sent to ALL MEMBERS, including the 'mainlander' as is referenced in 'red' above. [Back page last paragraph.]

Q: Will HSCA membership like being played a fool?

A: Too late! Last year's campaign was all about finances and reducing the costs of running the Association. While there were cuts made to 'someone's finances', it wasn't to HSCA's and it is not reflected in the Assessment set for 2012! Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me! When the dust settles in the next couple of months the MEMBERSHIP will have a picture to look at they did not expect relative to their votes cast last year.

In conclusion, there is no need for the big deal being made about the 7 candidates who have yet to be acknowledged by the Office or the Board. TICK! TOCK! Question, if you will, is all of this obstruction developing quite the grounds for election tampering. Could any or all of the 7 candidates allege unfair advantage with this deplorable lapse in time? The filing deadline was Sept. 30th. The October Board meeting should have designated the historic and customary November 'Meet the Candidates' Forum.  Tick! Tock! All 7 Candidates were verified as MEMBERS and in IN GOOD STANDING by the Senior Office employee to the President on Sept 30th. What else is necessary by our BL to get the race for the seats moving forward? The President, the Secretary and one other candidate were announced to ALL MEMBERSHIP effective August 19, 2011 via the President's Report! Paid for by EVERY Member and on HSCA OFFICIAL letterhead! The road to Truth is being forged with each passing day and the continuing unfair advantage being realized as possible election tampering!

The bottom line? No matter which side anyone falls on -- or no side at all -- the Membership is being dealt a disservice by not having an honest, open, fair, unencumbered democratic election process with the current undo advantage being given by and to 3 to the disadvantage of the 7. It should be 10 candidates and lets get the campaign going!