 |
| 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.
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!
I believe our goals in the Shores should be the same as Americans everywhere: freedom; prosperity and peace. In order to realize these goals, we must recognize the moral imperative to obey our By-Laws. But, this can only be done if our By-Laws are properly understood and not selectively interpreted, nor selectively enforced against fellow members to the advantage of any special interest group. Democracy without education is hypocrisy without limitation. Mark Mallory
ReplyDeleteI agree there should be a camaraderie of Members who feel they have a kinship with the character and goals of their circle of associates. I agree that has been the case within the hierarchy of this Association at least during the short time I have been involved whether as a bystander or one who was intimately involved. [Clearly, the Papio Street Board of Directors examples this concept.]
ReplyDeleteI also agree with every word you have spoken here. Not to infer that you did not understand the premise of the post but I believe the bylaws are not the only laws this community is subject to; I believe you correctly sited HRS 421J-5 in defense of the opportunity for 'members to participate in the discussion' and they were denied this opportunity. In fact, it has been over a week and still there has been no way to clearly know whether the motion passed or failed though I surmise it is the latter.
A main motion made in an open meeting and concluded in secret. As of today, I am not aware that any of the disqualified candidates have been given any idea if their status as 'unqualified' has been sustained or overruled. While there may be no bylaw that directly relates such maneuvers as this there is one that indirectly relates to it..
To this statement: Democracy without education is hypocrisy without limitation; I roundly agree with a strong AMEN!
I wonder if the board senses the blunder they've committed? Many of the members present at the meeting viewed their action as unfair. The next morning I observed a small group of members walking past my house. I could hear them discussing the incident from my study window. This is not going away, I think. The board would be wise to allow the members in good standing onto the ballot. Otherwise, this is likely to come back to bite them later. If you get on the wrong side of them members, you will be out. Mark Mallory.
ReplyDeleteThe motion to reconsider their position was made in full view of the Members present, a collection of Members many of whom have been unknown to this Board and if known have not be vociferous in their opinion, until then. As the motion's outcome is to date a 'secret', though made in open session, we can assume the end result was not favorable to the motion made. Personally, I am glad to hear that members other than the usual suspects are talking and getting it. I would love to see all of us who have been point fade to the crowd of faces blending with the natural force that will issue forth to demand a democratic process. I am unaware of any movement in any direction, likely because there is no definitive word one way or another as to the disposition of the motion. I know the caliber of people who are now riled up is a different demographic than the past.
ReplyDeleteI, personally, was their to appeal to conciliation, ala the second inaugural speech of Mr. Lincoln. I particularly believe these parts to be apropos: "Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came." And this: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." I would use the "Community" where 'nation' appears when in context it may not make sense. The ideology expressed in those two parts is really what I wanted to express if I'd been allowed to speak to the motion. I waited patiently for the Board to have its say which is absolutely appropriate and when asked if the Board was willing to entertain thoughts from the audience I was truly taken aback by the response and felt your immediate recognition of a wrong committed was timely and altogether appropriate. Though you may not have sought the floor as perhaps it might have been done; you attempted to appeal to the Chair, which is always right.
As the saying goes, it is what it is. Consequential results to any action are not always immediately known; or, the unintended consequences, out of deference to those Board members who may have been more tuned into the President's need to hurry the meeting along to make a late night flight than to the Members voices and thoughts.
If you would like to write an article that clearly addresses any concerns or thoughts regarding this issue and be willing to allow the attribution to yourself I will gladly post it. I set this site up months ago as a means to keep issues of concern out there for people to read. I will publish it as you send it and deal with my responses as a commenter. hscassoc@gmail.com
This is a sincere offer. No editing excepting for security/safety a genuine request to please leave full names, addresses or any other detail that might create a safety or security issue to anyone's personal safety.
If I may, the original motion to deny was promulgated solely on bylaw 5.03. If that is the direction you wish to take I have already submitted my appeal letter to the Board [11/17/11 prior to the meeting] based on that bylaw and will gladly post some of it here as a response/comment.
My apologies...this "I, personally, was their to appeal to conciliation" should have been there.
ReplyDeleteQuestion;: Did board member Solveig Lamberg violate the Code of Conduct at the the meeting where she told the nominees they are not the kind of people who should be on the board?
ReplyDeleteThe Code of Conduct defines "Misconduct" as follows, in part: "B. “Misconduct” means that a Board member has, during a meeting of the Board, engaged in:
ReplyDelete1) Disrespect to any person present at the meeting, including but not limited to another member of the Board, any member of the Association, any member of a Board-organized committee, Association employee, etc. As used herein, “disrespect” includes but is not limited to shouting; use of profanity, vulgarity or hate language; rude or intimidating gesturing; unconsented-to physical contact;"
The DVD of the meeting provides the exact tone of voice and choice of verbiage. I know that many took exception to the emphatic gestures [body language] together with the choice of words together with misrepresentation of facts. Whether or not that constitutes a violation as the Code is presented above would be for the person who wished to push the issue through a filing to see how the process would be handled. As I read the COC I do not believe what was said, how it was said nor the misrepresentation of facts would necessarily hold up to scrutiny, unless you were to embellish the 'not limited to' portion of the statement. But, I am not a nominee and I was not accused of anything directly. I was accused indirectly but it is a matter of her interpretation of what I write vs. my own. I believe she is entitled to seeing what I write as she does but I do not share her opinion, obviously.
If a nominee felt inclined to file I believe they would meet with great resistance -- not necessarily for lack of grounds so much as the collective opinion of a majority may be sympathetic to the outburst of that Director. As you know, one of your neighbors was present at a meeting recently and took a bit of a tongue lashing; to date the COC addressing that incident from months ago has gone nowhere as far as I am aware. [As a reminder, she was accused of being fallacious for referring to the Maikoiko street facility as an adult park -- she took the statement straight from the official website. If her statement was fallacious so is the info on the website. Somewhat disingenuous to call someone a liar for quoting the Association's website.]
Do I believe the behavior of the individual you mentioned was acceptable as a Director, no. But, I cannot cast the first stone on this issue. I believe the COC is explicit and was tightly authored to prevent abuse.
Personally I would have seen a positive outcome to the motion made and seconded and then considered in secret after a recess during a main motion -- as a sort of an apology. But I cannot speak for the 5 or the 7 candidates whose reputations were falsely impugned by the Director.
As an aside, if you could shorten future names to either the full first name and first initial of the last name or vice versa; or if they have a title, like assistant Treasurer; acting Secretary, use the title instead of a name. People will know who it is if they are local and it keeps the individual's safety and security protected. Mahalo.
Can you quote verbatim here the statement the BoD member made? I will accede to your request vis-a-vis individual names. However, I believe people who hold power are responsible for their actions and should be named.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI removed my first entries because I had not completed the proof read. I wanted to preview but hit post by accident. The text that follows is the complete text, basically proofed.
ReplyDeleteThe assistant treasurer’s thoughts about the 7 candidates during discussion November 10, 2011 regular board meeting: “ Well yeah I have thought long and hard on this and part of my decision to try and verify the names at the meeting even though it was way after the date was at the uh my first reaction was no. This is, this is so irregular and just so wrong in so many ways I couldn’t even begin when I first saw it. Um but I spoke to ah the woman of the League of Women Voters and she said but you want people to run you want people to run and then I’ve I’ve just been you know and I’ve been ah looking around on various blogs and stuff and do I want these people to run? (President, Non Board member recording Minutes and the Secretary laugh out loud) You know ah they are clearly presenting a one sided view of everything you do and so hostile I’m I’m talking now I’m talking [quick back and forth between president and director] ah that I am now again saying to the League of Women Voters that wasn’t any firm [inaudible due to cough] but that was just how she felt. I did not feel I’m really um I mean the venom and the one sidedness and there's just stuff I’ve been reading like this (holds up the sheets of paper to audience) it’s like amazing. Really! You want to be on this Board? Do you do you know what it means to be on this Board? It means you are working in the best interest of this community. But I have not seen that from any of these candidates and I like bent over backwards to get verified by the election committee and as a Board member now I have to vote for what is best for this community.” –Verbatim -- DVD Segment 5 beginning at 9 minutes.
ReplyDeletePlease note, her discussion points were her personal judgment of what she claimed was 'venom' written on 'various blogs and stuff' alleging these 7 candidates wrote thus disqualifying them from being able to 'serve the best interests of the community' by unsubstantiated vilification. Again, never ONCE was any one of the 7 candidates allowed to examine the paperwork waved in the air to ascertain authorship. It is her opinion they are not qualified because of what is written. Remember this was November 10th.
Obviously, there has been some venting written by a couple of candidates subsequent to the special meeting where the motion was made to add the 5 candidates to the Ballot but the discussion of the motion was recessed to secret. There is no proof of anything 'venomous' presented in the way of real evidence for any of the candidates to be able to refute. And, first amendment speech may be venom to one but have a ring of truth to another. Subjective parsing of the written word and then painting 7 candidates who truly were given no audience to examine or respond -- summarily dismissing the worth of each of them based on her hyperbole will not stand in court. Nor should it stand with the Membership.
The 7 candidates are fully within their rights to object to this farcical demonstration but they have generally sought to write letters, some did, be at the following meeting to find out what the next move was; a couple have given voice to their frustration online; but to my knowledge, everyone is holding back waiting to find out whether or not the Main Motion made in open session before the recess and then decided in secret was successful or not. As of today, one of the candidates informed me they were still not aware whether or not they will be on the Ballot.
To the point of the motion made by the Director to disallow 5 of the 7 candidates because of signature verification/time element the talking points during discussion made by the assistant treasurer were not relevant. Nothing but pure opinion based on subjective emotions held by her about what has been written about them as an exercise of free speech yet not even by the 7 candidates -- but by someone not considering a ballot position.
Additionally, she did not have to bend over backwards to be verified by the election committee. They did not verify anyone when she was running. The candidates were all established the only issues debated at the various election committee meetings in 2010 were related to the ballot and procedural issues in sending out, receiving back, verifying signatures on ballot envelopes, etc. NO CANDIDATE EVER has been verified by anyone except the office since 2006 which is my history with this Association up to and including THIS YEAR when they were each vouched for by the same office staff to the president upon her request before the close of business on the 30th of September! I have been assured by office staff this has been the procedure for sometime before 2006 as well.
ReplyDeleteThere is a post dedicated to the bylaw that was used to disqualify: http://hawaiianshoreswatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/11/hawaiian-shores-customary-practice.html
ReplyDelete