Hawaiian Shores -- Ode to Candidate Forum

WATCHDOG © 2011

Season's Greetings Watchdog Readers,

Tiz actually passed the Season for the Candidate's Forum traditionally held mid November. However, with a new Board and a heavy agenda it was understood that a mid December Candidate's Forum would be effective. As a matter of fact, at the Election Committee's last official meeting there was a consensus by that committee to recommend to the Board the Forum be held at Honu Street Recreational Facility on Saturday, December 17! That would be today... You plan to attend? Save the trip...

Lacking any sort of evidence that such an event was organized -- considering the extent to which the Election Committee recommended the event be handled -- Watchdog emailed the Chair of the Election Committee to ascertain whether or not the Board had accepted, approved or changed the recommendation. Excepting a single committee member the idea of a Forum was most assuredly desired. Following is the email Watchdog sent and to this date never answered. I also copied the email to the office because they would have been instructed to set up. They too neglected to answer. This is rather interesting in that the previous office staff suffered many an email chastisement because email sent to them was not immediately responded to no matter what the busyness of the day may be. My email:

Aloha S, [full name removed for privacy]

I do not see the 'Candidates Forum' listed on the calendar for the 17th of December. The election committee filed the following for the Board's consideration:

• By consensus the committee agreed to set the date for the candidate forum for Saturday, December 17, 2011 beginning at 10A pending availability of the Pavilion
• By consensus it was agreed to invite members to submit their questions via a form on the website; email, by dropping them at the office or at the event.
• By consensus it was agreed the deadline for submission of questions would be December 14, 2011.
• By consensus it was agreed the office would have a drop box for questions for the candidate forum.
• By consensus it was agreed a transcript of the answers to questions asked at the Candidate Forum be made available on the website with copies made available in the Office.
• By consensus it was agreed to choose a moderator at the Election Committee meeting prior to December 10th Board meeting for approval by the Board.

Can you share what the final decision was for this event? I know some in the community hoped to attend.


Mahalo in advance for your response. I listed the office email in the event they know it will be happening as they would have been directed to set up for it. 

One could surmise a rationale on behalf of the Board to question 'Why' should they have a forum? It could be as simple as the ballot was designed such that 5 candidates could not compete for a seat at the Board table leaving 4 of 5 candidates remaining who will appear on the ballot having a track record established. The new face on the ballot? The 'MBA'? She is just up the river. But, is this fair to the Members? Should they not be able to come and ask questions of all candidates whether or not they have served on the Board and especially the new face about concerns that have arisen from the past year or to even address former directors about issues that existed during their tenure? If it was arbitrarily decided there would be no Candidate Forum why? Why not communicate this to those who have inquired? How does this show respect for the Members who had this date marked on their PERSONAL calendars as important enough to attend. 

There are so many answers to those questions yet nary a one positive. With this election looming just a month away let's look at the evidence of election manipulation:

August 2011 -- President's Report announces the candidacy of the current President, the current Secretary and a neighbor of the current President on Papio Street. [the current new name for the Association and Board some have begun to use as in "The Papio Street Board of Directors"] 

September 30, 2011 -- Deadline for receipt of nominations. Done!

October 2011 -- Election Committee Chair announces to committee at its initial meeting the Board submitted 7 nominations to the corporate attorney for his opinion with the desire to have the 7 disqualified because they were submitted on what has been interpreted as association 'letterhead' and the attorney told them they could not. He did offer that signatures not legible enough for immediate identification without the printed name or lot# might be disqualifying. However, at that first meeting each signature was verified 'again' [the first time it was verified by 22 year veteran employee PA moments after submission 9/30] even to the point of asking one member to come and attest to his signature in person. 

November 2011 -- A letter went out to the 7 Candidates addressed in part 'Candidate' informing them of the customary practice of providing a small written blurb about themselves.

November 10, 2011 -- In a completely unexpected move the discussion of the 7 nominations arose at the Board meeting where the Chair of the Election Committee lifted a stack of paper in her left hand and waved it in the air whilst castigating and impugning all the nominees for alleged vile and vitriol on the internet. Though many of the same candidates were present there was never an opportunity allowed for those candidates to examine the paperwork and deny nor confirm authorship. The Chair of the Election Committee surmised that such written materials was evidence enough for her to brand them unqualified to be on the ballot. [Those who clamor for freedom of speech were absent this event and subsequent to this event not a single protest has been lodged for using freedom of speech by anyone as reason to disqualify a candidate. The focus instead has been on the lack of democracy by such restrictions. There are a few issues here: 1) Whether or not the candidates scribed the alleged 'vitriol' is immaterial. Even if they had and even if it was they have 1st amendment rights to share their opinion on anything especially where their interests may be at risk. 2) Since NONE of the Candidates were allowed to review the materials being held as evidence against them they were denied an opportunity without due process! 3) Our bylaws allow for any member in GOOD STANDING to seek a seat at the Board table. Good Standing has always been understood as current in all payments and no disciplinary action against them that would deprive them of their membership rights!] The motion was made by director PK to deny 5 of the 7 candidates their right to seek election to the Board because their signatures could not be verified by the close of business on September 30. He referenced bylaw 5.03 which has nothing to do with signature verification. The 'yes' vote prevailed and the 5 candidates were denied.

November 17, 2011 -- At a special meeting of the Board called to review the ballot director RP introduced a motion which was seconded by direct KW to add the 5 candidates previously disqualified to the ballot. Discussion ensued but when the members in attendance wished to 'participate' which was their statutory right the Board decided to disallow the discussion. As you might assume the less than quiet displeasure in such a decision resulted in a quickly recessed meeting during the discussion phase of a main motion. The chair did not announce when the recess would conclude nor where. The Board members cleared the tables and went into the very small office and resumed the meeting. TO DATE members know not what the vote on that motion was. As of this writing, 12/17/11 @ 0751 Minutes have yet to be posted!

November 2011 -- The Election Committee met and recommended the disqualified candidates receive a letter stating they have been disqualified. As of this writing no such letter has been received.

December 2011 -- The year end packet materials including the Ballots were to be approved. 5 candidates still do not know their standing. The election is just a month away. Even if they were allowed to seek election precious campaign time has slipped by due to ineptitude on the part of this Board excepting of course the President, Secretary and the President's neighbor all of whom announced their candidacy via the Membership's monies in the costs associated with translation and printing/distribution of the President's Report in August 2011!

The Candidate Forum was initialized at the suggestion of a member who was distraught over the 2007 removal of 7 directors via Membership vote. She felt the Candidates seeking office in 2008 should be fully vetted by all members in a forum. In 2007 the Board agreed to allow the event that became an annual event each November until this year. As a matter of reference: This year the following things were not done according to customary practices nor historical demonstration:

• No announcement in print or on the community billboard the nominations for the board were due by 9/30/11
• No discussion during board meetings to this deadline
• No change of procedures, customary practices, historical protocol were made in public as to how the nominations would be submitted, what form they would take nor that they would need to be 'verified' by the end of day on the filing deadline.
• Election Committees have never been authorized to verify nominations
• Letters were sent to the Candidates based on an election committee recommendations to provide their written statements before the Board had a chance to read the election committee report and accept or deny the recommendations.
• Letters sent to the Candidates were sent ONLY to the 7 nominees whose nominations were of people not listed in the President's Report as seeking election; signed by the President [a candidate]  and requested by the chair of the Election Committee. 
• The Board had an opportunity to back away from the responsibility they now fully bear in this egregious abuse of power. They did not.
• A Main Motion to include the 5 disqualified candidates was recessed and determined in 'secret' and to date the 5 candidates have only the letter addressing them as a 'Candidate' as proof of their candidacy. This despite being faced with opposing motions to disqualify and then add with no letter informing them from the Board as to their ultimate status. The only approved communication refers to them as a Candidate.

 Any way you slice this it is suspect. Members who have been in touch with the state and local offices of the League of Women Voters have been told this is not an optimum election development. [Not a verbatim quote] They have recently been provided with a body of evidence that outlines what has transpired. Time will tell if they decide to conduct the elections or not. 

So, after all of this, WHY ISN'T THERE A CANDIDATES FORUM? And why hasn't the community been informed as to the situation? That is other than on the internet by members who are exercising their individual freedoms. Kudos to the 5 Candidates whose candidacy is still in the balance for not creating a divisive issue of all of this. It is a novel approach to community compared to the recent past. WHY ISN'T THERE A CANDIDATE'S FORUM TODAY?