Hawaiian Shores -- Fan Mail

WATCHDOG © 2012

Welcome Watchdog Readers!

Recently, some of the community received what must be tantamount to 'fan mail'. It has to be because so many of us received the same letter signed by the same person! Additionally, Watchdog received a piece of communication that was most intriguing. Here is the back story...

By the deadline for items to be added to the Agenda for the annual Members meeting, Watchdog submitted the following topics for consideration and inclusion on the Agenda. Straightforward topics responsible members might want to discuss and be discussed:

1. 1.      Report on effectiveness of League of Women Voters & costs for the 2012 election 
2. 2.    Why Staff Restructure 
3. 3.    Executive Session Topics – What has appeared on Agendas vs. HRS & RONR 
4. 4.    Has the BOD indemnified anyone from February 19, 2011 to January 21^st, 2012 
5. 5.     Has the BOD spent or approved any monies to any attorney  related to or in addition to monies already spent for the closed litigation of 2008-2010 during the period from February 19, 2011 and January 21, 2012 
6. 6.    What is the disposition of the $5000 deposit given to former legal counsel [name removed for posting here], esq. 
7. 7.     An Open Forum

 These were topics suggested for the Agenda by Members about which they voiced concerns. They may not be topics 'every' member was interested in which is often the situation but during a discussion members who had no previous interest are often enlightened. Waiting for Watchdog in the mail 'after' the Members meeting was an answer to the letter of October 28th. Two and a half months after submission! Regarding a meeting whose time had now come and gone, here is the response quoted verbatim here: " The Board of Directors felt the items that you presented, which were LARGELY QUESTIONS WITH A "yes" or "no" RESPONSE, did not individually rise to the level of agenda items and would be best presented under the agenda item 'member comments'.  --CAPS by added for emphasis. 

How many of those questions are actually 'yes' or 'no' questions? 3! So, the member is given 3 minutes at the podium during the 'member comments'. Questions regarding the 'state' of the finances and legal costs which were largely answered by a 'yes' or 'no' did not rise to the level of agenda item? Is that a confessed DODGE of those questions or what? A simple 'yes' or 'no' would definitely have sufficed for all whose minds were concerned as to whether we have incurred further costs especially related to a closed case of litigation! To questions 1-3, not largely answered with a 'yes' or 'no', an answer once and for all from that 'accountable and transparent' board would have assuaged concerns.  The 'member comments' section is not 'questions' for the board or for the members. Questions or any other Agenda items scheduled for the members to learn answers about THEIR Association should most definitely be part of the agenda if provided in a form that conforms to an agenda. 'Member Communications' is what they use for their board meetings and would be appropriate for the 'member' agenda.

One could deduce there were topics included that the board did not wish to address, why do you think that might be?

As to the 'form' FAN MAIL sent to those who took the time to diligently sit and jot their thoughts down regarding the disqualification of 5 nominees -- all members in good standing -- who stepped up not with grumbling among neighbors, family or friends -- or on some Facebook site that casts itself as the 'official' FACEBOOK landing page for the Association -- but asked for an accounting from their Board....this is the canned response:

"Thank you for submitting your letter requesting the Board of Directors to reconsider their decision regarding the nomination letters received late in the day of September 30, 2011. The Board did reconsider the issue and voted not to overturn its earlier decision on the matter. You are welcome to review the motions on the matter which appear in the minutes from the November 10th and 17th meetings which are available online." 

Watchdog's fan mail was dated January 20th, 2012. Two months after its submission to the Secretary, November 17th, 2011.

Guess it is time to just discuss openly the issues that did not make it to the Agenda and did not make it to the 'white board' of topics during the OPEN FORUM. Those topics are on their way.

Hawaiian Shores -- 2012 Annual Member Meeting

WATCHDOG © 2011

Happy New Member Year!

This year's meeting began with the election at 0830 when the polls opened. Many were in line to cast their vote in person. Volunteers from League of Women Voters, already skilled at our vote procedures from hours of processing absentee votes Friday, were ready and organized and things went fast. Members were tagged this year. Watchdog was blue band #945090. A couple of directors were unaware of the 'wrist bands', 'security' presence and the campaign speech by the local councilman. [Suggestion from a member to Watchdog: Next year hand out flags and collect them to use again instead of wasting money on throw away bands. Just passing the suggestion along.]

The meeting was called to order at 0920. Quorum of 100 met and exceeded. An announcement was made to the members gathered that AT&T wants to have an informational meeting with the Members to discuss the proposition to erect a Cell Tower. There were two weeks from which Members could choose and the majority vote found the meeting will be held sometime during the first week of February. Firm date and time to follow.

The Agenda was adopted. 

Minutes from 2010 and 2011 were all approved. 

MEETING NOTICE: At 3p, Monday, January 23 at the Maikoiko Street Park -- the Dog Park Committee will be holding its meeting. 

Two members spoke to their concerns about putting a Dog Park at that site. Hopefully, though the meeting will likely not be noticed they will be contacted and informed of the meeting.

The election results were announced as follows:

EO   144

AB   54

SFT 64

S      131

CW  131

Blank  66

Write ins: 

WSR  3

SF      1

FMH 4

All Bylaw and CCR propositions passed by their 2/3rds; actually except for 2 they passed with 3/4!

It seems the general feeling expressed by members today was a call to conciliation. That call and the desire for conciliation must include the free expression of differing opinions on issues that will arise during the year. Those opinions were generally referred to as 'malcontent' and 'antagonistic'. While Watchdog can surely attest to the 'feeling' that strong differences of opinions can feel like antagonism dissent is always understood as an acceptable part of democracy. Having said that, what some view as malcontent and antagonism others refer to as a difference of opinion; as the voice of dissent. Those who cannot accept that others say -- who do not see things always the same way -- should not be quick to paint the differences with ill impugned motives. Keeping an open and friendly line of communication between the Board and the Members and keeping the Members who make the effort to attend meetings informed of what is going on will go a long way to developing respect and eventually peace. 

The Annual Member meeting adjourned at 1210.

The Annual Business Meeting of the Board was called to order at 1225.

The officers from last year were reinstalled this year exactly the same. Consult your newsletter for the names and titles of the officers.

The new monthly meeting time is the third [3rd] Saturday of each month beginning at 10A.

The meeting was adjourned at 1231.

With the continuation of Saturday morning meetings it would be good for members to attend the meetings and participate. Every board needs their checks and balances. Member attendance is the balance to their check. They know what they do matters with feed back from an audience that shows up.

Hawaiian Shores -- Articles of Incorporation v Bylaws

WATCHDOG © 2012

 Aloha Watchdog Readers,

A reasonable question has been asked about the disparity between the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws governing the Association formed for those who live within the planned community for the subdivision "Hawaiian Shores Recreational Estates". That question and topic is the point of this article.

The link to the entire opinion as stated by the member of a Facebook group is here.

I have included the member's question. I have left it intact and will address only the question not the conjecture.

Q:"You would think in the 4 years that the watchdog and x doom were in power they would have caught this major violation to your Articles of Incorporation since they know the Articles of Incorporation, bylaws and CCR's like the back of their hand, or maybe they looked the other way knowing it would be easier to pass a bylaw with only 51% over 2/3rd %"

A: This answer will be divided out into reasonable sections of discussion.

First, identifying "XDOOM"; why? Because out of context readers would not have all the information. DOOM is the acronym for the position recently terminated "Director of Operations & Management". The employee who once held that position was terminated with the position. While she held that position part of her area of responsibility was to 'advise' the Board in matters they deemed necessary. The Board of 2008 formed a Bylaws Committee to review and update the bylaws. The Board felt it an imperative to have the Dir. of Ops& Mgt act in that committee as an adviser and full participating member of the committee. The reason?Because  prior to her being the 'DOOM' she served as president of the Association sometimes called 'HSCA' for ten years. In 2008 she'd already amassed 13 years of experience and knowledge and the Board felt it invaluable. And it was! That is who DOOM is. 

Second, and to the point: Articles of Incorporation vs Bylaws. It is held by most that the Articles of Incorporation are the body of 'tenets' upon which a company/corporation is formed and from which authority is drawn to develop subordinate rules and regulations as well as other important functions of a corporation. The bylaws for a corporation set out how shareholders/members and the officers of the corporation will interact with each other; what authority they individually have; how they will vote; what constitutes their standing; how many directors and how many officers and their respective areas of authority/duties, etc. 

Articles of Incorporation [AoI] are filed with the paperwork for the corporation and when they have been changed [amended] they must be filed with the agency who granted the corporation's standing in the state it is legally registered. The Association's AoI at some point, [1982; 1990; 1996] perhaps initially, states the following regarding any change to the bylaws and CCR's:

NINTH: The initial bylaws of the corporation may be adopted by the petitioner within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this Charter. The Bylaws and the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of the corporation may be amended or repealed by the vote of not less than two thirds (2/3rds) of the members present, in person or by absentee ballot, at the next annual membership meeting duly called and held, the notice of which shall have stated that a purpose of the meeting was to consider such an amendment or repeal.--Articles of Incorporation; Hawaiian Shores Community Association

The dissemblance happens when you look at bylaw 11.01 which states: "Section 11.01. Procedure. These Bylaws may be amended, restated or replaced, upon resolution of the Board of Directors, by an affirmative vote of not less than fifty-one (51) percent of the Members in good standing of the Association whose ballots are cast. Such a vote shall only be conducted by ballot, including absentee ballot." -- Bylaws; Hawaiian Shores Community Association

There have been several changes to the bylaws over the years and it would be quite a chore to go back to find out when it was changed. But it was and that is a problem. The current Board has wisely chosen to fix the bylaw by vote and further motioned to have the vote be consistent with the AoI: 2/3! Watchdog has been supportive of this change since it was mentioned. There are two articles on this site containing positive support for this change.

Why didn't Watchdog change the bylaw or amend the AoI while serving on the Board? That is a good question. It was simply a case of oversight. In 2008 there were many bylaws changes and the 'vision' of that committee was to bring the bylaws into line with HRS 421j and 414d. That was quite the job going through the primary portion of the bylaws related to the 'Membership', "Meetings", "Directors" etc.. In 2010, the committee reviewed section 10 and looked over the language and time frames for some of the sub sections. Through the years there was a consistent committee with at least 3 of the committee members from year to year until the end of 2010. There were members who came and went and made contributions and suggested sections/subsections to look into. Bylaw 11.01 was never brought up and we simply never looked at it. 

There was nothing nefarious or purposeful. As to whether changes to the standing of bylaws changed previously, anyone with any familiarity with how our members cast votes before it became 'secret' would have ease of mind. When there is an issue or changes historically things are approved in large numbers. Or, they are disapproved in large numbers. Whether or not it is 2/3rds -- depends on how one interprets the law. Votes cast...in the past ballots were counted even if it was empty towards quorum if it was merely signed. More recently, the vote was refined to those who actually 'voted'. The last change to bylaws would fall under that system. 

Watchdog appreciates honest questions of 'intent' or 'rationale' regarding decisions/actions taken or not taken during Watchdog's tenure on the Board. The answer will always be forthcoming when sincerity is evident. This topic is important because it is essential for the bylaws to be consistent with the AoI and so the answer here. However, Watchdog is not inclined to answer personal attacks nor conjecture, as stated above, that some sort of ulterior motive was at play. 

For the record, the 'DOOM' had no authority to act autonomous to the Board, ever, from 2007-2010. Thus, including 'XDOOM' in the speculation quoted above is inappropriate. As an adviser, her job was not to be the library for the committee but to advise the committee as best she could on the prevailing wisdom in the past for changes to the very bylaws that were being reconsidered for change again. 

And there you have it; the rest of the story.

 

Hawaiian Shores -- Recap Jan 2012 Board Mtg

WATCHDOG © 2012

Welcome Watchdog Readers,

Saturday's meeting was packed with interesting material; some positive and some not so much.

Positive: The reports from both the Office Manager and the Maintenance Foreman were entertaining and informative. The staff has apparently been given much more leeway to be themselves and reflect their frustration to the Board and members than staff has taken or been given in the past. It allows the members to peek into their personality and helps us get to know them. The characterization of the staff's directive to be chicken rustlers as an individual from the old television sitcom "Green Acres" was really way too funny. This whole chicken debacle will wind up being the chagrin of this Board at some time when they hire someone who is not intelligent enough to know that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES does anyone from the Association have permission to enter onto someone's private property and remove their personal property without the consent of the owner of both! Yet that is exactly the edict sanctioned to the staff several months back. At least the Foreman demonstrates the facts and reality in his delivery. 

It was a nice touch for him to include the savings the past month on the water power bill. It was one of the wettest months of late and traditionally when we have heavy rains our consumption is reduced thus reducing the power requirement. Another factor is the lowered fee charged for each kilowatt the past few months. The Watchdog's power bill was $140 less for December than 3 months previously. Helco's charges always affect the bottom line. Also, happening upon leaks and correcting them, a practice that has always been in place, certainly contributes to a reduction in power translating into obvious savings. It would be great to hear the amount that is being paid each month so there is a frame of reference over time which would be more helpful in the members understanding the impact of several factors in the increase or decrease of a bill. The cumulative effects of the past few years corrective measures and the continuation of keen oversight of the Water System necessarily should reflect lower costs as it becomes more and more efficient with all the changes. Lowered costs are always a positive!

The Office Manager's report was informative, definitely a positive. Was glad to hear there was an appreciation meal for staff during the holidays. The cost was modest for the event. Definitely a positive.

Negative: The Board of Directors has decided to suspend compliance to an entire body of law interestingly entitled "Planned Community Associations" Hawaii Revised Statute 421j. More on this in days to come. 

It appears the Board has tacitly allowed one of its own to act autonomously in response to a 'complaint log'. The director has announced that he regularly checks the 'complaint log' in the 'office'. He also admitted to there being 3 recent complaints he personally decided to investigate. That is fine. Having a log and having it monitored is definitely a positive. Every member should be vigilant in their neighborhood especially where situations may arise that could be potentially harmful. However, there are rules/regulations and even civil/criminal law that must be observed when investigating. At no time does a director or anyone else have the right to meander onto someone's private property to investigate a complaint without the owner's permission. During a discussion the director rightly suggested a letter be sent to the responsible party of a property which is the subject of a complaint seeking permission to enter the property in order to investigate the complaint. However, during discussion specific details about the property were discussed that led some to think there may have been unpermitted access to the lot. Hopefully this is not true. But in light of recent direction from the Board to the staff regarding the entrance onto someone's property to remove chickens does not promote good faith in the 'wisdom' of some on the Board regarding 'respecting' private and personal property. The general term of entering onto property without permission is trespass. The general term for removing someone's personal property without their permission is theft. Our staff has NO RIGHT to just enter and remove anything from anyone's private property regardless of violations and regardless of letters of warning being sent -- without the permission of both the private property owner and the personal property owner!

Information about the standing of a company with whom this board is negotiating catching the Board by surprise when they have several such deals currently in negotiation with similar industry related businesses was unfortunate. When tens of thousands of dollars and major overhaul to a key member asset are at stake the 'financial' officer and the CEO/President of this Association might wish to be more informed. The 'not in good standing' for the company was quickly dispelled by a simple phone call just after the first of the year to the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. Those in charge of our treasures/assets were unaware of the status change. A member doing due diligence, not Watchdog, discovered the information and forwarded it to Watchdog. There are people in this community who are being responsible! There are many projects in various stages. Companies whose business is very new, or others, not meeting basic requirements to do the business, so it is prudent to stay engaged. These are not times to be caught off guard while considering major upgrades. It doesn't inspire confidence in some of the members. It may translate into a magnifying glass over all their decisions if not corrected openly. That can be either a negative or a positive depending on each situation.

All in all, there were positives and negatives for the year end regular meeting. That is not atypical of a Board of Director's meeting regardless of the Board. Former Boards were most grateful for a very supportive and loyal staff. There wasn't much role playing as characterizations but that is likely because there was a far more critical audience. It is nice to see the staff enjoy the ease of being themselves without harassment from members or the Board. That is a very positive note upon which to end this article.

Hawaiian Shores -- Last Regular Business Meeting for 2011 Board

WATCHDOG © 2012

Happy Friday Watchdog Readers!

As the graphic reflects, the last regular business meeting for the 2011 Board of Directors is scheduled for the tomorrow. 

Please review the Agenda for items of interest to you, the property owner, and its impact on your property values. 

The Agenda provides for members to comment on Agenda items. They have historically allowed the speaker a 3 minute opportunity to address the Board. 

Items on the Agenda:

Communication Committee to give a report. Not sure why this is listed under 'Communications" and not under 'Reports' where the other committees are listed? This committee was formed to consider the busy communications received by the Board since October. If you have sent a letter via email or dropped off at the office since October this Agenda Item may afford you the opportunity to inquire as to the status of that communique. 

The opportunity to address the Board about any portion of the "Planned Community Association" portion of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. The section of law is 421J and it is too listed on the Agenda for discussion. For instance:

1. 421j-5 Meetings of the board of directors; committees and subcommittees
2. 421j-6 Robert's Rules of Order
3. 421j-7 & 7.5 Documents of the Association
4. 421j-8 Membership Lists
5. 421j-13 Mediation of Disputes

Under Reports:

• Office Manager Report
• Maintenance Foreman Report
• Election Committee Report 
• Architect Committee Report

Under Old Business:

Dog Park at Maikoiko -- A committee was formed December 10th to address this and was to have a report ready for the January 14th Board Meeting.

Under New Business:

Cell Tower proposal from AT&T <-- This may be a great opportunity for those who do not support a cell tower to inquire as to the policy and procedure going forward regarding the installation and operations of this tower. For instance, last time this came up it was alleged by some the cell tower provider is supposed to hold community meetings to address concerns, like health, etc. Conversely, this topic allows those who are for a tower to speak up in support of the process moving along.

Executive Session:

1. Communication from Member -- Making it Pono -- Where is the obvious link to how this is covered by 421j-5 (c) Personnel? Litigation in which the Association is or may become involved? Protect attorney/client of the Association?
2. Contract Discussion with Pacific Solar
3. Contract Discussion regarding the renovation of the Stables -- Again, where is the obvious link to how this is covered by 421j-5 (c)? What is being done to the Stables? When was the Membership informed of the final decision by the Board as to what they have decided to do? Last the Membership knew they were replacing the roof, getting a septic design, and had allocated $50k for the Stables for fiscal year 2012. How is the contract negotiation appurtenant to Executive Session?
4. Status of Contract for PER and ER -- Status of contract? In Exec. Session?
5. Status of agreement for solar farm  fields? In Exec Session? Relevance to 4521j-5 (c)?

New Business in Executive Session

• Update Employee Handbook -- Huh? Relevance to 421j-5 (c)? Updating an employee handbook is not discussing PERSONNEL! Why has this been relegated to Executive Session. MEMBERS can review the handbook. It is not SECRET!
• Performance Appraisals

Members, please show up; please, get involved. Please take 3 minutes of your morning to address the Board about any item on this Agenda giving them your thoughts. You don't have to stay for the full meeting if you cannot but if you can please do!

Hawaiian Shores -- Got some 'splainin' to do!

WATCHDOG © 2012

Aloha Watchdog Readers,

In the words of the Captain in 'Cool Hand Luke' 'What we got here is a failure to communicate!' 

While one wants to be kindly in one's remarks it is difficult to find a positive side to what seems a purposeful lack of communication. As it turns out, the last week of December members of the Election Committee were tasked via email to let the chair know what their individual thoughts were on holding a Candidate Forum this month. EC Members were to have their responses back to the chair by Saturday the 31st. Guess what...while Watchdog can say the responses were of the same mind -- makes no sense to have it -- there has been no email direction or confirmation from the election chair as to the question!  Will there be a candidate forum, or not? Someone, sight unseen, a name on a ballot, may be elected to the Board and no one gets to vet her?

It has only been a year when TRUST issues were the big deal between members who currently serve on the Board and the Board they replaced. There was also TRUST issues among many community members with the previous board -- all manifested during the election cycle last year. Here we are new election cycle MAJOR TRUST issues. 5 candidates arbitrarily disqualified -- perhaps the first time in the history of this community -- all those who are friends, family and neighbors of the candidates are still shaking their heads in disbelief. Yet not so much when looking at the mound of evidence stacking up regarding the practices of 'some' of this Board. Last year the Board made an honest effort to make sure members from 'their side' had representatives on the election committee and were always involved in all things related to the election. This year? NOPE! Last year how many meetings were disrupted by the folks who DID NOT TRUST; how many wrote what they felt on their facebook page -- words that this year written by the Watchdog is referred to as 'spewing vitriol'. First amendment speech sometimes bites but in the bite there may be morsels of truth. 

Please plan to attend the Board meeting this coming Saturday. The Agenda has been posted and it is really alive with material Members should want to know about and understand.

Watchdog is interested in the 'Election Committee Report'. The last meeting the Watchdog is aware of happened November 12, 2011. If there was another Election Committee Meeting not all of the election committee was notified. What is there to report if no meeting?? The last Board meeting, December 10th, considered the report/minutes from the Nov 12th meeting -- so what is being discussed at this Board meeting? 

When did the Communication Committee formed on December 10th, 2011, meet? They are to provide a report. With so many people watching the official website calendar AS DIRECTED BY THE MARQUEE Watchdog can assert there was NO SUCH committee meeting noticed to the community on the calendar. If no meeting what is there to report? Why are committees reporting on meetings Members are not noticed as happening? 

Speaking of the Calendar and NOTICE to the community: Clearly those who enter the community are able to see the direction at the top of the marquee to check the calendar. For what? As of 1015P on Tuesday evening the calendar remains unchanged for over a month! The only things posted are the exercise classes and office hours including the last Tuesday where it is closed all day but really closed half day...or is it the other way around? That little mess has been CONFUSING for months!!!  The upcoming Board meeting on the 14th is not on the Calendar and of all things the ANNUAL MEMBER MEETING is not on the Calendar! We know those two meetings are happening. Is the Candidate Forum happening and just not on the calendar? It was tentatively scheduled for January 14th after the Board meetings? COMMUNICATION -- or Failure to?

UPDATE ALERT! As of 0647 Thursday, January 12th STILL NO NOTE to the official calendar -- to which all community members are directed -- for this Saturday's Board meeting nor next Saturday's Annual Member Meeting! Again! Why are we directed to the calendar as if it will provide TIMELY information?

Yes, what we have here is a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE anything of interest to the Community. We are on a 'need to know' basis and it is clear we need to know NOTHING. Is that okay with you? Will you show up on Saturday at 10 for the regular Board meeting and ask questions and require answers? 

Read this book yet? It was just released. It is a distasteful title, provocative actually. The bottom line; you accomplish the destruction of a people by telling them a lie. After awhile people will be so conditioned to the lie you can do anything you want with them/to them. Are you going to sit by and listen or will you be asking? Hope you show up.

Hawaiian Shores -- Making the MINUTES count!

WATCHDOG © 2012

Watchdog Readers,

Integrity is an essential for any movement, cause, desire or goal moving forward in designing a consortium for peace; in developing a more united community and in looking to leadership for setting the example.

This post is a commentary and opinion on how leadership must be trustworthy in what is small to have support and trust for what is big. To that end please avail yourselves of the knowledge posited here and do your research to determine whether or not voting for the 're-election' of the two candidates running for 2012 -- the current president and current secretary -- is a vote of 'trust' in the 'small' things.

The premise for the discussion here are the Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Board held on November 17, 2011 wherein you will find this statement.
The meeting began -- after announcements -- with a main motion made to accept the 5 nominees who had been disqualified on November 10th for 'allegedly' not meeting the criterion for bylaw 5.03. The main motion was  made and had a second. The Board had been in the discussion phase of the motion when the president asked if the Board wanted to allow members from the audience, which included several nominees including the 'disqualified', to participate in the discussion or call the question for a vote. As soon as the president asked the question there was brief hushed and somewhat inaudible communication between directors, which the audience clearly understood as denial of the audience, including the nominees, to participate. One of the members in the audience reminded the president HRS [Hawaii Revised Statutes] allows for the audience to participate to which there was quick back and forth and then this statement was made: "This meeting is hereby RECESSED". Please go to the official site and pull up the Minutes from that meeting and read them. Please verify for yourselves what is in print.

WATCHDOG © 2012

Those who attended the meeting are clear on what happened at the meeting. They clearly recall the President 'recessed' the meeting during the consideration of the Main Motion. But, not to rely on the memory of the folks in attendance and certainly after a year of Minutes that have clearly NOT reflected what ACTUALLY happened at the meeting, members have reviewed the video of the meeting. Warning the meeting would be RECESSED came at 6 minutes and 29 seconds into the meeting: "If this is the tenor of the meeting, if we are going to have interruptions like this and we can't have a democratic discussion we are going to RECESS it..." [caps by author] Actual RECESS came at 10 minutes into the meeting with this statement: "...This meeting is hereby RECESSED...". [Caps by author]  Finally, as confirmation to the audience of the disposition of the meeting at 10 minutes and 47 seconds into the meeting this utterance was recorded as stated by the President: "Meeting has been RECESSED. Thank you very much." [Caps by author]

From a parliamentary point of view there is little difference between a 'recess' and 'adjournment'. There is however criterion and procedure in how that would be handled when a MAIN MOTION is on the table. That aside, the MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS especially when it comes to MOTIONS and anything relative to the motion is to be reflected in the Minutes as IT HAPPENED!

This Association has paid thousands of dollars this year for someone referred to by the Board as a 'recorder' to record and provide the Minutes of the Board meetings. She has also presented herself as a quasi 'parliamentarian' and to that end the President has taken some direction from her. Yet, since the beginning of this Board's reign there have been Minutes posted to the website that a] do not reflect what HAPPENED at the meeting for historic value and record; and b]have not reflected proper understanding of parliamentary law even for basic MINUTE management/recording etc. Now, to be fair, the recorder -- who has 2 recording devices and her laptop all in play during the meeting -- cannot state she does not have the actual record -- she can state, if it is correct, the 'draft' sent to the President for review may have been changed as directed by the President thus changing the record. [For the recorder's own integrity as this is her business she may or may not have the right to alter the record since she knows from a parliamentary standpoint the alteration misrepresents what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.] The Secretary is the one signing them and so she too is culpable for not allowing the MINUTES to ACTUALLY reflect what HAPPENED.

Many will say this is 'small stuff' but frankly you have to ask yourself: "If there is provable evidence sitting on their website of Minutes which do not correctly reflect the actual ACTS of this Board, including a VOTE and how it was incorrectly recorded for an expenditure for this Association, then is this really small stuff or the latest in a year of 'small stuff' that someone appears to not understand is OUT OF ORDER?" Why would the record on something so 'miniscule' as 'recess' instead of 'adjourn' appear to be changed? Again, the parliamentary issues of how it was done aside, the reportage of the acts of this Board has consistently reflected NOT WHAT HAPPENED but what appears to be deliberate revision of the record.

Is that okay with Members? If you sought a seat at the Board table and the Minutes do not reflect a correct version of what happened and you have to defend an action taken by this Board your evidence is faulty going forward. This is the OFFICIAL record of what HAPPENED at a meeting. Thank goodness Members have reviewed video to prove to themselves there seems to be a matter of concern on how the Board is being represented in their action as a Board through their official record.

Please do your homework and make sure what is reflected in the record is what you recall happened at the meeting. If not, demand they be amended to correctly reflect the record.

Then remember, two candidates on your ballot are seeking re-election. They are the current President and the current Secretary. You can find their names on the front page of your Newsletter sent with your packet. They appear to have no qualms about representing the record INACCURATELY. What else may not be accurately reported?