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.