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?