 |
| WATCHDOG © 2012 |
Bonne journée, Guten tag, Labdien, добрый день, Добрий день, dzień dobry, Aloha,
Greetings to Watchdog's international audience!
Today, Watchdog provides the results of research conducted which ends in a small but important victory. The graphic is tongue in cheek but irony as well. Watchdog invites international interest from their far flung locales right down into the community known as Hawaiian Shores.
Since the Spring of 2011 there has been a concerted effort to 'rustle' free range chickens who have taken the proverbial walk to the other side of the street [Kahakai Blvd] to check out the 'eats' in Hawaiian Shores. It seems they have found the few streets at the ocean end of the community as particularly great roosting. As recently as this past month discussion took place at the monthly board meeting updating the folks as to the nifty cages the board approved purchasing for the capture of the chickens. Interestingly, it is a specific group of owners whose faces and names pop up consistently over the years as disgruntled with this or that and now they have this fowl issue to deal with. The segue to the rest of this post.
In October of 2011 the Bylaws committee recommended a change to bylaw 11.01. At the time bylaw 11.01 was absolutely out of harmony with our Articles of Incorporation in the percentage of a vote that must be received to make a change to the bylaws. Watchdog has discussed the rightness of the recommended change in a few articles posted here. The bylaw passed with the 2/3rds required during this past election. KUDOS to the members who chose to correct a mistake. So far so good.
Elsewhere, in an ongoing rabid attack upon members of previous boards of directors and former employees, there have been slanderous allegations made by those who engage in spurious conjecture and repeating baseless rumor never honoring their own integrity by doing the least bit of research to discover truths. Watchdog alluded to the time frame believed to be when the 'change' to bylaw 11.01 may have happened. The president -- apparently wishing to redirect attention away from the actual board members [which may included her husband] who had ultimate authority of the matter -- claimed the copy of the 2006 bylaws 'she' had did not reflect the bylaw as it was approved amended by members in 2006. Interestingly, members who became members from 1/2006 through 2011 will have a copy that reflects bylaw 11.01 with its error of '51%'. [Part of the research done by Watchdog easily proving the 2006 Bylaws included 11.01 in its 2006 amended form.]
On January 25, 2012, Watchdog went to the office to look to see how far back bylaw 11.01 read the way it does. The new office staff was unable to initially locate the file folder with the archived bylaws. 2 weeks later, after the new staff was informed by former staff where to look Watchdog was able to review 'a' folder with some changes going back to 2001. Was hoping for a file folder with copies of whole sets of bylaws through the years that reflected what this organization worked from. What we have is only this assertion: The earliest mention of bylaw 11.01 is 2004. [Either the board recommended changes to the attorney to review or he drafted them.] Whether it was changed during that sweeping change or introduced during the sweeping change is not provable by the evidence provided to Watchdog. But it appears the process began with the board seated in 2004, continued with the boards seated in 2005 who approved it for the members to vote upon and voted upon by the member in the 2006 election. It was promulgated with the footer "Rev. 01/21/06" under the authority of the elected board of January 2006. Watchdog does not know who all sat on all those boards but knows for certain nearly all of the folks [or their spouses] clucking about chickens together with the secretary and treasurer who served for 10 years until 2007 DID sit on those boards! The Watchdog did not! They know who they are but will they be humble enough to identify themselves? Between you and Watchdog? Not necessary. It is in the past and is really made moot with the correction of the bylaw by the members.
Thanks to the League of Women Voters who studied the bylaws so they could qualify our vote this year according to our governing documents. The disparity between the Articles of Incorporation and the bylaws was discovered and put to a vote to bring them to parity.
The FACTS: Doesn't matter what happened. The bylaws have been corrected..not that you would know it because they have yet to be posted to the official website for the Members. Does the inclusion of former bylaw 11.01 affect anything done by any board under its law? A legal case might be made but how much would any single member be willing to pay to do that kind of research and response only to find when everything is said and done it will necessarily fall upon their closest friends? The bylaw committees that recommended changes in 2008-2010 did so at the request of Members who made the requests for updates at Annual meetings of Members; Members who corresponded to the board their concerns about certain bylaws and finally by the various boards who saw an update to some bylaws necessary to bring them to HRS 421j standards.
The Membership as a whole is likely not aware of the disposition of the bylaws they voted for/against because they have yet to be posted. All of them passed with the requisite percentage. As of this morning the 2010 set still remain on the official website.
 |
| WATCHDOG © 2012 |
No comments:
Post a Comment