 |
| WATCHDOG © 2012 |
This
question was raised recently: "Why hasn’t the treasurer reviewed the invoices
for previous corporate attorneys?" The answer is not immediately known. There
are a couple of reasons:
- He does not know they are in the office and can ask to review them.
- The records are in the office and he has not taken the time to review them.
- The records are no longer in the office and he cannot review them.
 |
| WATCHDOG © 2012 |
Obviously, the remainder of this article will cover number 3.
Should
the records be kept in the office? That is an interesting question. According
to our Articles of Incorporation the business office, located at 15-2793 Honu Street, is designated as the principal
office which is generally required when forming a corporation. This is the
Article: SECOND: The location of the principal office of the corporation shall
be Hawaiian Shores Recreational Estates subdivision, Pahoa, Hawaii and its
mailing address shall be 15-2793 South Honu St., Pahoa, Hawaii 96778 or such
other place or address as its board of directors may from time to time
determine.
The
Bylaws support the AI here: Section 1.05. Principle Office. The principle office of the
association shall be maintained within Hawaiian Shores Recreational Estates,
Pahoa, Hawaii, State of Hawaii and its mailing address shall be 15-2793 S. Honu
Street or at such other place or address in the State of Hawaii as its Board of
Directors from time to time shall determine.
This is what Hawaii Revised Statutes says about the records
Membership [the Treasurer is a member] can review:
There is a larger portion than what is pasted here and
it should be the responsibility of each member to review the laws pertinent to
the their membership. Nowhere in the law does it say the records he is looking
for must be kept in the office. Bylaw 8.08 states the Secretary must keep or
cause to be kept certain documentation but again invoices are not listed.
But, Financial statements, audits, etc., are part of the
documents Membership has a right to access. For a few reasons one can
suppose a request to see the supporting documentation [invoices/receipts] for
any financial entry could be a stretch of HRS and 'financial records' and in some instances perhaps
crossing some ‘secret’ line. The annual Audit brings all the documentation and
the figures into the equation [pun intended] and it may be then the Membership
will be up to date on the current questionable $20,000.00 figure that is
alleged to be held in trust with the corporate attorney.
Does the President maintain any records in her residence? As
of last year, the answer is yes. What records? Good question. Should she?
Debatable. Here are a few reasons why. When records are kept off site from the principal
office more than ‘trust’ issues arise. There is a pseudo forensic sort of
violation to the keeping of the records; there is a chance the records which
should be kept confidential could be digitized and retained by a Member who may
not be entitled to those records in the future; someone now -- who is not entitled to
view confidential information -- may view the records. Perhaps the most convincing
argument, in this case, is the location of offsite storage -- ostensibly is to
preserve records. The current president lives in
an inundation zone and frankly if a REAL tsunami was approaching of
significance to inundate the area it may not be feasible for the president to
evacuate all the records she has therefore creating a void in the audit trail
of any and all legal and financial activities covered in those records!
Lastly, once digitized, any record can be altered and if the
original documents are all in the same place as an altered document there could
be no proof the documents were altered. This is not an accusation lobbed in
that direction. However, there have been too many questionable actions and
statements made to prevent such notions from being uttered. Confidence in
integrity was shattered once the records were removed and in many ways since.
The
motive for sequestering these particular docs may be noble. Some will balk at
the thought of noble motive and this president – for some that perception seems
to be at odds.
Is the desire to review old legal invoices a red herring? Is
it relative to the apparent unnecessary expense of $20,000.00 paid to a trust
for friends in case they decide to sue? Or, paid to their friends via the trust
to keep them from suing?
If by reviewing those financial records the $20,000.00
could be returned to the treasure of the Membership, then definitely
locate those records.
The case to which this ‘out of court settlement’ was attributed has been closed with a SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT --- now $20,000.00 more?
WHY
