Dovetailing into the previous post, the only issue here is if the report is true and that Larry Warner acted unilaterally and without the proper authority of BoD.
Jeff - by his own admission - was disruptive at the last annual meeting, and in posts here on TUG has advocated others take similar action.
So the hiring of security guard to ensure that the meeting is conducted following Roberts Rules of Order (as outlined in HRS 514B) is only prudent given those calls to be disruptive.
(d) All association meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. If so provided in the declaration or bylaws, meetings may be conducted by any means that allow participation by all unit owners in any deliberation or discussion.
Yes, Eric, the main issue is acting unilaterally, and this matter was brought to my attention. I didn't dig it up. I have talked to a half-dozen people about this, a few who are closer to the board than I am, who have corroborated this issue.
Regarding my being disruptive? Okay, guilty. But it was SO important to do, and as a result, there were some VERY angry owners at the meeting who were appalled at finding out certain information such as Dani Ramos and Linda Kolstad working for Wyndham and not owning any KBV deeds themselves. None of that was posted in Linda's bio, who was up for re-election. And that NO questions regarding Wyndham were allowed, nor any followups. That didn't go over well. We owners are not kept people, needing to neutered.
Yes, this is a private enterprise, so Free Speech does not apply here. Yet transparency is of the utmost importance.
And I'll give you an example of why this is the case -
One of the resorts at which I own is The Harborside Inn on Martha's Vineyard in Edgartown, MA. Ever since I have owned (and before that), it has been self-managed. We hire an individual manager who hires the rest of the staff. We have members overlooking the economics of the resort. We have a board that works well together. One of them even personally buys the dishware and appliances for the group kitchen (The resort has a different setup than most timeshares in that the rooms were converted from being a hotel, so they're just a simple room w/private bath, and the restaurant area was converted to a very large kitchen with about 8 kitchen stations.).
Anyway, one summer about 3 years ago, one of the two newly elected Directors of the Board sent out a sort of pants-on-fire email broadcast to all the owners that the President of the board had agreed to terms with an outside management company to take over the management of the resort. The old time members of the board weren't happy about this broadcast email, as you might imagine, but it was quite alarming. You can also imagine the response that email got.
At the next annual meeting, which was in December, over 100 angry owners showed up (typically, there's about 30 placid ones). They were fit to be tied. The President of the board backpedaled so hard she practically figuratively wiped out. She told us that she NEVER was planning on signing that contract or engaging an outside management company without consulting with the owners at large. She was planning to put out an email herself. The 2 new members disputed that and both said that the agreement with the management company back in the summer was practically a done deal. As a result of how the owners showed up to that meeting, we still remain self-managed.
So, in hindsight, what do you think would have been appropriate as a response at that meeting? Sic some security guards on the owners?
When I started the disruption at last years's meeting, I merely disregarded the rule regarding no followups. With no followups (and questions had to be pre-submitted via a card), anyone can obfuscate an answer and the question doesn't get answered. You've seen the drill in congressional hearings and whatnot.
When others got angry about other concerns that were either not being honestly addressed, or the feeling that they were merely being essentially slimed, several owners got angry. Did it ever rise to physicality, to physical assaults or anything? No, of course not. But voices were raised, at times. Is a security guard really needed for that?
The meeting was adjourned, and then those of us who were irritated about the lack of transparency by the Wyndham employees on the board, as well as how the meeting was handled in general, did we come up to the table and start asking specific questions about Wyndham's participation. By then, many were already out the door to the pool party where prizes were going to be drawn from numbered tickets. Great (though I won a 2 night stay at a Grand Pacific property.).
It's really offensive, frankly. How would you have felt, when Wyndham was trying to keep an agreement from being made between KBV and the hotel next door regarding our use of the pools next door, if they stationed armed guards around the pools in order to keep order, to keep KBV owners from using them? (We can thank Grand Pacific, by the way, for negotiating the use of the pools. When you see Clinton Owen, you should give him a big kiss for that.).
We, as owners, have a right to get the information we seek and honest answers. We deserve transparency. Docility at meetings does not trump that, particularly if honest information isn't on the agenda.
Jeff