Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Members' motions, notification disputes and legal questions dominate Leilani meeting
Summary
Board members and residents engaged in a lengthy dispute over seven motions adopted at an April members' meeting, with objections citing inadequate member notification under bylaws and contested discussion of ongoing litigation (the "JP lawsuit"). Voices split between urging the community to move on and insisting on strict adherence to governance and notification rules.
A detailed and sometimes heated portion of the meeting focused on motions approved at the association's April members' meeting and whether those motions were properly noticed and valid under the association's governance documents and applicable corporate-notification rules (one participant referenced a provision they called "4 21 j").
At issue was whether the membership had been properly notified and given access to agendas and vote items prior to the members' meeting; one director argued approximately 1,900 members were not notified and called the process "disenfranchisement." Other members countered that the annual membership meeting may conduct "any corporate business," including motions presented by members, and said the member votes stood.
Multiple speakers cited the JP lawsuit and various exhibits from that case to argue that matters touching on litigation cannot be discussed in open session and must be handled in executive session. One speaker repeatedly raised objections and suggested the topic had been improperly handled.
Several residents urged the board to "put the lawsuits behind us" and focus on community projects; others said legal clarity and adherence to bylaws and proper notification are necessary before moving forward with motions that affect membership rights. No final judicial determination was available at the meeting; multiple participants said the courts will have to decide contested points.
