The MTA Board, like the neighborhood board, is also composed of volunteer members elected by Mililani homeowners. When the board failed to be fair, responsible and work with MTA in the dispute over the proposed VoiceStream antenna, stronger measures seemed the only alternative to drawing attention to the problem.
Long before the controversy began, the MTA Board recognized recent FCC rule changes would eventually allow cellular phone transmission antennae to proliferate in the community. Since the association is responsible for preserving the aesthetic appearance of Mililani, a plan was developed to centralize such antennae in common areas and to ensure health and safety issues and aesthetic concerns would be addressed.
MTA requested an appearance before Neighborhood Board No. 25 to discuss its plan. The board chairman refused to put MTA on the agenda.
Further, at both its November 1996 and March 1997 meetings, the neighborhood board adopted resolutions against the MTA antenna installation without permitting the association to participate in the discussions. Much of the information provided by the board was inaccurate and prejudicial. Repeated correspondence from MTA to the board chairman, Richard Poirier, failed to correct the situation.
MTA directly notified all its adjoining neighbors of its proposed antenna at Recreation Center No. 3 and conducted a hearing on Nov. 19. Its other 12,000 homeowners were also notified by newsletter. No homeowner submitted objections to the antenna. At the two neighborhood board meetings cited there was no testimony presented by homeowners who objected to the proposed MTA antenna, yet the board opposed the antenna anyway.
The board failed to seek input from the community it represents; especially from MTA, the organization responsible for overseeing the aesthetic appearance of Mililani Town.
The neighborhood board chairman prefers the Mililani District Park and Mililani High School as transmission antenna sites to capture the generated revenue from these sites. But not all Mililani residents use the District Park or attend the high school. However, all Mililani homeowners are members of MTA and pay monthly maintenance assessments. Revenues generated by an antenna on MTA common area benefits all Mililani homeowners.
In these poor economic times, when homeowners are suffering loss of jobs, and many are facing bankruptcies and foreclosures, the MTA Board felt an obligation to seek alternatives which will minimize the need for homeowners to pay higher maintenance assessments. Like MTA, the Mililani Neighborhood Board is supposed to represent Mililani homeowners. We feel the neighborhood board, in this matter, is not representing the community.
Boards that meet their fiduciary responsibilities should be free from litigation, but should be held accountable for actions which go beyond their authority, especially after attempts to meet and confer by the adversely affected party are ignored.
In the final analysis, a volunteer chooses to be responsible when assuming the duties of an office. In this situation, MTA's action is an attempt to hold the responsible volunteers accountable.
