October 3rd, 2026

This post presents an objective summary of what each candidate said at the October 1, 2026 PHCA candidate forum, followed by a short Friends of Princeville assessment. We consider each candidate's positions with respect to PHCA’s founding documents and FoP’s published priorities for communication, planning, maintenance, and protection.

MJ STANCIL

Candidate Summary

MJ Stancil presents herself as a locally rooted hospitality manager who would bring operating experience, community relationships, and a fresh approach to PHCA. She emphasizes listening, respectful disagreement, reliable information, and decisions informed by professional expertise rather than factional loyalties. Her vision includes homeowners, condominium associations, timeshares, hotels, and visitors, with attention to Princeville’s future and its next generation.

Stancil calls for a comprehensive assessment of roads, drainage, and swales, followed by priorities, cost estimates, and a multiyear plan. On development and the Woods Course, she favors facts, expert advice, cooperation, and respect for private ownership alongside maintenance responsibilities. She promises to abstain from financially related Starwood votes while contributing expertise.

She also stresses timely accountability and communication through several channels. Her management experience informs her emphasis on budgets, procurement delays, and treating community money responsibly. She sees respectful disagreement as useful when decisions rest on complete information.

FoP Assessment

FoP’s assessment is positive. Her preventive-maintenance approach closely matches our “Communicate, Plan, Maintain, Protect” agenda and our call for a rolling five-year plan. It supports the covenants’ common-area maintenance obligation in Article V, Section 4(p). Her approach to the Woods Course is compatible with our support for enforceable negotiated protections, defined access, and explicit allocation of maintenance costs.

No direct inconsistency with the founding documents is established by her forum statements. Her financial-vote abstention pledge is consistent with published PHCA conflict of interest policies.  HRS §421J-5(e) requires disclosure of any actual conflict before voting.

We welcome her candidacy. Support should carry expectations: measurable commitments, explained procurement choices, decisions serving the full membership, and transparent conflict procedures. Her delivery remains untested; she should face the same accountability as every director.

Source:  Conflict Disclosure Law

TOM BARTLETT

Candidate Summary

Tom Bartlett emphasizes experience, continuity, and community cohesion. His decades in Princeville, hospitality management, condominium operations, and PHCA board service give him familiarity with budgets, reserves, and the practical needs of a resort community. He favors listening to the membership, building consensus, and improving the experience of living in and visiting Princeville.

Bartlett supports maintaining the Woods Course and placing responsibility on its owner. He describes its deterioration as an eyesore and a hardship for adjoining homeowners. He acknowledges donating to SOS Hui, explaining that concern through his own backyard experience. He points members toward lengthy board packets for information. On recall petitions, he says the process is “crazy” and “should be stopped.  ”He praises reserve funding while saying he would have been more frugal about some past decisions.

FoP Assessment

FoP’s assessment is neutral. Bartlett brings useful institutional knowledge and agrees that private owners should maintain their property. While a personal donation does not itself establish misconduct or disqualification, we would expect disclosure of relevant interests and independent evaluation of proposals involving Association funds.

His reliance on lengthy packets falls short of our communication standard. Accessible explanations should identify alternatives, costs, decisions, and results. He offers little detail about a funded maintenance schedule or measurable improvements.  His dismissal of removal petitions conflicts with the membership-accountability mechanism in Bylaws Article III, Section 2, which permits removal. Opposing a particular recall is legitimate; dismissing the process broadly is troubling.

His focus on nearby homeowners also needs balancing against the covenants’ Association-wide purpose: serving all owners, including condominium, hotel, and timeshare interests. Before endorsing him, we would seek commitments on lawful recalls, independent judgment, meaningful communication, procurement discipline, and practical long-term planning.

Source: Director Removal Law

DALE SANDS

Candidate Summary

Dale Sands seeks reelection on his experience, board service, infrastructure work, and desire for continuity. He describes road repairs, resurfacing, apron improvements, drainage assessments, reserve funding, and community amenities as evidence of progress. He acknowledges communication weaknesses, damaged trust surrounding the canceled meeting, and the need to refresh long-term planning.

Sands says Starwood should maintain the Woods Course and PHCA should not pay to restore it. He favors preserving golf and encourages voting for continuity, stability, and responsible governance.  He points to a five-year streets and drainage approach and acknowledges that many culverts remain to be assessed or addressed. He attributes some project delays to island supply constraints and says financial reporting needs more timely monthly completion.

FoP Assessment

FoP’s assessment is highly negative. Based on our firsthand knowledge and experience, FoP understands that Dale Sands does not have an engineering background and has observed that he has contributed little to the Infrastructure Committee and opposed long-term planning.

September assessment documents a missed June KH-7 replacement commitment, unfinished accounting, and inadequate connections between identified needs, funded work, and completion dates. These shortcomings matter particularly given his so-called infrastructure leadership.  His stewardship assurances conflict with FoP’s documented maintenance and financial-reporting failures, measured against the covenants’ maintenance duty in Article V, Section 4(p), and the bylaws’ requirements for complete records and proper accounting. We oppose his reelection. Three years of “leadership” justify demanding results. Promises, project counts, and credentials do not resolve documented shortcomings or establish that continuing the same leadership will deliver accountable governance.

Sources: Three Years What Results  | Director Recall Position Paper

***