Below is the notice that is required to be posted at employee work stations.
A recent "secrete" meeting was held with most (not all) employees that was referred to as a "pep talk". Some of those responsible for the employees risk to health, had the Gaul to lead the meeting.
The employees should keep a record of all meetings, discussions and activity that directly involves them. This is considered as evidence and admitted as documented testimony in a court of law and some other legal proceedings. State the time and place, (on or about) who was there and what was said. This is all for your protection. This makes it more than a she/he said.
The Board and others have been advised by their high priced lawyers, to say nothing. A meeting called by them under any pretense, could easily be interfering in an investigation, especially if they are trying to influence your testimony. All that matters is, if you perceive a threat no matter how it is presented to you. The fear that you could lose your job can be interpreted as a threat.
I wish that our employees belonged to a trade union where they had legal counsel available. They seem to be left on their own. Perhaps an agency will require that the employees be represented by council that is fully paid by the association.
The biggest issue is that the employees have been exposed to "serious" health hazards, and the long term threat of serious health issues they will have, long after those responsible have moved on. This is part of the reason there is a criminal investigation.
It is vital that the employees speak the whole truth. They can't let themselves be influenced to assist in a cover up by those responsible. The pep talk meeting needs to be reported.
Note:
I am not a lawyer and my statement above is based on my experience and opinion.
Click on the page below for a larger read:
51 comments:
The board of trustees are not our employees supervisors. I believe Bill Neal and Laura Frazier are the only ones responsible to the President of the board. If the board was involved in the meeting arrangements they need to butt out. To many supervisors make for bad employee morale. appears to be a cya meeting. the bot does a lot of cya.
Was that another closed session?
If you dont think board members tell supervisors how to deal with employees, youve never worked for shoa.
Thanks for justifying my comment 3:18
Thank you George! This is very important information. Our employees need to protect themselves, now more than ever. I too wish our employees were unionized. I hope they gain legal representation.
Unionize? right, and I want to pay more dues....
Very typical of the BOT attitude and many in our community, a lot who post on here, and many in our general society, only think of yourself. Very selfish. And yes I said the word society. You probably hate me for saying that word and thinking about society. You are probably one of the ones who attacked me and called me selfish and many other names I will not repeat.
nope 849, I just think unions suck, its a personal preference base on past experiences with them, that's all.
And not a member of the BOT either.
Secret meeting, how is this so? If it's on here how is it a secret? There is no such thing.
Because of this blog, it's not a secret anymore. For any member without knowledge of this blog, it's still a secret.
No such thing? This BOT holds closed (secret) meetings. In fact, I believe they had one in December 2018.
Check out the bylaws people, the board can hold a meeting at anytime. Any members meeting notice has to be sent out to the membership. In December it was a board meeting. George knows this, he will verify.
RCW 64.38.035
4) Except as provided in this subsection, all meetings of the board of directors shall be open for observation by all owners of record and their authorized agents. The board of directors shall keep minutes of all actions taken by the board, which shall be available to all owners. Upon the affirmative vote in open meeting to assemble in closed session, the board of directors may convene in closed executive session to consider personnel matters; consult with legal counsel or consider communications with legal counsel; and discuss likely or pending litigation, matters involving possible violations of the governing documents of the association, and matters involving the possible liability of an owner to the association. The motion shall state specifically the purpose for the closed session. Reference to the motion and the stated purpose for the closed session shall be included in the minutes. The board of directors shall restrict the consideration of matters during the closed portions of meetings only to those purposes specifically exempted and stated in the motion. No motion, or other action adopted, passed, or agreed to in closed session may become effective unless the board of directors, following the closed session, reconvenes in open meeting and votes in the open meeting on such motion, or other action which is reasonably identified. The requirements of this subsection shall not require the disclosure of information in violation of law or which is otherwise exempt from disclosure.
The office just confirmed to me that the BOT held a closed (secret) meeting in December 2018. The office referred me to ByLaws Amended 5/19/86, Article V, Section 4.
The ByLaws have been amended since then on 11/16/2002. I believe they have to abide by the most recent amended version.
I will research WA 64.38 and 64.90.
Sorry 12:27. You already provided the WA RCW 64.38, 64.38.035. I've notified the office that they're language provided to me is an out-of-date ByLaw. They have not responded yet.
12:27 and Others. I had thought about researching WA RCW 64.38 relative to what has precedence, RCW or the ByLaws. What do you think?
Fact check: Order by law:
1.Federal Law.
2. State Law (RCW)
3. County (ordinance)
4. Articles of Incorporation.
5. By Laws.
6. Policy (covenants)
None of the above are above Federal. Policy can not violate any above them. It is the law.
Where there is a conflict, error or omission, Washington state law takes precedence over an Associations Articles & Bylaws. The law requires all meetings of the Board to be held in public, except when the Board convenes in executive session, for a reason set forth in RCW 64.38.035 (4) as follows:
“(4) Except as provided in this subsection, all meetings of the board of directors shall be open for observation by all owners of record and their authorized agents. The board of directors shall keep minutes of all actions taken by the board, which shall be available to all owners. Upon the affirmative vote in open meeting to assemble in closed session, the board of directors may convene in closed executive session to consider personnel matters; consult with legal counsel or consider communications with legal counsel; and discuss likely or pending litigation, matters involving possible violations of the governing documents of the association, and matters involving the possible liability of an owner to the association. The motion shall state specifically the purpose for the closed session. Reference to the motion and the stated purpose for the closed session shall be included in the minutes. The board of directors shall restrict the consideration of matters during the closed portions of meetings only to those purposes specifically exempted and stated in the motion. No motion, or other action adopted, passed, or agreed to in closed session may become effective unless the board of directors, following the closed session, reconvenes in open meeting and votes in the open meeting on such motion, or other action which is reasonably identified. The requirements of this subsection shall not require the disclosure of information in violation of law or which is otherwise exempt from disclosure.”
You can read the entire state law (RCW) that governs Washington Homeowners’ Associations here:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=64.38
To 3:35
The RCW's have precedence. It is clearly the law. When looking up RCW's in reference to HOA's, You must also review the non profit corporations. They also apply to our HOA. This is something that is often missed. Surfside HOA constantly violates all the rules deliberately and/or by ignorance. That's why we are in the mess we are today.....We got caught. (they)
There are obviously very limited subjects that are considered acceptable for the BOT to discuss in a closed meeting. They are not to hold a vote on any action decision in private. They are required to provide minutes to any private meetings as well. There is supposed to be a public record of what was discussed. It is doubtful they would honor these State requirements as we have seen a distinct lack of honor on the part of the president on many occasions.
That has of course contributed to a profile that has drawn a Federal Investigation. Knowingly violating the law has the appearance of disrespect for the law, as well as suggesting one's willingness to violate laws both big and small.
Ok. Thanks for the information everyone.
Yes, there was a closed BOT meeting in December but nothing was secret about it, Same with the above meeting. It was a meeting for the employees. Not the first time there have been work related meetings and more than likely not the last. It may have been the first for the current topic but if those in charge did not hold one at some point most here would have made accusations they were keeping secrets from the employees.
My question, if the employee meeting was advertised and opened to all would any of you have attended it?
If I knew the closed meeting including BOT Members was an employee meeting, I wouldn't attend because I wouldn't have a reason to attend. I'm not an employee.
All we are asking for is transparency. Why is that too much to ask for? What does the BOT have to hide?
I heard the meeting in December was to discuss Laura leaving and the new job description and salary.
9:23...The BOT has not acknowledged the various investigations, fines and management failures, yet the Blog brought it to light in November, and the Chinook Observer published a detailed article in mid December. For the BOT to then call an employee meeting definitely is suspect of inappropriate intervention during a criminal investigation.
There should have been an open meeting in December considering that the Blog had been detailing the investigation for weeks prior. The sooner the BOT acknowledged the massive cluster of mistakes and the consequences being doled out, the better. The complete absence of public admission is self serving and another failure to show leadership and accept responsibility to the community. They are concerned about their own behinds and nothing more.
If you were under a federal investigation would you be giving interviews and public statements against your lawyers advice? Speculating at this time won't change what the end results will be.
The facts are the facts. What has taken place thus far should be acknowledged and made public. The HOA paid out $ 27,000 to L&I in mid November. There has been no such decision made in a Board Meeting, and this was unbudgeted community funds, and no public acknowledgement of having taken such a large sum of money out of our community funds to pay for fines due to mismanagement.
This demands an explanation. Reminder: In the January "Surf-In-Sider" pres. Gary Williams stated that the HOA continues to make certain that Surfside is in compliance with all regulatory agencies... a complete lie, on the front page, entitled "State of the Community".
Surfside has not been in compliance for years. The HOA took 5 years to comply to State demands for better water quality, and at the same time was mishandling asbestos laden pipe. We are currently out of compliance with regulators at every level of government.
There is no question that all of the charges are valid, and there is nothing can be done to erase the mis-steps that led to this devastating investigation. The BOT should publicly acknowledge all that is fact. They won't be found more or less guilty by being honest. That would be refreshing and encouraging. A coverup speaks of dishonesty and the intent is obviously to deny the truth or pass the blame on.
Well said. Thanks.
Well said. Thanks.
The comment posted on 2/6 at 9:23 is totally false.
2/6 9:23 read the Special BOT Meeting December 17 2018 minutes on the SHOA website.
George is right, your post is totally false.
Looks like cya to me.
Surfside Homeowners Association
Regular Board Meeting Minutes
November 17, 2018
Floor Comments
John Hames asked if the carbon plant was approved by the Architectural Committee.
John Lamby asked if there was an ongoing investigation by the EPA.
Michael Riley requested than an update on the investigation be placed on the website.
The meeting minutes do not show any response to these questions. I sure would like to know what their response was to these questions if any...not all members are able to attend in person...why don't they publish the response?
Good question sir or madam. I've been thinking about emailing Gary and the BOT to address that, but haven't yet. I actually asked, "Will you provide an update on the investigation on the website?. In my opinion, based on email dialogue with Gary Williams, Gary doesn't answer when I ask about details.
Mike Riley
Ok George and all, if you are reading about it here, how is it a "secret"? And as many have pointed out, if the lawyer for the HOA tells you not to comment further, then why would any on the board do so? Their message has been clear at the meetings I attended, that there will be no discussing until the whole thing plays out to a conclusion. You may not like it, but that's the way it's going to be. They don't answer to the blog.
Until then you all can continue to come on here and repeat the same comments over and over on the same multiple topics of the same thing. Enjoy.
Re: February 11, 2019 at 9:36 AM -
It is a secret because SHOA has NOT published any details to the membership. Up to this point, from a legal stand point, everything discussed here on the blog is hear-say and not evidence worthy in a court of law. Yes, some items published here appear official, but consider the evidence trail and sources that are complete unknowns.
I agree that the BOT has a gag order by their lawyer. However, some judgements have been rendered and monies allocated by the BOT and these items should NOT be part of the gag order. So why hasn't the BOT made any mention of these? My guess is that these judgements are part of public record and someone familiar with this stuff could find the details by FOIA requests to the right agency. But the BOT should be keeping the membership appraised of where our money is being spent and what legal judgements have been levied on our association. I doubt more than 3% of the membership reads this blog so how are they supposed to know about these judgements? Yes, they are secrets...
1158- your way over estimating the percentage of membership that read this blog, I would guestimate 1% would be an exaggeration.
I have spoken to all of my immediate neighbors (6 in this case) only one has heard of the blog, but they don't participate, the others didn't find the idea of interest to them, even after I gave them the address and update on what was going on. I have checked a few times since and their interested have remained the same, null.
Okay, we get that you have great disregard for the Blog, and who cares that you don't respect it's value ? The fact remains, that the HOA was issued a "stop-work-order" on the Plant enclosure building in Aug. or Sept., garnering $10,000 in fines.
Mid Nov. the HOA issued a check for $27,000 to L&I to pay fines regarding the mishandling of asbestos, paid out of community funds without BOT approval in a public meeting, and not published as membership information. This was unbudgeted money, and this is not legally proper.
We have learned all of this from the Blog, along with a great deal of other information, much of it published weeks before the Observer printed 2 articles relating much of the same information. The Observer isn't going to print as fact, unsubstantiated rumors.
You AND your neighbor's lack of interest and cynicism is a prime example of why the BOT feels no obligation to either serve the membership honestly, nor follow proper procedures at the Plant or in our governance.
Tell me who your neighbors are and I'll verify what you say, 02/11 1:59. What do you have to hide? Let me ask them.
9:36 seems to be invited to meetings other than ones ive been too.
Those are the secret meetings. He's or she's a BOT Member.
Wrong again 5:32. Still seeing Trustee's everywhere. Believe it or not people who disagree with you are not all on the board.
To 5:38:
Just regular board meetings. Try attending and staying to the end of them for a change instead of just coming on here.
The BOT is limited to 9 people. Of course. I'm continually emphasizing the drawbacks of anonymity. You can try to stop me from making that assumption all you want. You can talk down to me in a condescending manner all you want. You make your decisions and I'll make mine.
I've tried. I'm been very disappointed to say the least.
You learn more here than at a board meeting. Did you see any questions answered at the last board meeting? Hell no, they can now hide behind an attorney who, by the way, we paid for. 10:12 is a board member or a fool, or maybe both.
1:55:
You are so brave while remaining anonymous. Tell you what, show up at the next meeting and ask to speak with the fool and let's see how that goes. I won't be the one sitting at the tables. Make sure to wait till after Travis leaves.
What are you saying 11:01?
Hey 11:01. I'll be there. What do you mean by, "let's see how that goes"?
Travis?
Hey 11:01. What's Travis going to do? Arrest someone for calling you a name? Wow, you're so brave.
I believe you need to work on your reading comprehension. The comment said to wait until Travis leaves. Sounds to me they aren't looking for Travis to arrest anyone.
What does it matter if Travis is there or not? I really don't care anyway. It's just a bunch of blubbering, threatening, childishness. I'm not the one who called him the name, but thought I would bait 11:01 into more childishness. It's just so funny how 11:01 slammed the person for being anonymous while being anonymous. LMAO
And we wonder why shoa is so messed up.lol
Post a Comment