It is reported that James Clancy has sold his property in Surfside. ...Will the Board follow the rules
aSection 7. Any vacancy occurring in the board of trustees shall be filled by appointment by a majority of the remaining trustees. The person so appointed shall hold office until the next annual meeting of the members of the corporation, at which annual or adjourned annual meeting, the vacancies for the remainder of the original terms, if any, shall be filled by election by the members in the regulas stated in the Bylaws
63 comments:
It is pending according to lighthouse reality. Let's hope the deal goes through.
Closings takes at least 2 months, longer in some cases.
Who would they replace him with?
Well it wasn’t followed last time, so let’s see!
I thought it was. Curt Olds was appointed because he had the next highest vote count. . That means that Mr. Cox should also be appointed. I think he would be good.
Well we just voted in Marianne, Tom and Williams. Those were the only 3 who ran, so we have nobody to take his spot. It should stay vacant
Anonymous 8:10. There were others who got votes as I recall Past practice was to sear the next highest person who members voted for this past November. Of course this didn’t happen when Chris Chandler resigned his board seat! Will be interesting to watch to see what is decided this time!
If Mr. Clancy gets anywhere near his asking price (300% profit). he should pay back the HOA all the moneys he caused to be spent on fines, legal fees, and shoddy workmanship. He came, he screwed everything up, and he is slipping out of town (hopefully). Now if the tree folks and at least two other Board members would listen to ethics, sell and move away.
Good summary 8:10. I agree. It should stay vacant.
I agree. It should stay vacant.
I believe there were 4 openings and 4 candidates. Marriann, Tom, Dan and Gary. Marriann, Tom and Dan got the 3 year positions and Gary got the 1 year position. I think there were some write in candidates who received some votes but not sure who they were. Maybe the write in candidate who got the most votes can take his spot?
I think what JoAnne is referring to is the vacancy in 2019 (?). Not sure if that's the right year but there was a vacancy and Mr. Cox was the candidate with the next most votes. But the board didn't want him so rather than give him the position (as had been done in the past) they just left the position open. ????
The Board had received Mr. Chandler's resignation prior to the October 2019 Board Meeting, but did not announce it. This was an indication that the Board was concerned that appointing me, or another member with independent views, would be a terrible thing. They chose to violate the Bylaws which REQUIRE appointment to fill any such vacancies.
As volunteers who are not elected for their specific background or skills, making community decisions based on personal bias requiring an appointment only of a like-minded individual, is to make a lot of presumptions without basis.
With the pandemic upon us, closed meetings and other precautions have made member participation minimal. That is less of a draw for prospective candidates, as is the obvious intention of seated Trustees exercising total control of BOT dialogue and objectives.
I had tried to make it clear, that as a candidate (when I ran), my objective would be to work with the given agenda and try to make alliances or a connection with other Trustees wherever possible. I certainly have my own views on community issues and am not shy about expressing them. But the Board only makes decisions by majority vote.
Personally, I think that the Tree restrictions need to be eliminated, and a fresh era begun, focusing on the needs of all Surfside owners. Perhaps start an incentive program offering to pay owners for cutting down unhealthy trees, and replanting with specific species. The community can afford it, and specifics of the rebates and future limitations can all be worked out to prevent too much tree density. Individual complaints affecting views would also be reviewed for validity.
This policy is a huge burden for the community, and nothing more than a power-trip and recordkeeping morass. It sews discontent and wastes member resources. For those owners who have trees effected by the limits, this is a constant financial drain. Some owners are limited to use of their property just 2 or 3 months out of the year, so the cost of assessments, taxes and tree maintenance are a big chunk of change.
Get rid of this policy, and start a new era of revitalization. Mr. Clancy has been the primary provocator in this matter, personally submitting hundreds of complaints erroneously. Administration of our community can be much simpler, and our annual legal costs minimized with a new positive tilt on a tired old contentious policy.
The board doesn't have to fill a vacancy if it chooses not to. The language you cited states how a vacancy is filled. It doesn't say it must be filled and gives no timeline for doing so, because it is not required.
Since this always gets overlooked, a bit of clarification concerning the Olds appointment. The board did not put him in place after the departure. Some members came to the board meetings and also wrote in to complain about it and asked that he should be put on the board. After all that, they did.
In the Cox situation no members that I'm aware of (even Cox) did the same except on here, at least not at any board meetings I attended.
I feel that when any Trustee puts their property up for sale, like Clancy and Patrick, they should automatically be removed. If they no longer want to live here, then why should they have a vote on any measures that affect the HOA?
They don't have to seat anybody.
By-laws , article IV, section 7. Any vacancy occurring in the board of trustees SHALL be filled by appointment by a majority of the remaining trustees. The person so appointed shall hold office until the next annual meeting of the members of the corporation
Please tell me how you can interpret this in any other manner than that the empty seat shall not remain unfilled?
2:24 and 5:14. The Bylaw states that any vacancy SHALL be filled. It does not mince words or offer alternatives. Yes, the Board can appoint whomever they choose, but all such vacancies within the last few years (about 8 vacancies in succession) have been filled by the "runner-up". They hesitated in Olds' case because he is known to have a short fuse, but his wife is the Tree Comm. Chair. People on the Blog expressed support for my appointment, and one member expressed upset over my not being appointed in an open B. Meeting. The Board is required to appoint, and did so even in May, the year they appointed Winegar. He didn't even attend a full Board meeting prior to the election of that year. Your argument holds no water.
Maybe if you had been me, you would have begged the Board to appoint you. I was a candidate, so had made it clear I was interested in serving as a Trustee. The fact that they avoided even announcing the resignation, made it clear they were afraid to appoint me, so I wasn't going to beg and be beholden to them for being consistent. They didn't even consider meeting with me, which would be appropriate since they don't know me. You want an excuse, so you have your own issues here. My life has not been lesser for having the time to do what I want. I'm available if they call, but that isn't likely. How about you wise one?
@11:50, you are correct. I forgot Dan, my honest mistake. 4 positions, 4 ran for the board.
Still, it should be left open.
@6:14, I clearly understand what you are saying. If we had 5 candidates run, then the board could appoint that person who did not get elected.
I also interpret it to mean, like the Olds position, the BOT can pick any member in good standing to fill in. Any takers out there??
If you are interested in serving, what committee are you serving on. If the board was inclined to fill a vacancy on the board I would hope they would choose an active committee member who has shown with their actions they are interested in serving. The board needs trustees who are willing to work.
This has been stated here before.
The word "shall" has issues and is subject to interpretation (https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/):
"Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."
Mr. Cox statement "This was an indication that the Board was concerned that appointing me, or another member with independent views, would be a terrible thing." is his opinion.
Based on his comments and treatment of others that disagree with his view points on this blog, my opinion is the board made the right choice.
The real question that needs to be asked is when did the board make the decision not to fill the vacancy in 2019? October 19 2019 meeting it was noted at roll call Chris Chandler had resigned so wouldn’t be attending.
In the minutes I have found no motion or action not to follow the by-laws! I think the members, leave alone Steve Cox, deserve an honest answer. If you can show us where this decision was done in an open meeting, it would answer a lot of concerns!
Many people have. You refuse to listen. You refuse to acknowledge the governing documents are a joke and need upgrading. I guess you have more in common with the Surfside power block than you realize.
Anonymous 9:41. You made my point! When and where did the board make this decision? As far as I can see, it wasn’t in an open recorded meeting!
Yes, you've brought this up before and I consider it irrelevant. As you have stated, our presumption that "shall" means " will" is being reconsidered in it's application in many juridictions. Apparently this has not been established definitively by ALL jurisdictions, and what seems very apparent is that the profile of some legal issues is of such impact as this is considered an issue. The specific application and useage of any word makes a big difference. We are talking about an HOAcovenant and not a Supreme Court decision. The use of "shall" is not obscure in this covenant, rather, it states specifically how long the appointee shall serve. In addition, no one needs to be alerted to my second statement being an opinion which is obvious, yet at the ssme time my conclusion is also the logical explanation as to why I was not appointed. I have been open about my critiques of Board decisions, and they don't appreciate independent voices on the Board. They have gone to great efforts to promote preferred candidates in each election, and have not been tolerant of independent voices who have been elected. This has even been so extreme as to holding private meetings excluding unpreferred Trustees. They have routinely misused "closed sessions" in efforts to avoid transparency, and this was just such an issue.
JoAnne, they didn't have to make a formal decision.
I happened to be in attendance at the Board meeting, as I had been told that Chandler had resigned and I was curious if it would be acknowledged. I wasn't aware the resignation was mentioned, so it may have been, but I didn't hear it. There was no open acknowledgement such as needing a replacement.
5:10 anonymous. How did you come to that conclusion that the board didn’t have to make a formal decision? Evidently a decision was made and our meetings are to be open to members!
Steve, I was there also and don’t remember any formal announcement. But it’s in the minutes I checked it!
They didn't seat anyone on the board when Chandler resigned. If you don't like that and think it is against the governing documents, sue the HOA, or just keep whining about it on this blog, I guess. That's obviously very productive.
5:10....When the reply from the BOT to member objections is "we can do whatever we want to", be it in words or lack of information, it should be expected that members will object. So weak arguments like pretending the meaning of "shall" has changed, is just insulting our intelligence. This Bylaw is totally clear, outlining the urgency of an appointment, and the length of term. Who is appointed IS at the Board's discretion.
Since the precedent has been followed to appoint the "runner-up", and has been consistently over a few years at least, an appointment is necessary whoever it may be. This is not the private realm of the BOT, and to proclaim it so is disrespectful of the member election. In my case, I received 90 votes. So 90 member households had reason to expect their votes to be respected, and an open discussion of who will be appointed, is to be expected.
While there have been successes in HOA governance, this attitude that the BOT need not answer to the membership, is a problem in Surfside. That's the last thing we need to hear at a time when Board meetings are closed to public attendance.
By violating the stated Bylaw, the Board's actions inadvertently led to an uncontested election of 3 Trustees. We are in a similar situation going into the next cycle. That's the issue here.
Memo to Clancy : try not to leave your future home the way you are leaving us, with dishonesty and petty games. Good riddance!
It appears we will have yet more shenanigans, with J placers being the only candidates.
Ok anonymous 2:54 let’s put your “shall” meaning “maybe” to the 6.0 Restrictive Covenant Enforcement. 6.2. All members shall comply with these covenants.
So with your interpretation of shall and how evidently the board just decided through mental telepathy to not fill the vacated seat on the board in October 2019, we as members can view this “shall” in the same manner? You can’t have it both ways!
If the board made the decision not to seat Steve Cox they should have discussed this in open session. After all it was the members votes that should have counted not the feelings of the board.
Same old B.S. from 3:21. Instead of repeating it, why don't you step up to volunteer YOUR time and become a candidate? Of course that would take some work on your part. Much easier to complain and make false accusations.
I'm sorry, but to say that the board "have gone to great efforts to promote preferred candidates in EACH election" is incorrect. The fact that there have been elections where the open positions were equal to the amount of candidates, the recent election being just one example, proves that is just an opinion. I will admit that during some elections when there was more candidates than openings some board members did did back certain people and there is nothing wrong with that. They are members too and have the right to do so. I recall when some of those "independent voices" Trustees were out promoting people they wanted you the same people who are complaining now where silent then.
And anyone who makes a statement that the board is afraid of them is doing so only to stroke their ego. Once again it's nothing but an opinion.
Note to Clancy, Good Riddance!
Also, the asset owner is the one that's ultimately responsible for getting building permits and following regulations imposed by external entities!
JoAnne, that sentence means exactly what it says. The full sentence of the vacancy information means exactly what it says too. It just describes how a vacancy is filled, not whether it must be filled and within what timeframe. If the intent was that it must be filled, it would state the timeframe for doing so.
This dialogue is fun.
1150 - unlike yourself, I refuse to participate in an organization that operates illegally and unethically. Clean up your playpen, then we can talk.
630 - the only time I saw the number of candidate match the positions was last year. I've been here since 2002. Board members have done everything they could, both legally and illegally, to stay in power, including giving preference to their fellow J PPacers.
Try rewriting history somewhere else. We know better.
Why would the seated Trustees have made any special efforts in the last election? Rogers has already been on the Board for most of a term, and the other 2 candidates pledged to support the status-quo. I have served a 3 year term on an HOA Board, so it is apparent my views are the sticking point. Why you insist otherwise isn't worth wondering about. My ego is just fine without needing to be reassured. The Board consistently ignores the covenants whenever it serves their interests, and THAT is a fact.
Who's on the Drainage Ditches Committee?
Is that a REAL fact?
Whoever you are, you do not set the guidelines for candidates, the bylaws do. There is no such requirement, and the community does not take its' ques from pompous people unwilling to identify themselves. You are surely a B. member to make such a statement. Control freak. That's what's broken with our HOA.
You delude yourself. You are wrong, and JoAnne's example proves it. There would be no need to specify exactly how long the appointee's term is, while not mentioning that appointing is optional. No option is offered, only that the appointment will be made and when thecterm ends.
Anonymous 10:29 board member? How much clearer can the intent be? Article 7. The person so appointed SHALL hold office until the next annual meeting of the members
The voting of the BOT
is the duty and result of the members voting, not of any actions of the board. I don’t know how much clearer this can be!
You can try and justify what happened in anyway you want, but it was wrong
Gunna drain the swamp?
I always find it interesting how when somebody disagrees with certain people on here they are accused of being board members. Believe it or not there are many non trustee members here that don't share your views.
To 1:26:
First off, I have lived here longer than you.
Second, I guess you were on a trip during 2018 or have a memory issue. That year there were 3 openings and 3 announced candidates, Chandler, Turner and Scott. That would be another example of when the number of candidates matched the positions. That means I am not rewriting history, just repeating a known and documented fact.
And finally, apparently it is YOU who doesn't know better.
Now to 1:47:
I agree, Trustees didn't make any special efforts in the last election, which I clearly stated. The same was true in the example above. YOU'RE the one who made the claim that they have done so in EACH election, which means you just contradicted yourself, so don't get upset at me. Normally I let your baseless statements go unchallenged because it ends up with the usual name calling and false accusations, as it did here. I found that one to be too egregious to give you a pass.
@1:36, the swamp will drain a little with Clancy leaving> Thank you Jesus!
Question for anyone who knows. Are they raising the HOA fees?
6:41....The 2018 election was not an uncontested election. That is unchanged by how long you've been a Surfside member.
so I take it from the meeting today, Gary Williams already has a name thrown out there to fill in Clancys departure
641 - 2018 election was pre stacked by the Board from the very start. Part of the reason we're in the position we are now.
What you fail to acknowledge is a self-serving crap is been going on for well over a decade. It is time for a change. We need a new board, clean sweep!
Witness another hand-picked appointee brought in yesterday. Does he live on J place as well?
@9:20, I just looked up Tom Newman, yes he lives on J place. Unbelievable!!
Why does Gary get the say of who takes over? I will be glad to see that puffed chest go away with this next election.
Good point 11:38.
Since they did fill the vacancy, all that must be documented. When was the decision and where is the documented board approval in writing, by a majority of the remaining trustees?
Exactly! You’ve got to be kidding! When and where was this decision made? If the members aren’t upset about this two faced decision, I don’t know what!
I want the minutes of when this decision was made!
As long as Williams is here, nothing will change. It's been the same old crap for 12 years, 10 of which he has been president.
Self-interest, nepotism, amorality rule in Surfside. Pretty sad.
@3:46, Joanne, Williams mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, @ the 3:24 mark about reaching out to Newman to take over for Clancy, he was thinking it over.
Why even fill the position, leave it open until the election. Newman could run for the spot if he really wants it.
Sorry Cox, you are wrong and 6:41 is correct. There were 3 openings and 3 announced candidates. The 3 announced got the most votes, the rest were write ins. I suggest you go and take a look at the archived weekender for that time and you will see that is the truth.
Of course that would require a little effort on your part.
Anonymous 1:27. Correct information. There were 4 seats being filled. The fourth was the empty seat from 2019 resignation of Chandler which had never been filled. The person who got the fewest votes filled that seat until this years membership meeting. Gary Williams now has that position.
So 4 empty seats, 4 candidates
Tell them JoAnne! Good work!
How's the CRC going?
1:27....I had forgotten that Blagg's term ended on election day. I later found out she had resigned the day before. There were about 7 write-ins in the 2018 election, so it really wasn't uncontested. Surfside has a large Board, and there have been numerous resignations and appointments. I accept your premise, in that the HOA only knew of 3 candidates for 3 positions in the 2018 election.
I'm obviously literate, and when I want information I know how to seek it out. But I don't stop in the middle of a blog comment and research a subject. Like most folks, I rely on my recall, which is pretty reliable. George resigned about 2016, and Winegar was appointed at the May meeting of that year. Olds should have been appointed in 2018, and was eventually. Chandler resigned in Oct.of 2019, one month into his 3rd year, and I should have been appointed for the remainder of 2019.
There aren't a lot of members engaged enough to vote, let alone run for Trustee, so it screws things up to not fill empty seats on the BOT. The Bylaws require positions be filled, and it is obvious that is the best approach, as well as the official requirement.
.
From 1:27
To JoAnne: I don't quite understand what you're saying to me here so it's best I don't comment on it except to say this. I was referring to the 2018 election discussion not the 2019.
To Mr. Cox:
A comment was made that there had been other elections like the recent one where the announced candidates, not write-ins, equaled the positions opened. That FACT wasn't accepted by Mr/Ms anonymous and you. I came on here to back up that comment because I knew it to be true. I also gave a suggestion on where you could find the truth for yourself since unfortunately your recollection wasn't reliable on this subject. I wasn't questioning your literacy.
Accept my premise? How gracious of you since again, it is a fact. However, given that the definition of an uncontested election is one where the number of candidates is the same or less than positions available, I don't accept your premise that election was not uncontested because of the write-ins. But as always you are welcomed to your opinion. But thanks for admitting you don't research a subject before you comment. That's where you and I differ. If I'm going to contradict someone I try my best to make sure I know the actual facts.
Anyhoo, like the other person I'm done with this subject.
Post a Comment