Member Comment.. Comments..topic only, PLEASE!
I sure never wanted "pro-active" and how many others feel the same way?
I don’t believe “everyone” wanted pro-active compliance! How would the board know? There was no member hearing or discussion. Just a vote at a BOT meeting! I was at that meeting and I was very surprised at that motion and vote. There should have been a hearing! There are pros and cons to both sides
13 comments:
Again, members had no voice. You want members participation, send out an email.
There should be no definition of proactive or nonproactive compliance. Be compliant, if you aren't, then it shouldn't be any surprise if you told to become so.
Do you people really care what is going on a mile away? If it's not directly bothering you, keep to yourself
Compliant? What a nonsense word for this HOA. You will never get a perfect stepford suburbia here. Individualism is alive and well and the old regime of uniform compliance is fading with the wind. Just spend the money on a warehouse full of dark sky lighting, approved trees, a year round dumping area for pine tree debris, bark collars and of course more poo bags and deposit stations and abolish all the employees who get paid. Then we can all be compliant and live in harmony? I doubt it, as some people love to torment. This is the most pathetic HOA in the history of HOA's. Good grief, get a life and stop tormenting the members. It is afterall, about us, not YOU
I believe it’s not so much about the compliance to the covenants, but the fact members have no voice in the decisions he BOT makes.
I have been in Surfside twenty five years and the members have had very little or no voice in board decisions. The BOT is there to
Work or the betterment of the members, how can they when they do not know what all members want.
I don't want to pay for a person to drive around and tell us how awful we are. Who decided this was OK?
You are absolutely correct! The communication between the members and the board is very difficult. I’ve expressed this concern to the manager when we were asked about our website.
We’ve got to obtain an easier way to discuss matters that are concerning us.
I agree JoAnne, and then I could shut this damn thing down. The members need and deserve a venue where they can express their concerns and have questions answered. At the very least, get the minutes and other Board actions out for the members to see. At least when Reber was the GM, several times he posted all the Board packet information. When the Board agenda was published, we could look at the packet information and see what it was about. Where the hell is there any leadership? I will continue the blog as long as it is needed.
It's about control. It starts at the top with Tracy. She is not about the members, but her dictators.
When items are brought before the board, they should discuss, then table the items until the members have a chance to respond. I like the idea of sending out a mass email. It's done for the newsletter and it can also be on the members only Facebook page. Let's start discussing things further and quit being so quick to decide what is best for everyone. Give people a month to respond, and it cannot be anonymous.
Like yours and mine?
Official business needs a name attached to it, this is just a chat group
I think the key to some of our problems is that there is no real clarity of the process of changing covenants. We only know that the BOT can vote to change them, and the members must be offered an opportunity to weigh-in in a member meeting the BOT schedules.
We saw this process reach the "review" stage Jan. 2020, The outcome of the member meeting was that Trustees present made an informal decision to leave the Lighting covenant unchanged, but a lumen limit established at property's edge.
Instead, no formal change was made, and the BOT presented a similar rewrite, with no real details, and unenforceable vaguries.
This is slight of hand intended to deceive members into agreeing to an equally intrusive rewrite, yet allowing the BOT to enforce unwritten details as they choose.
Would the BOT allow a community-wide vote added to the mail-in ballot to establish member rights necessary in approving covenant change ? If not, why ?
I agree with Mr. Cox that there is lack of clarity regarding BOT approval of covenant changes. The covenants and bylaws only state that a hearing must be held but does not define exactly determines a hearing or the outcome of a hearing.
Post a Comment