May 15, 2021
OMG...
SURFSIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
REGULAR BOARD MEETING SUMMARY
May 15, 2021
President Gary Williams called to order the May 15, 2021 Regular Board Meeting of the Surfside Homeowners Association at 9:00 am. Trustees present via WebEx were Mark Scott, Ric Minich, Rudd Turner, Kurt Olds, Dan Neptun, Tom Rogers, Tom Newman and Mariann Schweitzer
Guests: Steve Cox, Valerie Harrison, Nominating Committee Chairman with candidates John Curran, Larry Raymer and Annette deLeest.
• Safety Message- Gary Williams safety message was on warm weather and being out on the water. Always wear your safety equipment and remember that even though it is hot outside the water can still be very cold and cause hypothermia.
• Pacific County Sheriff – There was a meeting with Sheriff Souvenir regarding the speeding in Surfside. The Sheriff advised that they will be working with the Pacific County Public Works department to do speed studies to help target problem areas and will also put out a speed sign trailer.
• Agenda- The agenda for the May 15, 2021 regular board meeting was amended and approved.
• Minutes- The minutes from the April 17, 2021 Regular Board Meeting were ap-proved.
• Code of Civility- Item was tabled until June.
• DECC- Janet Corey was approved as the Designated Election Committee Chairper-son for the annual meeting.
• AED Quotes- a bid was accepted from AED for the fully automated Lifepak CR2 w/wifi for the business office and the water booster office at a cost not to exceed $5,000.00 including installation and equipment.
• Compliance Update-A new compliance inspector has been hired and starts on Monday. A motion was made to extend the moratorium on excessive complaints for another 60 days to allow the new compliance officer to get acclimated.
• Lands & Buildings Committee- The one (1) year maintenance plan submitted by the Lands & Buildings Committee was approved.
• Members Request- A member submitted a request for a By-law revision making a change so that the members would vote on covenant changes, the request was not approved.
• Firewise/Chipping- Chipping site opening date will be May 29th, Saturday, from 10-2.
• All Staff, committee & trustee reports were accepted.
• Closed Session- A motion was made to move into closed session to discuss employee wages.
• Adjourn to closed at 11:47 am
• Reconvene from closed session 12:45 pm
• Motions after closed session:
• Increase hourly wage for Dan Weyl once certification is completed
• Convert Water System Manager from hourly to salary with no overtime
• A $15,000.00 fund for wage increases for possible promotions in the 2022 budget.
• Set a baseline hourly wage increase of 3% and 1% bonus for staff for the 2022 budget.
• A motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 1:16 pm
Memorial
79 comments:
It's hopeless. It just gets worse. Dissolution is the only solution.
Omg I could take better minutes than this when I was a child! Why bother to even post that crap? And WHERE IS THE RECORDING OF THE MEETING? Someone needs to be fired!
They are trying to edit the meeting before posting it according to another comment on a different thread. They need to remove Kurt's anger issue
I've sent a letter to the Board telling them that we expect the Board to abide by our Bylaws and follow through with the member initiative to vote on a change to the Bylaw that explains the process of changing covenants.
Changing the Bylaws is the authority of the members, and does not require approval of the Board. Notice of intent and legal review of content is all that the Board has authority to do.
We have given 2 months prior notice, and the HOA's attorney advised minor changes to the wording, and recommended that the BOT move ahead with our member proposal.
This is a violation of our member rights, and I would urge members to insistbthe Board abide by the Bylaws and follow the attorney's advice.
Beware the vague wording of the Board's "new" lighting covenant on Review at the Annual Meeting. This version basically says that the Board can force you to do whatever they want pertaining to YOUR PERSONAL home exterior lights. It must be rejected, and if the member proposal is on the ballot (as it should be) we would vote to reject it.
Head of tree committee with help from Annette and Clancy BOT trustees helped quietly pass proactive compliance (which has never been explained) in 2019. Than in middle of a pandemic they began secret policy with no notice to the members. Why in secret? They passed it in 2019 but no notice? Why under the radar?
All BOT were complicit. Williams, Olds, Clancy , Scott , Rudd, Minich, deLeest. The next new project Olds and deLeest neat and tidy to continue the policy of policing. And just for fun any criticism of them they will phone the police and charge terrorist threats while Kurt berates and threatens anyone close by. Secrets and open harassment of all members sounds like more fun.
VOTE. Larry, Ronda, John and Cori.
Tit.To clarify, reject the lighting covenant, approve (if on the ballot)the member Bylaw change.
So the agenda was amended but the amended agenda is not posted?
The original agenda is also not available because we can no longer access past Weekenders. Click on that link and you will get an error message. Not sure how long it has been this way but I have tried to access past Weekenders several times over the previous many weeks and it's a dead end.
So here are the missing items from the original agenda. Thanks to George who copied it onto the blog or we wouldn't have it. Were any of these topics discussed?
-Chlroine Room
-Carbon Filter Valve
-Eradipest
-Fall Planting
-Fence Regulation
-Shed Covenant
-Deputy Report: Was the deputy report replaced with the sheriff speeding meeting info? Was someone from Surfside at the speeding meeting? If so, who? Was the meeting just about Surfside speeding or was it a speeding meeting for the whole peninsula?
- Candidates: Nice summary regarding candidates. However, it states the Membership Meeting is July 11th. Followed by the RSVP form indicating it is the 10th.
Hey Steve, now you’re just a member! Too difficult to document who presented the motion and that this was for the July member meeting! This is the sorriest excuse for minutes I’ve ever seen.
Are excessive complaints and proactive compliance the same thing?
We should have hired a note taker and a communications officer instead of inspector clouseau.
FACT CHECK:
By statue, the Annual Member Meeting is the second Saturday in July. Saturday July 10, 2021
Good Morning, George. For my own sanity I don’t regularly follow your blog or any blog, so I don’t know who was complaining about the “minutes.” Could you please clarify that it is in fact a SUMMARY. One, They have never posted a recording of meetings on their website so nothing is being hidden. Two, the minutes are not published until they are approved at the following board meeting. There are so many people who do not know and understand the procedures and get themselves and others riled up for no reason. They are bad mouthing staff members who are doing their jobs. It’s getting out of hand.
Just my input….. Thank you for understanding.
There is a "recording" of previous board meetings when the association started streaming them on Facebook. It is my understanding they started streaming on Facebook so members could listen in.
Then for meeting before last, the streaming was moved to youtube. I think this was another effort to make it available to more members. Apparently that didn't work out well either so this last meeting was on Webex.
According to some postings on Facebook, Tracy was going to get the Webex meeting posted online. Although it didn't really say where it would be located.
People just want to be able to watch the May meeting as promised. That is why we have been using technology. Apparently there is some problem with getting the Webex meeting posted online?
Under the circumstances, if the meeting is not going to be made available to watch, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a more informative "summary" of the meeting.
So members can have access to the draft minutes and ask questions. Apparently not! Membere can't attend the board meetings so what the hell are you talking about?
Members can attend, the instructions for attending the May meeting were in the weekender and on the website and the Facebook page, how many places do you need information posted?? I found it very easy and was able to get on with no issues.
Not everyone is able to attend. That's the benefit of having it posted online somewhere..........so people can view when their schedule permits.
Streaming the meeting was a really good step in the right direction for improved communication.
Let's just all acknowledge that the Webex effort fell a little short since there seems to be some difficulty in getting it posted online. They still may be able to figure out how to make that happen.
In the meantime, it would have been nice to have an update on its status in the Weekender 'summary'. Or, if it's not going to get posted, as mentioned above, a more informative 'summary'.
We can't make comments. We can't ask questions. That is not attending a meeting. We can't comment and ask about the meeting minutes. So you think the trustees are the only ones who can see and review the meeting minutes. Well, that is exactly how this board has always behaved. I believe that's illegal.
2:21 its a board meeting not a members meeting. You can send in floor comments before the meeting and the board goes over them, just as they did with Steve on Saturday. If you read the operations manual you will see they are following the guidelines for a board meeting.
You read that everybody? It's their meeting, not ours. If you submit a question or multiple questions and they don't answer, that's your tough luck and deal with it!
Stop your whining!!!
Take your issues to the so-called members meeting and see those efforts stopped before you know what hits you.
Yours, mine, board's, member's!
Nobody, board or members, owns a meeting!!!
"If you read the operations manual you will see they are following the guidelines for a board meeting." If you read the articles of incorporation and the bylaws, you will see they are not following them. Same with State RCW's and County ordinances. The Annual Member Meeting is nothing more than a propaganda board meeting disguised as a member meeting.
It's an annual meeting with certain rules. By common sense and integrity and humility, people know which take precedence and which need to abide by which. The leadership we've had for years are sycophants for the J Placers and people with no common sense, integrity, and humility.
Good Ole Stumpside!
@3:31, article 10 of articles of incorporation..AT EACH MEETING, any matter will be put to the members to vote.
Article 9, bylaws may be amended at any regular meeting or special meeting. VOTEBY MEMBERS PRESENT OR PROXY
article 10 of bylaws, AMENDMENTS AT ANY TIME BY A VOTE OF A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS
restrictive covenants...
Not to be amended without prior notice AND A HEARING FOR THE MEMBERSHIP, DOES NOR SAY ANNUAL MEETING
SO MEETINGS ARE ABOUT THE MEMBETS!!!
How about membutts? Membutts of Stumpside. Your a joke 8:50
Yes 8:50. We're the owners. They work for us. They represent us. It's not the other way around 9:21! Which board members are you?
Well certain board and/or committee members continue to reveal themselves. Unfortunately the decent board and/or committee members (and we know there are some) are unable or unwilling to remove them from the positions of power they continue to abuse. Hopefully we elect new board members who will be able to take appropriate action. And to 1:01, your offensive comments put you in the same boat as the unethical and dishonest board and committee persons. Please stop, as it is not helpful.
VOTE Larry, Ronda, John and Cori.
You people in power seem to hammer anyone who has a violation against them . Well lets focus on Pam Harris. her house is over the 16 ft limit,(look at the overlays) has been for years. This is no different than the trees over height for years right?? Oh and its a multi dwelling, complete with bedrooms up and down, as well as bathrooms up and down and even 2 kitchens. Hmmmm, Oh and her and Peggy just filed a new tree complaint this week for the new guy. Let that sink in
[May 22, 2021 at 6:21 PM said] Oh and her and Peggy just filed a new tree complaint this week for the new guy.
Now how would you know that? Not many people have access to filed complaints. If "word-of-mouth" then it's just hearsay...
Guess no one gets the significance of changing the Bylaw, and being stopped from putting it on the ballot. The Board is preventing the members from exercising their stated rights.
Changing this Bylaw would give members a voice to prevent intrusive covenants, such as the lighting cov.change on review atbthe July Annual meeting. I'm betting the members do not show up or prevent this new and very intrusive covenant from being enacted. No one gives a sh*t.
Don't give up Steve, we are with you and are disappointed they illegal discarded the proposal!
But what to do next? Hire an attorney? I don't know. I feel we need to take control of this place or we are in trouble. I got a $1000 to throw in the pot. It's less cost than moving. Thoughts? What can we do?
Steve, read above @ 8:50. This is what our bylaws, covenants and ordinances state. Your proposal was 100% valid and the board voted 5-3 against following the rules. Bring it up again in August when we have BOT working for the members.
Agree. What can we do? Steve attempted to do the right thing and was dismissed. We will be at the meeting and reject the lighting covenant and approve (if on the ballot)the member Bylaw change. But the all powerful just continue to over rule these proper attempts at change. At the very least we must change the board members.
I guess there is a mole in the office. Someone needs to inform members of the sneaky things that go on. Besides, Peggy, you do file numerous complaints, what's one more.
And since the meeting is still not posted (correct me if I'm wrong) we don't know how the board members voted.
Yes, which 5 voted AGAINST following the rules?
I believe Gary, Marianne were 2 of the 5
Thanks for acknowledging our effort to bring this loophole to a close. The Bylaw actually has priority over the covenant which deals with covenant change. But both provisions in our documents provide for a member review of Board sponsored covenant changes, and then do not specify what happens next. The obvious deletion of the following and final step is surely no accident.
New Trustee Mr. Neptune said that members have no room to complain about the decisions their elected Trustees make, as we elected them even if we didn't vote. Having long been a commanding officer in the Coast Guard, he obviously doesn't see his role as a Trustee as needing to be accountable to the members, but only to someone of a higher rank. That's similar to the audacity of the other Trustees who opposed the proposal I brought to the Board.
Rudd Turner had a lot to say in a similar vein , and Kurt Olds had to be told twice to end his comments. His take was that this was just a malcontent member out to rile the membership up over nothing. Both he and Turner liked the line "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." So yeah, you can create your own little fantasy about our proposal, but it DOES address something broken in our documents, now for about 50 years.
It is NOT common for covenant changes in HOAs to be made without member approval. Why would residents knowingly allow the restrictions and rules of a community to be made and changed by nothing more than a Board decision ? That's where scanning a document like ours can be deceiving. "Member Review....oh okay" you might think, wanting to close the deal on a property.
The Board has been itchy to build an enforcement machine in Surfside, and create a bunch of new restrictions, starting with the Lighting covenant. It basically gives the HOA full reign of member lighting choices, and creates stupid restrictions with obscure objectives. "Lights must point downward. lights may not shine past the property-line".
Well said Steve. I do not expect this Board to have a change of heart. After the Board election, we will hopefully be able to make the needed changes. The "new" Board could call for a "special Meeting" and not have to wait a year for changes needed now. They could also have an immediate member hearing and change the covenants. I remain hopeful for a positive change. Our members deserve no less.
Your proposal will eventually get to be put before the members. We need a new board in order for it to happen.
Do not vote for Annette. She is behind the new neat and tidy covenant coming down the pipeline.
No bouys, no driftwood and no gravel. Total crap
The governing documents require a member hearing but don't define what a hearing is, how an outcome is determined, or if the boards needs to abide. That is what needs clarity.
I believe, but can't state with certainty, that covenant changes are usually voted for by the membership at the annual meeting. That is good but I would like to see that as a requirement (assuming it isn't already and I'm just missing it).
restrictive covenants...
Not to be amended without prior notice AND A HEARING FOR THE MEMBERSHIP, DOES NOT SAY ANNUAL MEETING
What does a "HEARING FOR THE MEMBERSHIP" mean? What defines it and the outcome and whether the board needs to abide?
The hearing concerning changes in the covenants can be held at anytime the board chooses. This year was put on the July agenda I believe because it would be the first opportunity to have such a public meeting. The members hearing of the proposed changes just has to be held, nothing in the rules about outcome. That decision is solely voted on by the board
The motion that Steve proposed for the July meeting would have changed that to member controlled covenants. That motion failed to be approved for the agenda by a vote of 5 no and 3 yes
Your comment is correct, however, The Annual Meeting is a MEMBER Meeting. The "hearing" on covenants is Board business. In my opinion, it is illegal to combine the two. They should be separate. It would probably be legal to have two meetings on that date that are separate, but proper notice must be made to the members. This Board has shown that they do not understand the rules and procedures required, or they deliberately do not follow them. The Annual Meeting is the one instance where the members have the right to make motions and vote on them. The Board has no right to place any restrictions on motions or how they are made. Only requirement is for a motion to be made with a second, discussion and member vote. The members of the Board would have only one vote each, the same as all the other members present in person or by proxy.
Yes George you are completely correct! I guess I just accepted the fact they grouped this into the member meeting after this past year! But yes it should have been a separate meeting, but the advantage to getting our views heard will be increased by the attendance at this meeting. The bigger the attendance at that hearing, as was witnessed in 2019, will work to the members advantage!
Excellent point JoAnne. Problem is..We do not want the presently seated Board to make a voted decision at this meeting. It would be better for them to decide on it after we have four new faces on the Board. The present Board has failed time and again to act in the best interests of ALL the members. They have lost the trust of the members.
That was my question from the beginning. They decided to have the hearing at the members meeting but never clarified which board it would be making the decision! Small little details 😂
So I can announce we will have a member meeting following this annual meeting, correct?
The Board will hold a "Special Meeting" which will be the Lighting Cov. Hearing. There really won't be time to hold another meeting. With respect to the Bylaw change we want to make, we need to have the meeting with the BOT's agreement that mail-in proxy ballots will be sent by the HOA.
The Board had no authority to vote on our Bylaw proposal, and their opinions on the proposal were not needed. They are only charged with having the text reviewed for proper wording, which they had already done. Tracy sent the proposal to the HOA attorney on May 5th when I submitted it, more than 60 days before the Annual Meeting. The attorney didn't send his recommendations until the day before the board Meeting, 9 days later.
I sent a letter by e-mail to all BOT members on the 21st. I emphasized that the attorney told them they needed to allow the member vote, which they ignored. Once again, they have violated our documents at will, and have denied members their rightful authority to vote on this bylaw change. We will have to reschedule.
As for the kind of meeting that the docs intend, it is a bit foggy. The stated requirement refers to a "regular or Special Meeting". Our docs do not have a definition for a "regular" meeting, and it is challenging to get enough signatures to enable members to call a Special Meeting. Since the Board is utilizing the Annual to Review the covenant change they propose, making the Annual Meeting the chosen venue seems like a way of clarifying this, and ballots will be sent out anyway.
But if this Bylaw change is approved, then the Board will have to change the covenant that explains covenant change. What is a "regular" meeting ? there is no definition in our docs. The Annual is, in a sense, a regular meeting.
The hearing will be at the members annual meeting in July, then in August the new board will vote on the covenant change.
Ronda..Not correct. The Annual Meeting and the Member Meeting are the same. The Annual Meeting is a member meeting. A "Special Meeting" can be called by the Board President or Secretary. A "Regular Board Meeting" is the monthly Board Meeting we have now. The Annual Meeting is regular only in the sense that it is held on a regular basis yearly at a time and date specified in our governing documents. Regular Board Meetings, Special Meetings and Annual Meetings, all have specific rules and procedures. They are all considered different in scope and intent.
To 6:33:
Give one example where deLest has said she is against buoys driftwood and gravel. Given the landscaping of their properties I seriously doubt you could find one and the statement is false..
The neat and tidy thing in one form or another has been a SHOA board topic before she was a Trustee and after, so your statement is nothing but an opinion that obviously is based on a bias, nothing more.
I like many would like to have something in place to stop people from having their property looking like a junkyard. If you think wanting people to keep their properties neat is crap, that says a lot about you.
I feel that Mr. Neptune's statement is correct and using his military's service against him is not only uncalled for but insulting as well.
Most candidates have stated their views and have answer questions as to what their plans are if elected. We elect them so they can follow through with their plans. Obviously some are going to get elected who a percentage of the members didn't agree with or voted for so naturally they are going to complain. That is your right, but complaining doesn't make it mandatory that a Trustee must change their views to suit the complainer when it goes against the majority that voted for them and got them elected.
The bottom line is and always will be this. Accountability comes at election time. If you feel your agenda is better than another and that you have the majority of members behind you run for the position and get elected.
I think part of the reason the board didn't approve Steve's proposal was it also included the mail proxy's.
That wasn't needed at this point and an easier victory may be obtained by removing that portion - IMO.
When will we receive ballots for the election? Will it be mail in, In person/ proxy, or online voting? (LOL) Just curious as I am not sure we can make the Annual Meeting as my wife has Dr. appointment on the 8th for a procedure on her knee.
Just wanting to figure out our options for voting!
Next month, by mail in proxy or in person at annual meeting. Will be sent to you with the surf-in-sider
1:46....The bottom line is actually the fact that the Trustees do not have any authority to vote on this member proposal, allowed by our documents and acknowledged as so by the HOA attorney. We have the letter the attorney sent in response to my proposal, submitted May 5th.
So Mr. Neptune and the others who voted to deny this request are all unwilling to follow our written documents (more likely unaware of their contents), which they have sworn to uphold and abide by. Many members like yourself would sooner ignore members being denied their rights, than speak-up about it.
Mr. Williams stated the case properly, and was fair in his proceedings, but everyone wanted to have their say, which he allowed, as well as holding a vote - neither appropriate to the proceedings. The Board was presented with the proposal with due respect, while they are only authorized to acknowledge the Attorney's recommendations and provide a mail in proxy with the item presented to the members. Bylaw changes are member decisions which the Trustees do not vote on.
By the way, our documents require proxy voting, so that's what the proposal would follow, setting Annual Meetings as the place to have Covenant reviews, and requiring that there be a member vote to disapprove/approve covenant changes or additions. The Board must vet or approve the covenant change proposed, a hearing held, and a member vote held by proxy vote.
Nothing radical, but asking the BOT to give the members their rightful voice in the process, as most HOAs do.
@3:22
Any idea of the date they will go out? We travel and do postal service holds, I want to be able to vote! I do not understand why we are in the 21st century and this HOA is so backwoods! All options for voting should be available to members, ONLINE, MAIL IN, PROXY (which wouldn’t be needed) if the HOA actually wanted member input.
Absolutely agree! All the methods of voting should be available!,
Ok someone needs to explain what is going on with the posting of the may meeting video. Today it was on the official Surfside website, tonight when I had time to sit down and try listen it’s gone! We as members deserve to have access to what transpired during that meeting. Remember our meetings are supposed to be open to members! This is beyond belief and is being treated like it’s not even important!
They make nothing easy. It's not under minutes, then when you question Tracy she becomes a snot. Civility goes both ways honey!
Ok will one of you please go to the OFFICIAL WEBSITE, click on the link under may meeting and tell what happens? Previously I was able to go to Webex, now it goes nowhere! I’m being told I need to copy and paste to make it work? Totally out of my ability to be able to get this to work. The may meeting is somewhere out there in cyberspace I guess, but not readily available to us members
Joanne, you copy the link and paste it in the browser. Please don't jump on the hate bandwagon because you are not tech savvy, shameful
Several things are shameful. First is your comment and second is the process to view the video, and when you finally have it, you can't understand what they are saying. There should be a simple link that only requires one click.
Go to May Board Meeting 5-15-2021 on the homepage of the "official" web page. Run curser over the link below, like your going to copy and paste. Rifht click on it while it is blue. This will bring up a box. Right click on Go to http:/surfsideonline.org/wp Then you wait while it loads. Then have fun trying to follow it and hear it.
This is a disgusting mess. You have to be tech savvy to view this meeting and I ain't "tech savvy". AND apparently no one is at the office, especially the IT person.
Link worked fine for the May video. Audio was fine as well.
I agree with Dan and 10:11.
The web address is there:
http://surfsideonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/May-Board-Meeting-20210515-1601-1.mp4
Copy and paste are simple functions used across many applications.
The person managing the web page likely forgot to tag the address as a link.
It is not the end of the world nor worth the angry comments here.
The quality of the video is unrelated to the posting the address or link.
I’ll tell you what anonymous 10:11 I’m quite comfortable around computers and the internet, so thank you for the ignorant comment! There has been nothing said about copy and paste ect ect! As I said the link worked for me previously, but I had no idea about the copy crap! I did so and for what reason I and wondering now! The quality is horrible, dialogue garbled and hard to listen to!
I guess it’s too much effort for the IT person to share information! I’m not on the hate bandwagon, but very much on the frustrated one. I’ve tried getting information from the office through emails, but not very helpful at all!
Excuse me for trying to be informed!
I don't understand why anyone would view JoAnne's comments as angry. I see it as frustration at ongoing incompetence with an antagonistic HOA BOT which has bled over into the PAID staff. Paid for by US, the LAND/HOMEOWNERS.
If you see comments here about IT issues as angry, this exists only in your head and the only work that needs to be done is by you. And so shameful to be so immature to come here and be a jerk about it.
Maybe the question should be "Are you taking this personal?" Hmmmmm.......
All Surfside information should be available and easy to access. It should be posted in a timely manner. Just another failure of this board. Now we are seeing the usual cover up and diversion. Why has the recording NOT been available for the members to view? Then, you attack and insult members for trying to access information. And, you wonder why members have an attitude about Surfside? If they question anything, they are accused of being on a "hate band wagon"
I wasn't given a microphone and wasn't put on camera as far as I can discern. The Board members phoned in said they couldn't hear conversation relating to their remarks. I explained why the wording relating to my proposal used "mail-in ballots" reference, then complained about how many things this measure sought to change.
Mail-in ballots were used last year, so I assumed the situation was unchanged. The day that I submitted the proposal I was told that the Board had changed back to "proxy voting" at the attorney's urging to be consistent with other references in the Bylaws.That happened at the Feb. Meeting.
I was explaining that I had no preference or concern which ballots were used. The wording was going to be finalized before publishing anyway, after reviewing the attorney's recommendations.
But seriously, after over a year of IT experts helping coach the Board on how to setup and broadcast, and still all of this chaos ?
And how seriously were they hosting my requested appearance ? I called the office and was told that it was too late to put the proposal on the ballot. The Board president didn't tell me, or send an e-mail. I wrote a follow up letter in protest to the meeting,(sent on Wednesday) and got NO REPLY. No integrity, no accountability. They are elected residents and not royalty. They are denying owners their rights, assuming THEY will always be on the Board ?
Folks like you find every excuse to dismiss valid criticisms of the Surfside Board. You lump all of the blog comments together as if they come from one person. You can't identify yourself, but you see yourself on a higher plane. Your comment has nothing to do with me, so pretend it does if you like.
My efforts are in the best interest of the members. How do you contribute to the community ?
Couldn’t agree more Steve! Asking for information or trying to understand an issue sure brings out the protective comments!
Steve, I know someone asked how the outcome of your proposal went and who voted yes/no.
Yes votes to put it before members came from:Mark, Marianne, Tom R. All others voted no.
122 - it's you and your idiotic self interest we are fighting, not each other.
Be proud to support corruption!
Steve, you are once again dead on. Whether incompetence or lack of caring, we as members should not have tolerate it. There are regulations for communi9in a non-prof. I doubt we follow any if them.
We will never let you disgruntled malcontents put a motion on any meeting agenda. You need to call a special meeting. The process is crystal clear in the governing documents. Figure it out. Deal with it.
Like I said, some members?trustees? Have a sh*t-fit over criticism, and are unwilling to consider listening to what members are critical of.
So righteous are you, that you ignore that the Board is having a covenant review hearing at the member's Annual Meeting, rather than scheduling a separate special meeting as the covenants specify. They would say "but it IS a separate meeting". Our proposal would do the same.
And nameless one, YOU are a member and have one vote just like the rest of us. You don't know or understand the governing documents, as they allow a pre-scheduled vote of exactly this kind of issue.
Such documents exist in order to make it clear that the bigheaded Board members are expected to abide by the same rules as the other owners. The HOA attorney told the Board the same thing and they ignored him.
It is quite hilarious they come on here and call people "malcontents". So disrespectful for a group of people who should be representing everyone. Sad situation, and I'm hanging onto that $1000 for an attorney pool should we need to go that far. I'm so sick of their disrespect. They don't know who most of us are but we sure do know who they are. VOTE!
Sorry Mark Scott. You have had three years on the board and did not much more than read and second motions. Your one vote for the covenant issue is just to late. Your a decent sort of fellow, but on the wrong side on most issues. Selling your services to surfside is clearly a conflict of interests while serving on the board. Time for you to go.
For those that own multiple lots, how many votes do they get?
Is the board so corrupt on filling out multiple ballots? Who checks these ballot addresses?
1 ballot per family, no matter how many lots.
And why does Vallarie own 7 lots, but pay for only 2? Just because no water hook up, doesn't matter
7:59 are you talking about Valerie Harrison? If so, she only owns one lot, you can look that information up on the Pacific County tax site. Not sure what or who you're talking about otherwise
I believe the answer is simple 11:42. This person has some ax to grind with her and brings her name up any chance they can, be it truthful or not.
Post a Comment