Our chance to change things for the better....
It is reported, but not confirmed, that there are two or more "new face" candidates for the Board. The present Board has proved to be a disappointment for the members and a new perspective is needed. It is also reported that Gary Williams and Mark Scott (old faces) will both seek another term on the Board. We still need several more "new faces" to file for the Board. The best chance we have for meaningful change is the Board. The members have the power to make the change.
2021 Board Of Trustees Election
Applications must be received at the office by May 7, 2021 no later than 1pm.
The election will be at the annual meeting in July.
There are 4 positions open for 2021, Mark Scott, Rudd Turner, Gary Williams & James Clancy
33 comments:
Tom Newman needs to turn in his application if he wants to stay on. Members did not vote him in, this is how olds was placed on the board and it is wrong
Williams got 4th place and the one year term. It was clear that the members had enough of him, yet the board again made him president. We need him completely gone for good.
Contrary to your thinking, since Williams did make it onto the board it is clear that the members haven't had enough of him. I will be voting for him again.
Olds got his current position BY being voted in. In both cases he got his position BY members voting for him. You may not like it, but that's the facts, deal with it.
Cox with his Chandler story for the umpteenth time in 3, 2, 1......
1102 - the REAL facts are that the election is a J Place party - no others need apply.
If you vote for Williams again, either you haven't been watching, or you're one of them. I'm betting on the latter.
The only way incompetence is rewarded is if the election is skewed. Since that is exactly what has happened the last two elections, I expect no difference in this one.
There needs to be term limits. Although I appreciate history, it's been proven, a horse and buggy just can't keep up with a gas powered vehicle. Time to move on and keep up with the times.
Maybe there needs to be a rotating homeowner obligation with the option of appointing another in their stead? Maybe a draw like jury duty with a time limit set for said duty? Maybe an incentive to serve your duty time can come with a gift of a small discount on your yearly dues? It's really time to think outside of this sandbox.
Otherwise things get stale and out of touch with the changing tides. (pun intended)
Not a terrible idea 12:39 but it would probably be beneficial to have an impartial volunteer as well, someone who doesn't live or own in the HOA boundary as well. These HOA BOT's tend to become self serving.
Instead of paying for a compliance officer employee, I'd rather pay for an impartial mediation service. Too many personal interests happening in the paid and non paid sector of this HOA.
They do have term limits, 3 years. This is in the Operations Manual. I personally do not want to pay anymore in dues or in special assessments as I like the rules of this HOA, they are minimal. And seeing that any member can run but chooses not to does not mean I want to waste my money. More people need to participate in their community instead of complaining and doing nothin.
@11:02, Williams only made it in because 4 open positions, 4 ran. He got last place, hence 1 year term.
The members did not vote Kurt in, he was appointed by the board, hence why he too needs to go
115 - easier said than done, especially when the deck is stacked cold.
Who wants to volunteer for an organization that doesn't even follow their own rules? Answer: people with severe self-interest.
Annette Deleest made the motion in the November 17, 2018 meeting to appoint Kurt to the BOT. He was never elected. His 3 years should be up this year.
Sorry people, but you are WRONG!
As a write in Olds took the last year of Patrick's term due to him selling and leaving. Then Olds ran as a candidate and got ELECTED!!!!
So take off those hate goggles and deal with some facts for a change.
So let me get this straight! Olds was a write in on the ballot and was then appointed to a vacant board seat? Then why a wasn’t an actual candidate who received the next highest votes be appointed to the vacant seat by the resignation of Chandler? It’s never been explained or documented how this decision was made! That seat remained infilled until last years election. Why the different decision?
Actually it has in a way.
First off they didn't appoint Olds right away. Since it was for less than a year they were going to leave it vacant but a bunch of people complained about it so they changed their minds and did so.
Same with the Chandler thing, except that time nobody complained about it, including the person who was next in line, so they left it vacant I guess. Plus I believe it would have been for more than a year.
Also, this has been commented on ad nauseam so I'm a bit surprised you asked the questions.
Why should the board only react when people complain? It’s in the bylaws, section 7, any vacancy occurring in the board of trustees SHALL be filled by appointment by the majority of the remaining trustees.
You know, follow the rules? That’s why!
The bylaws do not define by when nor do they preclude leaving vacant til next election should board so desire.
It's selective enforcement. I say leave a seat open when it's vacant. Members did not vote Kurt in that year. BOT is picked by members, not appointed by BOT. Do we really expect them to follow their own rules? They change the rules as much as their underwear
Mr. Olds' wife is the chair of the Tree Comm. and pals with Board members. That is the difference in the circumstances. That's why Kurt got about 80 votes as a write-in.
I attended the Oct. BOT meeting after hearing of Chandler's resignation, and made certain the Board members knew I was in attendence. They didn't announce the resignation, and avoided mentioning it from that point on.
I was available and obviously willing to fill the seat. I wasn't going to start off by begging for a position. A member stated in a later meeting, that he thought I should be appointed to the vacancy, but no Board response came at all. We all saw what the Board did to Patrick and Deb. No respect just abuse and holding private meetings without them. When authority is used to ignore different points of view you have a very petty dysfunctional BOT like we have.
If they have term limits, does that mean they cannot be reelected? Do they get to run again or get appointed again?
Just trying to understand as a newer HOA member- Thanks!
Read the Bylaws and Covenants for yourself online.
@Ronda - how do you know they aren't going commando?
Good call May 04 11:07AM...
FOR THOSE THAT NEED TO LEARN THE DEFINITION OF SHALL AND MUST, HERE YOU GO
Difference Between Must and Shall
Shall is used to indicate a legal requirement as in law and contracts.
Shall indicates a duty imposed upon an individual.
Must is used when the subject is inanimate.
Must is used in everyday speech.
Shall connotes weightiness and looks pretentious while must looks natural while speaking.
You're such a big help Cox! You must be proud of yourself.
@1:34, at least he isn't an anonymous ass
Exactly, so rude to treat a new person like that Cox. The way everyone talks on this blog, the BOT has been ruling this place since inception and has it burning down. You talk about the past, the present, and then the past again. Then elected, appointed, retired, fired, appointed again and then we move on to committees and wives and husbands and gawd almighty. If you want support for things start helping people understand what the noise is all about and don't be so damned RUDE.
This is basic stuff that can easily be read about on the Surfside site. By familiarizing yourself with it you can read the weekender if you're curious what's new. It's very limited in scope, but useful. But the docs take some time to absorb, so better to just read sections and review later.
Internet manners number 1. If you don't know the answer, just don't respond. No need to be snarky, it's a big turn off.
AND, if you just can't help yourself, respond kindly. There's enough cruelty as it is, no need to be nasty here. (even though there's lots of it smh)
I'm not rude. The answer to this person's question is not simple. Better to read it in the docs.
And how would I know this is a question from "a new person"?
Appointments last until the end of the term they are replacing. Most newly elected Trustees serve a three year term. Last year was a different situation altogether. Curious-er? Read about it.
Steve is no more rude than the majority on here.
2:36....Asking people on the blog for details of the community documents is like settling for rumors over reading the news. The bestcadvice I could offer is, gonthe the source of these voting details, the Bylaws and CC&Rs.
What kind of joker gives me advice in internet manners as "anonymous". That too would be better sought elsewhere.
Post a Comment