As published in the Weekender..."Harmoniously" ?
The New Board President in a message to members in the Weekender, started off with a rant against "social media" (Surfside Chat Blog) on publishing "Unofficial!" election results. Those same "Unofficial!" results were used to swear in newly elected Board members as well as executive positions. I guess this is his idea of bringing Surfside to "function Harmoniously" If this is his intent, it is a poor start.
A Message to the Surfside HOA Community
Humbly, if not surprisingly, the office of Surfside HOA President was accepted by me Saturday morning, July 10th.
Three leaders of key positions exited the Board of Trustees: President Gary Williams, Vice President Mark Scott, and Treasurer Rudd Turner. As President Gary has led Surfside HOA multiple years recently as either President or Vice President. One of his greatest assets is his management skill of finding a common ground solution between two opposing positions. During his tenure, Mark has excelled in his passion of emergency management, specifically regarding the tsunami threat and more importantly the existence for those who survive. Rudd was Treasurer for three consecutive years attending nearly all key committee meetings, monthly, assuring and understanding Surfside funds were spent properly as well as most effectively. In 2020, he took the bold move of changing audit firms, saving thousands of dollars while gaining a diverse spectrum of Surfside HOA spending. While departing, all three men will remain active in committees, advisory roles, and experience in the pursuit of excellence in making Surfside HOA an even better community. We are indeed grateful for their previous leadership service and their continued dedication to service in our neighborhood.
Nearly hours after the election, posted on social media were the results of the election, by name and number of votes. Unofficial! As of this writing, noon on Thursday, July 15, 2021, Surfside HOA has still not received official, certified results from Janet Corey, the DECC (Designated Election Committee Chairperson). Once again, unofficially, the top four vote getters in order of votes received are Cori Harms, Larry Raymer, John Curran, and Ronda Christoph.
Regarding the initial, unofficial vote count of the day, the closest result was four votes between third and fourth place. This is significant in that the fourth-place winner serves only a one-year term, filling a vacated position. Since the fifth-place vote receiver was seven votes behind the fourth, it is very unlikely the official count will change the four candidates announced. The only change likely would be a flip in the third and fourth vote getters.
With these results, in a special Board of Trustees meeting held immediately after the Members meeting, Cori, Larry, John and Ronda were sworn in as Trustees to fill the four contested positions. Ending that meeting, was an election for the officers of the Board of Trustees. In a five to four vote, Ric Minich was elected President followed by unanimous votes for Larry Raymer Vice President, Mariann Schweitzer Secretary, and Kurt Olds, Treasurer. This is known as the Executive Committee. Looking forward now that all posts and positions are filled, it is time to address issues that must be corrected or clarified to allow Surfside HOA to function efficiently and harmoniously.
It takes no imagination to understand that tree height was the central issue of those in attendance. It is my intention along with others to immediately set forth a number of the motions voted on in the latter hours of the Member’s Meeting. Other areas of immediate concern are clarification of the election format prior to the 2022 elections. A code of civility has been written addressing what appears to be our community relationship with each other, volunteers, and employees. There are numerous other issues to address.
Committee assignments will be completed today and submitted to the Trustees as well as Chairman to lay a base for the next BOT meeting in five weeks. Please join me in best wishes to all persons involved in sincerely working toward improving the quality and experience that is our community, Surfside Estates.
Ric Minich, President Surfside Homeowners Associatio
56 comments:
Not sure if Ric is saying it is good or bad that the "unofficial" results were posted to social media pages so as to inform the membership ASAP? Or simply trying to clarify that point. The OFFICIAL Surfside Homeowners Association facebook page posted the "unofficial" results on July 11 at 6:08AM. The "unofficial" status of the vote count is NOT indicated on the SHOA facebook page.
But tone is everything, especially when we want to head in a different direction. I'm going to give Ric the benefit of the doubt and believe he was not taking a jab at this blog but simply notifying us that the 3rd and 4th place positions could change.
You call that humbly? Seems more like an attack and praise of Williams. He doesn't get it. Williams was rejected and thrown out. He needs to humbly listen to the members.
Oh for goodness sake George, this is in no way a rant. He's just stating a fact, unofficial/official, who cares. Don't get so wrapped up in yourself and your great blog. The HOA is embarking on a challenge never seen before, and here you are here starting out with negative vibrations. I've followed you since ~ 2011 when the Surfside HOA board shills caused much trouble for me and my family , along with some other issues in my life at the time, the abuse by the HOA was a contributing factor in nearly terminating my existence on planet earth. You were there with my family all in, I am grateful to known you sir. That is real life harm by folks that don't have a clue what they are doing to us sick, retired, and in the fourth quarter HOA members. It was astonishing what happened to us. I could not make it up.
You must remember , a lot of those involved on the board in the past as well as now were involved in building airplanes, computer chips, bio-engineering. Myself included during my hi tech career , all I cared about was making my boss happy , looking out for my special interests, and care nothing about who I stomped on for years to make it happen. I was highly successful. Some of these talented folks on the new board are probably in the same category. Lets give them a fair shake. I waited 10 long years to get my RV property rights back , lets hope these are a different breed than the status quo.
Cheers to all! , sign me optimistic.
I question that Mr. Minich has a handle on what our covenants say regarding elections. It was their Board who decided not to appoint a replacement for Mr. Chandler for 10 months, and that created problems in succeeding elections.
I don't think there is any requirement to have one Board position of only 1 year, and that Williams was given a 1 year term was a matter of their Board's decisions.
By my figuring, all 4 positions filled should be 3 year terms. Anyone elected outright in the Annual election is elected to a 3 year term. Replacing Gary does not make that a 1 year term
Minich was adamant that there were only 3 Trustee positions open in this election, and was key in the mistaken ballots sent out, needing to be replaced with 4 positions on the corrected ballot.
We've seen enough finnegling by the J Pl. Coalition using various means to influence the election outcomes. J Pl owners have shown their obsession with preserving the Tree restrictions, finally getting the entire membership's attention with the outrageous degree of destruction of community trees.
Minich seems focused on getting at least one of the new 4 Trustees off the Board as soon as possible. I may be mistaken, but I'm quite certain that there is no 1 year term, unless the Trustee is appointed. I'll double check our docs, and they are somewhat confusing-but I think Minich is incorrect, and using wishful thinking.
Yes Rich, there's a new mandate, and we expect serious action on it.
The important item here is the emphasis on the small margin between the 3 and 4th positions! Please remember Ric there was resistance to giving the members a 4th vote! How many members only voted for 3 positions? The total count may well have been different with those members casting a 4th vote! I think the members are entitled to that information.
I did not start the negative vibrations, I just reported them. There was no reason for him to state anything about the blog publishing the "unofficial" results. He just had to bring that up to cast a negative "official" remark about social media.
I also find your remark about being wrapped up in my great blog, as offensive. I try to report the facts and am entitled to my opinion, the same as you. I serve no special interest and have nothing to gain in the blog. The blog is not about me, never was and never will be. Right or wrong, I just call things the way I see them. I have been around long enough to recognize BS when I see it. The Presidents message falls into that category. He could have, and should have said...The members have spoken, and we listened. Humble? Hardly.
Jeze George, I'm in your teepee. You use some strong English that raises my brow. That's all. Offensive? Rant? Use these when it is in context and appropriate. You are wrapped up in your blog. That's cool perhaps I should say you have unbridled enthusiasm at times. . No need to over do it.
I don't understand people who hover on the fence. More word salad from the same ol' bunch is all I read in Ric's statement.
If you don't stand for something, you will fall down.
When I say something, I say it my way. What you see is what you get with me. I have no claim to being any good at being a communicator. I wish that I could write as well as Steve does. Strong English and in and out of context happens. Glad this blog is not a scientific journal. I would fail on all counts. I apologize for maybe over reacting to your comment. Feeling like crap. (not feeling well). Thanks for your comments.
Optimistic- You need to re-read your post. It starts out snarky with a reprimand, not a good look. You are looking for trouble, I can smell it!
No one made you the behavior police. You go be you and let other's be themselves. No one has the right to tell anyone what to say here and especially when it come to George. smh........
The 4 winning candidates ran as a block. It looks like that was a good move, and accounts for the close numbers.
Minich is angry that the blog has served as oversight on the Board's actions/inactions, and now, has helped communications that lead to a newly constructed Board and hopeful mandate.
I would say the comment equates to walking into a room, slapping someone across the face, then giving them a big hug. Strange behavior, strange comment.
We rely on George's skepticism. He knows these good ol' boys better than anyone here and is the reason we are moving towards successful results.
If you are as accomplished as you claim, you know it's prudent to scrub your comments before posting. Does it need to be said? Does it add anything pertinent to the content I am trying to purvey? I say No, your criticism was not necessary in your comment.
Steve.... would you please let us know what you find out regarding whether or not all 4 positions should be a 3 year term. What you say makes sense. With a clean slate I see no reason to chop up yet another board position. Make all 4 positions 3 years.
And very importantly, would really like to see an immediate change to the voting process. DECC to send each member a numbered ballot with a postage paid return envelope to be sent directly back to the DECC at least 1 week prior to the meeting.
Announce the official results at the beginning of the meeting and then elect the executive board in front of all the members attending.
Candidates can film a video to be posted on the website so it is accessible at any time. Also have some special live Webex Q&A sessions to get to know the candidates in the weeks/months leading up to the voting. The transcribed Q&A that was posted for this past election was very informative.
Section 7 By-laws gives the rules about elections. 3 turnover every year. It points out how the seat of a resigned trustee shall be appointed to serve until the next annual meeting. That person can file to run for the remainder of the vacated position or not.
Excellent points 1:12
George , thanks for the follow-up. I was no English major myself. I just fixed stuff for a living. Both people problems and expensive tools. Suppose I'm getting grumpy into a few years retirement and in crappy health. I've just been waiting for 10+ years for good things to happen in my community. You have been one of the good things all the way through. Just would like to see folks back off for a while. It's hard when you have been losing battles for so long. Now the members win one small battle. The cynical nature of the past boards makes us grumpy. Look up my IP you will remember me well.
"looking for trouble" ya, I'm a bad ass alright..............
now I'll do you a favor , and like today with this last comment, return in ten years to comment again. I don't have to proof my comments , I say what's on my mind and hit the go button like George. Too many birthdays to waste time on proofing blog comments. Hope you are here to participate in the debate. In the end , George is still one of my favorite people on earth. No one here will change my thoughts on that.
Thank you George for this blog. I find it very informative and appreciate your knowledge. For the most part it does exactly what your are intending as being a place to share ideas, opinions and information. As has been noted, the name calling and snide comments are unnecessary and add no value to the conversation. You are always up front, honest and clear in your communication.
I have the 1 year term due to Clancy leaving. Next July, Kurt Olds, Ric Minich and what would have been Clancy, now myself, are up.
Thank you voters and especially those who voted for me, I appreciate it.
The new board is looking forward to meeting in August and to bring some much needed positive vibes back to the community.
So if Cox is going to continue with his J Pl. Coalition B.S, does that mean the recent elected will be know as the "Flatlanders Coalition"?
The post by July 16, 2021 at 11:13 PM is an example of what we have been asking that folks do not do on this blog. It adds nothing of value to the conversation. Could we please refrain from these types of comments and stick to ideas and opinions that can enhance the dialogue. It would be greatly appreciated.
So 12:34, you didn't have a problem with Cox's comment which didn't add anything or enhance the dialogue but you did with the 11:13 one? I think there is a term for that.
I don't see how saying that at the time the results mentioned on here were unofficial and could change was a rant. The reason given about the close numbers was a valid one. Even George said as much when he posted the results.
Actually I do have a problem with all the times Cox (and others) add comments that are completely unnecessary and sometimes insulting. There are several posters who just can't seem to resist the compulsion to do that and then proceed to get into a useless tit for tat. It dilutes the information and disrupts the conversation. I, like many others on this blog, have been trying to just ignore it. Guess I was just tired last night and it was kind of the straw that broke the camels back, as they say.
Thanks to Ronda for jogging my memory on the Clancy resignation. While a few folks may have taken some of your comments wrong, I think your spunk and determination helped set a tone for the foursome that connected with members who are eager to see some evolution in our policies and dialogue.
We need to be looking at some new ways to do things and back away from this march to organize intensive enforcement efforts.
I've pointed out numerous times before, but have apparently been ignored - J Pl. Owners have actively recruited and successfully promoted candidates promising to protect J Pl. Interests, namely, the Tree restrictions. J Pl.owners have dominated the Board for a decade or more, with a J Pl. owner as Tree Comm. Chair, and her husband on the Board currently.
I have no reason to think that anything has been illegal in the elections, though use of proxies has long been suspect. No evidence exists of any wrong-doing, but this is a type of ballot that opens the door to abuse of a sort. It takes work to organize these election time efforts, so it is a smart approach to election success.
It could be said that the success of the 4 member candidates this year took a lesson from the playbook of the J Pl. Successes.
So there should be no offense taken when I call this the "J Place Coalition" - an organized effort committed to a cause.
But time has not treated this community kindly in the hands of a J Place dominant Board of Trustees. The unyielding commitment to the Tree topping policies, never revisited for reform or change finally pushed the community too far. We all know that this has been WRONG and needs to be ended once and for all.
We should have some kind of replanting effort funded by the HOA. It might be in the form of a one time payment to members who apply, to pay for replanting of trees with no more than 30 foot maximum height.
The Board could also take orders for plantings of specific species and pay the cost. A Board driven effort to give something back to a fresh start.
I'm back ALREADY ! Just got to thinking about the term thing. Ronda, you are entitled to a 3 year term. The Board should not be reinforced for their efforts to manipulate who sits on the BOT. They did not appoint a replacement to Clancy's position, as they did not replace Mr. Chandler. This is a violation of our Bylaws.
There is no provision requiring a one year term for anyone. There IS a req. that appointees fill a position for the remainder of the term of a vacated seat.
Such an appointee can then run for a full term if they wish, as can any member.
Any one elected outright at the Annual Meeting is entitled to a full 3 year term. This notion of a one year term is either an outright mistake, or another attempt at manipulating who sits on the Board. Pick one.
Well said Steve on both topics. Your explanations are very well aligned with our perspective.
I do think that the board appointed Tom Newman to fill Clancy's vacancy but he chose not to run? I think Tom Newman is the chair of the water planning committee.
This is something the new board can plarify. For continuity, perhaps it would be a good idea to change (or interpret) the by-laws section so that the vacated position shall be appointed until the next annual meeting election and then the position is filled with a full 3 year term. Would like to see someone newly elected have a chance to serve a full term. Also, it eliminates the "person with least amount of votes" issue which apparently caused confusion on this years ballot.
At the same time, would love to see the new board change the voting process to direct ballot. Again, simplifying the whole process.
1:54....You misconstrue what I have said. The Bylaws already state all that I have said. You can access them through the Surfside HOAwebsite. Go to "Governance" page and click on Articles and Bylaws. Scan to find election stuff.
The covenants may have something about it, as does the Operations Manual, but the Bylaws take precedent. Also, the Board can't randomly change or ignore the Bylaws. Only the members can change the Bylaws.
Cox, take a break! Wow does it never end?
Yes, understanding what the bylaws state......but the fact is the board has already randomly changed/ignored the bylaws because they have filled (or not filled) a vacancy, depending on who was in line for the seat. The point I clumsily was trying to make is perhaps the bylaw should be better written or clarified or simplified so as not to keep this open for "interpretation". And as you state, I misspoke when I said the board should take action on this as the bylaws can only be changed by the members. Anyhoo, my vote would be to just change the bylaw to state the vacated seat stays vacant until the next election and then the newly elected person gets a 3 year term. Hope I didn't make this more confusing.
The fact that the "Board" ignored clear direction from the Bylaws is NOT an indication that anything needs rewriting. It is unclear whether Trustees refuse to READ the docs or are bent on doing what they want to do. Both seem to be true.
There are many aspects of our docs that would benefit from clarification through rewriting. J Pl. Board members are unhappy about the tide turning on community tolerance of the Tree enforcement, and want to quickly regain their majority influence on the BOT.
That's what all of this feined "confusion" is about, I think. I suggest that you read the Bylaws regarding this, and you will see what I mean.
It's just a dialogue. Board members choose to ignore the bylaws and covenants, and likely, very few members have read them either. How about you ? You've got it all figured out don't ya, if only you could remember your name, you might be considered credible.
306 - it ends when every form of Injustice that has been forced upon us over the last decade has been remedied in full.
It ends when the board acknowledges that the word SHALL in the bylaws doesn't mean "maybe we will" or "maybe we won't". You know, things along those lines.
Yes you're right about the appointment, and I forgot about it. Newman had personal matters that delayed his acceptance of the position, so was really just in there for a month.
Nothing in our documents would account for designating Ronda's position as a one year position, and the Board does not have the authority to overide the Bylaws, which can only be changed by a vote of the membership.
Ronda is entitled to a 3 year position. She worked for it, she earned it.
If Ronda was made a three year term, next year you could only have two run for the Board positions. You can't have ten Board members. If you start doing that, the election cycle would be all screwed up. The documents state 3 elected each year, except when there is a vacancy, and that vacancy is filled by election and the elected person serves out the term. A Board position is three years. You could end up with as many as 3 people filling that Board position.
The filling of a vacated position, is a whole other matter. The Board is instructed to fill by "appointment" the vacant position until the next election. The appointed person can then be a candidate if they wish. Our documents do not state how or what procedure will be followed in the appointment. Now, the delay in filling a vacant Board position, IS a violation of our governing documents. Everyone of us, except the Board, know the meaning of the word "SHALL".
I may be wrong, but that's how I see it.
It appears there is a contradiction here in the documents. The likelihood that someone may resign on a 9 member Board is obviously great.
Why the documents would require 3 vacancies each election is puzzling to me. It is also stated as part of this same line that "at least 3 will be elected annually." So if 5 is okay , or 6, why not 2 ?
This has all occurred as a consequence of the Board refusing to appoint anyone in 2019.
The covenants also state that there should be "staggered terms", something that has been ignored in this HOA, and is probably ignored in most HOAs. Our Lacey WA HOA has the same requirementthat has always been ignored. Most HOAs have periods when candidates are hard to come by, so how and why would you have "staggered terms?
Our Lacey HOA has had between 7 and 3 on the board. So staggered terms with a 3 member Board ? Yes, we need to rewrite our election rules and guidelines.
We could leave the situation at one year, or we could leave it at 3 until the rewriting has taken place. If no one resigns we could agree to just fill 2 positions, or call on Ronda to be the 3rd vacancy.
But technically, she has run to fill a full 3 year term position. I do see why this was a challenge to decide initially. Time to fix it if we can.
Good morning Surfsidians! Great dialogue on a informative blog. I’ve watched silently for many years wondering if members would realize and change board to serve all , not just folks on ridge.
I live on J place and am guilty of not speaking out when I knew what was happening regarding the board and the focus on covenants that concerned J place residents.
The tree topping is wrong , our view is spectacular at street level much less from inside our homes. We’re already on the highest land around! The lighting and neat/ tidy and code of civility all from us up on J. It is time to change and do our best for Surfside as whole.
( thank you to this blog & host, just recently became aware of you)
Is this correct?
The Board of Trustees list on the website does not indicate the terms to which each trustee was elected so I looked back through the minutes.
2021-2024: Cori, Larry, John
2020-2023: Mariann, Tom, Dan
2021-2022: Ronda
2019-2022: Ric, Kurt
The Hardest thing about the future, has always been people not wanting to let go of the past.
Awesome comments from 6:42 ! I think all members have recognized that many J Pl owners have felt caught in the middle on the Tree issue. Yes it is awesome that the Annual Meeting gave us some surprises, promises of thoughtful positive change.
Back to the term issue a moment if I could....following all of the guidelines in the bylaws and covenants is simply NOT possible. Ronda's term will not make any difference long term, so should be a 3 year term.
Next year only Minich and Olds will end terms. But the year after that, there won't be any vacant seats, presuming no resignations. The year after that only 2 vacant seats, Marianne Schweitzer and Dan Neptune, 4 seats open the next year (if no resignations).
Realistically, it takes much of the first year to get oriented, learn details of the issues, become comfortable with the personalities on the Board and commitees, speak-up. That was my experience.
With recent similar experience, this may not take long at all. But this is the problem with 1 year terms. 2 might be a consideration (it might limit resignations), but 3 seems good by comparison.
But there seems nothing is gained by trying to manipulate terms of a single position. Resignations are unpredictable and staggering terms has all the same problems. So we need to simplify our documents to avoid confusion, and gear elections to whatever openings are or are not present.
I think Tom has the same 3 year term along with Dan and Mariann.
I agree that 1 year is not sufficient time to get up to speed and be effective. My suggestion would be to leave the terms in 3 groups of 3 years but change the bylaws to just leave vacancies open until the vacant term is up. Up until this year we have not enough candidates anyway. Simplify. How much does it matter if we have 7, 8, or 9 board members?
@11:04, yes that is correct
So it seems we have 3 groups of 3 right now with terms ending in 2022, 2023 and 2024. Agree that the simplest way forward is to leave the groups as is and just not fill positions until the vacated position's term would normally be up. This would eliminate all other scenarios and simplify the bylaws.
No, that is not the case. Tom Newman was approached months before the election for this appointment, but for personal reasons, was unable to take the position until May. The board knew that there would be 4 vacancies from the time Clancy resigned, on.
We know of no other election when fewer openings were on the ballot than openings on the Board, so there was no precedent for this decision. Williams was serving a one year term, also without precedent, because the Board had refused to fill the vacancy created by Chris Chandler's resignation 18 months prior. Williams as president was partially responsible for the BOT's failure to abide by our bylaws, which require immediate appointment to fill a vacant seat. It's unlikely Williams expected to get the least votes, and get the 1 year position.
We know of no other instance of an elected board candidate getting a one year term. This was an invention to address the Board's failure to follow stated requirements of appointment.
So there's no point in continuing this one year term business, nor is it required that no more than 3 Board openings be on the ballot. As I mentioned, the oddity is the requirement to have "at least 3 positions on the ballot".
There is no point in limiting Ronda's term to a year, as in 2023 there will also be just 2 vacancies. Minich and Olds terms end after this year, and Marianne Schweitzer and Dan Neptune's terms will end come 2023.
By letting all 4 nominees serve 3 year terms, it is pretty certain that someone will resign in the next 3 years.
That keeps it simple by giving all elected Trustees 3 year terms, the Board fills any vacated seats for the remainder of the year (of resignation), and we drop the requirement to have "at least 3" vacancies every election.
In the last 6 years we have seen a Trustee resign (if I recall accurately), every year, so letting vacancies develop where they will, and electing however many Trustees as are needed is the simplest formula. There is a plan afoot to rewrite these requirements mandated by the members, and planned by the Board.
There will be 3 vacancies in 2023 Marianne, Dan and Tom. Whatever is decided it needs to be much simpler and spelled out to the letter so that there is no room for interpretation.
Tom is no longer on the Board. He was appointed to a temporary position. He was not elected, so cannot serve longer than the end of the term year he is filling in for.
Tom Rogers is the one I am referring to, not Tom Newman. Tom Rogers was elected to a 3 year term in 2020.
My mistake. Thanks for adding a last name to jog my memory.
I was incorrect about who would be ending terms when. Part of my concern is that running for election takes effort and has an emotional investment that deserves more than a 1 year term. Gary served a 1 year term because the Board refused to fill the vacant seat asvrequired by the Bylaws. No one else has been given less than a 3 yr. term after running for election.
Did the candidates know that one position was only for 1 year ?
Do away with proxys. You vote or don't.
It's hard to argue with that. We've been told the HOA attorney claimed voting by proxy is a State law, or something in that regard. That may be erroneous info meant to be agreeable to The Exec.Board or president.
It needs to be looked into and if possible, changed.
Washington State Legislature
RCW 24.03.085
Voting.
*** CHANGE IN 2021 *** (SEE 5034-S.SL) ***
(1) The right of the members, or any class or classes of members, to vote may be limited, enlarged or denied to the extent specified in the articles of incorporation or the bylaws. Unless so limited, enlarged or denied, each member, regardless of class, shall be entitled to one vote on each matter submitted to a vote of members.
(2) A member may vote in person or, if so authorized by the articles of incorporation or the bylaws, may vote by mail, by electronic transmission, or by proxy in the form of a record executed by the member or a duly authorized attorney-in-fact. No proxy shall be valid after eleven months from the date of its execution, unless otherwise provided in the proxy.
(3) If specifically permitted by the articles of incorporation or bylaws, whenever proposals or directors or officers are to be elected by members, the vote may be taken by mail or by electronic transmission if the name of each candidate and the text of each proposal to be voted upon are set forth in a record accompanying or contained in the notice of meeting. If the bylaws provide, an election may be conducted by electronic transmission if the corporation has designated an address, location, or system to which the ballot may be electronically transmitted and the ballot is electronically transmitted to the designated address, location, or system, in an executed electronically transmitted record. Members voting by mail or electronic transmission are present for all purposes of quorum, count of votes, and percentages of total voting power present.
(4) The articles of incorporation or the bylaws may provide that in all elections for directors every member entitled to vote shall have the right to cumulate his [or her] vote and to give one candidate a number of votes equal to his [or her] vote multiplied by the number of directors to be elected, or by distributing such votes on the same principle among any number of such candidates.
Thanks for sharing this stuff. There are clearly many options to proxy voting open to us as a community. If a committee is formed for a rewrite of our Bylaws and election criterion, these new RCWs offer clear guidance.
AND 1:54 & 1:04 - I agree that it is simpler to leave the terms as they are. But a concern I have is the Board's assumption that they can change the term of an elected position with little or no prior notice, in order to compensate for their failure to appoint a replacement to Chandler. The Bylaws cannot be changed by the Board, and this amounts to doing that.
I don't agree that any positions should be left open, rather than filled by appointment. Vacancies have always been filled as clearly required, even if just for a couple of months. The candidate next in line was available and never asked to meet with the Board, and others were no doubt willing as well. This seemed to be a desperate effort to keep me off of the Board at any cost.
Had they appointed someone, anyone, I wouldn't have been writing about it for months to come. It totally screwed up our elections, and led to this one year term invention. I have been mad about the audacious lack of commitment to following the clear mandate to appoint. They were in no way obligated to appoint me, and that was fine.
But hopefully we can rework the necessary guidelines to make it more clear and as simple as possible.
Thank you 7/19 at 6:42 am.
Don't want the board to have the power to appoint a board member, no matter what the circumstances.
The Cox must be so lonely now without his pulpit.
Post a Comment