6/16/2018
Don't expect much to happen in public at this Board Meeting. All the significant issues are handled behind closed doors. The gang of four plus one, do not even share information or include other Board members in decisions. If the Board is not "transparent" with even it's own members, what do you think will be disclosed to the rest of us members?
This is the final Board meeting before the voting at the Annual Meeting next month. This is your chance to ask questions of the 3 candidates for the 3 positions. You can then make your choice for the three for the three positions. Even with a postage paid ballot return envelope, why would we expect members to even bother voting? The Board should be concerned that they will have enough proxy and members present at the Annual meeting for a quorum. It requires 10%
54 comments:
I am waiting for my stamp though. Steam it off and I can pay one of my bills.
You could not pay me enough to sit through another bullsh** board meeting. Not gonna vote this year. I'm with 10:44. I just want the stamp to pay a bill.
Looks to me like the new candidates leave something to be desired. One is about outdoor lighting covenant, really? One is all about enforcing existing covenants, and one that really says nothing. Looks like status quo n gunna get expensive. Maybe we go bankrupt n north beach gets a refurbished water system cheap?
With our problems, don't think we can even give away our water system. Who in their right mind would even want it?
New pipe, new equipment, new filters,new storage shed, new pumps. Same manager. What u think?
To all you Surfside members, GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL HAVE SOME MONEY LEFT. We smart ones saw the weighting on the wall and left while wo could. If that isn't an option then hang on to your shirt because Surfside will take that off your back soon
As Deb Blagg posted: "There were also a couple items of discussion that may be of interest to Members because of potential financial implications to the HOA (to be funded by Member dues/apportionments). These matters did not result in any motions, but are highlighted below for the Members’ awareness. Since all records of the HOA are available for Members to review, you are encouraged to go to the office to review the related documents if you have questions."
— "Issue with the improper handling and disposal of asbestos cement (AC) pipe as part of the water distribution pipe replacement program. There will be a cost of as much as $30,000 to dig up and properly dispose of AC pipe buried improperly on Surfside property, the possibility of fines by the state, the possibility of lawsuits filed by employees or others who may claim they were made ill as a result of their exposure to asbestos, etc."
— "Carbon Treatment Plant permits, environmental study, fines. It was disclosed in the meeting that Surfside failed to obtain the proper permits when constructing the Carbon Filtration plant, which was discovered when the building contractor went to pull a permit on the building and the County noted no other permits. These permits and fines alone will exceed $16,000. The HOA has hired a firm to conduct a wetlands delineation study (cost unknown) which may result in required mitigation by the HOA, the extent of which and costs are unknown."
Those comments made by 12:07 and 2:29 may indeed be correct. Bill N. and April G. need to go if 1/2 what I hear is true about who is responsible for these latest shenanigans.
$$$$
4:52
Where can I find the statement posted by Deb Blagg? Thanks
On her Facebook site
These matters have all been overseen by the people who have been re-elected term after term, and have been too busy trying to screw with Patrick, worrying about RV shed roofs and tree heights. When your primary concern is minimizing any fellow Board members who may have differing opinions from the "status-quo" crowd, your attention is not on the matters that really make a difference.
When you take the attitude that you are above following State RCWs, Laws and standards, as the current president and vice-president have, you do the community a great disservice. In the last 2 years since Patrick was elected, the BOT agenda has been obsessed with messing with Patrick and RV owners in general, and trying to bring legal pressure to bare on trivial nonsense.
The current 3 candidates have no interest in helping solve our most challenging problems. Mark Scott, who has been appointed to fill the departed Hansen's role, has been trying to convince Patrick to resign and move out of the community - and this, on Gary William's behalf. Mark is interested in selling the HOA more of his cartographic charts and currying favor with Mr. Williams. Mr. Chandler thinks outdoor lighting is an impending crisis (no one knows why). And the other guy, Rudd something, is a big enforcement guy, everyone's violating all over the place and it has to be stopped. Baloney !!
Key to making Surfside a better community is electing owners who have the courage to stop the unlimited legal spending, and establish some Board controls. Next, recognize that many imagined "issues" can be easily negotiated with owners without threats of legal retaliation by the HOA. And stop the mistreatment of fellow Board members by the current president.
Mr. Williams understood this to be a KING position, along with unlimited powers. He is mistaken. ALL HOA decisions are to be reviewed and decided by ALL of the Trustees. It is repeated throughout the covenants. "The Executive Committee" as spoken of in State RCWs and our covenants, refers to the entire Board, not the titled ones. The entire BOT are our HOA executives.
Fact Check...
The comments by 4:52 PM & 9:49 AM are factual and surprises me with what they do know, especially 4:52. I do disagree with 9:49 AM on the "Executive Committee". They are the officers on the Board, elected by the entire Board following the Annual Meeting. I agree that they have grossly violated their responsibility and deliberately acted contrary to our governing documents and State RCW's.
As for the other information presented in the comments, They are only the tip of the ice burg. I have known this information and much more, but have delayed reporting it as more and more information develops every day. It really is an ugly situation that could prove to be a major disaster to our association.
The Executive Committee has no unique authority, as it is specified throughout the covenants that the entire Board is to be consulted in ALL decision-making. There may be some claim to authority alluded to in the Operations Manual, but nothing in the Op Manual can supersede the RCWs, covenants and Bylaws, all of which specify that the entire BOT makes ALL HOA decisions.
The RCWs specify that any actions proposed outside of scheduled meetings must be reviewed by ALL Trustees and a vote taken on the proposed action. Clearly if these requirements are emphatically stated in the RCWs, it is presumed that there is no sub-group with authority to make HOA decisions. I must insist that you are wrong if you think otherwise.
Please document the source of this authority, and bear in mind that the Op Manual cannot contradict the covenants. This is an imaginary invention of the Surfside BOT. I've read Deb's take on this as well - the same as I have outlined. There is no foundation for the president to sidestep members of the Board who likely will disagree with him. That would be a stupid construct, inviting the kind of self-serving decision-making Williams has been engaged in on legal matters.
This is very dangerous territory to take so lightly as Mr. Williams does. The members are paying for his inadequacies and vengeful actions.
Steve, This has nothing to do with the covenants.
In my 14 years here on and off the Board, there never was a meeting called of the executive committee. This only recently has happened. It is wrong, not needed and abuse of power.
The idea of the committee was to handle emergency situations where the Board was not able to fully meet. This was before we had our now present methods of communication. There was no internet at it's forming. With the internet, there is no need for this committee to even be in existence. It is being used to restrict full Board participation. This is where policy needs to be changed and technology fully implicated.
Deb Blagg, SHOA Trustee
Posted with out permission forgive me:
The following are items of note from today’s Board Meeting which I would like to pass along:
1) I made a motion to post the proxy ballot on the HOA website and publicize it in the Weekender to be sure everyone has access to the ballot - in case it gets “lost” in the mail or you are not home to receive it. This motion FAILED by a vote of 4-3, with two Trustees abstaining. The vote was as follows:
— Ayes: Blagg, Raymer, Johansen
— Nays: deLeest, Flood, Williams, Winegar
— Abstained: Clancy, Scott
You have to ask yourself, why would the Board vote down this motion? Note that I will post a copy of the ballot on this Page and I’m certain George Miller will also post it on the Surfside Chat blog
2) I made a motion for the HOA to drop its appeal and lawsuit against Johansen and Ottersen to save the association more legal fees and put this discord behind us. I further requested that all parties involved in this legal matter recuse themselves from this vote because of the fact that they pursued the lawsuit without bringing it to the entire Board for a vote - which is in itself a conflict of interest (this would include the “Executive Committee” - Williams, Flood, Clancy and Winegar), Scott (who participated in settlement discussions with Johansen) and Johansen who is a party to the lawsuit. My motion was amended to eliminate the recusal requirement, which passed, so none of the Trustees recused themselves when the vote was made to drop the lawsuits. The motion failed by a vote of 6 to 3, as follows:
— Ayes: Blagg, Raymer, Johansen
— Nays: deLeest, Flood, Williams, Winegar, Clancy, Scott
3) There were also a couple items of discussion that may be of interest to Members because of potential financial implications to the HOA (to be funded by Member dues/apportionments). These matters did not result in any motions, but are highlighted below for the Members’ awareness. Since all records of the HOA are available for Members to review, you are encouraged to go to the office to review the related documents if you have questions.
— Issue with the improper handling and disposal of asbestos cement (AC) pipe as part of the water distribution pipe replacement program. There will be a cost of as much as $30,000 to dig up and properly dispose of AC pipe buried improperly on Surfside property, the possibility of fines by the state, the possibility of lawsuits filed by employees or others who may claim they were made ill as a result of their exposure to asbestos, etc.
— Carbon Treatment Plant permits, environmental study, fines. It was disclosed in the meeting that Surfside failed to obtain the proper permits when constructing the Carbon Filtration plant, which was discovered when the building contractor went to pull a permit on the building and the County noted no other permits. These permits and fines alone will exceed $16,000. The HOA has hired a firm to conduct a wetlands delineation study (cost unknown) which may result in required mitigation by the HOA, the extent of which and costs are unknown.
I wish that more Members would follow the antics - I mean actions - of our HOA Board of Trustees by attending meetings. We are a non-profit corporation with a budget of more than $1M annually - funded entirely by individual Members. This is our HOA and our money, folks!
We need wright in's, this is a mess!
We need to remove board trustees
Yes George, informal agreements can be harmless enough among honorable folks. There currently is no honor in operation in this so-called Executive Committee. The current practices are from the imagination of Mr. Williams, and decisions made by this imaginary sub-group of Trustees should be considered invalid and their personal responsibility.
Seeking to intimidate Mr. Johansen into resigning and leaving the community shows the extent to which consenting Trustees have demonized and obsessed over his independent attitude, they are so bothered by his unwillingness to comply to their unreasonable demands.
It appears that the existing water manager and team is doing such a fine job, in increasing Surfsides costs. Has his contract been extended? or?
The North Beach contract is automatically extended every year in July. This includes a 2% increase in cost. There is never board discussion on this. Most board members have not seen the contract. Both parties to the contract can end the contract with a 30 day notice. No reason for ending the contract is required. There is no financial or other penalty. At this point, in my opinion, it is a 50, 50 chance on who will pull out of this first. North Beach could act first to simply CYA (cover your ass). I am sure they do not want to be sued as the responsible party in the asbestos mess.
Mr. Neal did offer to personally pay all fines himself, but since no one here attended the meeting you would know that.
Hmm June 18, 2018 at 12:28 PM
Can you produce in the BOT minutes where it was recorded?
Is this what we should consider to be FAKE news to divert the discussion
That would be interesting if Niel did offer to pay the fines, but I'm sure we are being trolled.
Why would we attend meetings where we are repeatedly lied to? Best thing that could happen this year is for less than 10% of us show up, and the election be declared void. None of the people running are going to change this situation, and a couple will probably exacerbate it.
it is expected that there will be proposals made that will require member votes. The BOT wants to change the restrictions on RV sheds, limiting the roof overhangs - ridiculous. It may be proposed that covenant changes must be voted on by the membership, like most HOAs, where the BOT makes these decisions currently, only consulting the majority opinion at the Annual Meeting. They need not heed the vote, and can choose otherwise.
After more than 2 years of legal harassment of Patrick Johansen, Pres. Gary Williams has asked that Patrick agree to resign from the BOT, sell his 2 RV lots, and move from the community. This is interesting in that Patrick has not been found to be non-compliant to the covenants, is a duly elected Trustee in his 3rd year, and has tried to represent members of the community fairly and conscientiously.
It is obvious that this Court case, now filed in Superior Court, is not about shed roofs, but about homogenizing the BOT. All of the independent voters on the Board who do not agree to rubber-stamp Mr. William's agenda, have been harassed and marginalized at the expense of ignoring the covenants and State required procedures.
A bogus "shaming" of George was staged, claiming he is personally responsible for all BLOG comments and he resigned. Larry Raymer was removed as Tree Comm. chairman after about 12 years on the committee, and Deb Blagg has been systematically harassed on the BLOG and personally insulted continually. The BOT drug their feet for months, opposing the Tech Comm. charter, though no one said specifically why. Patrick has been continuously harassed over minutia, shed roof in particular.
Williams has been making all of the legal decisions himself (pretending to consult the vice-pres, treasurer and Sec.), in violation of required procedures spelled out in our covenants and the State RCWs.
It has been rumored that an attempt to remove Patrick from the BOT will be made. That would be a shame and an injustice.
It is sad, the extent to which the conservative block on the BOT is willing to mistreat fellow members because they are independent thinkers, and see themselves as representing the ENTIRE community, and not just J pl and G St owners. It has been said that the candidate named Rudd something thinks the community should eliminate RVs from the community.
If that is so, we've got another crazy ready to plug-in to the BOT. Anyone who has bought property for RV use in Surfside has a perfect right to own and live here, and there is nothing that the BOT can do to undo that. Oh yeah, they can harass them over horse puckies as they have Patrick and Mr. Ottersen.
10:59
You and others always conveniently leave out one important fact concerning Patrick's shed overhang. It wasn't on the original plans submitted and aproved by the Arch Committee. He made changes afterwards. That is clearly stated you can't do. And btw, I challenge anyone to take a picture of that structure and show it to anyone and ask them to describe it. I guarantee it won't be called a "shed".
Again, George was not "shamed" for all blog comments. People got up an made objections to his own words that he said about committee members. To continue to say otherwise doesn't change that fact. At least those people stood up on the record and not as anonymous on a blog.
Why should a Trustee also be a chairman? That had more to do with the Raymer thing than anything your making it out to be.
Blagg hasn't been harassed anymore than other Trustees on the board here and definitely not as much as some. That's how this place works.
Now you are starting rumors about a new candidate. Nice. More of the same.
To 1:29 & 2:02:
Mr. Neal did make the offer. I was there and heard it. He even took responsibility. That is why I go to meetings. I like to hear what is actually said and not rely on others. George even confirmed this in a topic above. So will you two now come back and admit you were making "FAKE comments"???. Of course not. Because you be the trolls.
Fine, let's make sure that Neal is held fully responsible as he should be. That does not give him a pass to continue with his poor management of the Surfside water system. Seriously folks, this man must be terminated from any further work for Surfside.
And you be Anonymous. You contradict your own statement.
Not only should Neal be terminated, but him and north beach should pay for everything. The board trustees should be removed. Hope they all go to jail.
Agree with most of 11:37 comment. A breeze of honesty and integrity would be welcomed into this very sick HOA. That would include escorting Neal out of Surfside forever.
I find it interesting that you think our attorney would allow egregious actions by the board without making his legal recommendations to them. They are not lawyers but do consult with an HOA attorney well versed in these matters. They have done nothing illegal and will not be going to jail, SMH
Giving advise n taking it are two differant things. Glad the board majority got thier fake news in above.
2:17 it looks like the fake news at least knows how to spell
Only a complete Bozo would think that this shed issue merits ANY attention, let alone threatening an owner and Trustee with "Banishment". That's the kind of thing that has been common in very primitive societies, where they throw stones at the individual or tar and feather.
You are sad little people with sad little minds worrying about sad little issues while the World is racked by hatred, meanness and war. You have NO perspective on this spot on the earth or how lucky we all are to be a part of this community. That comes with compromises and the need for communication and understanding. This b.s. is just small-minded and ego-driven to nowhere anyone wants to go. The attitudes driving this are despicable and very damaging to the community.
Face it - some people are trouble makers who feel driven to flaunt the rules. The shed guy was hell bent to have it his way without regard for the existing rules. Sometimes it takes push back to get the trouble makers to respect the rules as other do.
I'm not defending everything that has been alleged to have emanated from some board members. I am saying that some members are trouble makers rather than cooperative members of an HOA.
And some members are stupid and really don't know what is going on. They are not the trouble makers, because they are to dumb to know the trouble when they see it. they are willing to mouth off. Kinda like you.
Thanks so much for the personal attack 5:04. It says a lot about who you are.
To piggy back on what 11:37 said about the shed. If you go on taxsifter it is described as a "cabin w/roofed patio", so apparently they don't see it as a shed either.
Another thing. Back when Hansen was on the board, before the ink was dry on the divorce paperwork and he was thinking of moving people on here were calling for him to resign. I've noticed the same people are silent about Patrick who has decided to move. Just another example of the hypocrisy that some exhibit here.
The so-called "cabin" has no plumbing, has never been used for habitation, is well under the maximum size criteria for a shed, has no appliances, has about a 3 ft. porch, and is full of storage items. By the County's definition, which allows attachments outside the basic footprint, it is a "SHED". It is hidden in the trees on a cul-de-sac that has no development on most of it.
Once in place, compliant with the County, this should have been granted a variance, and the owner cautioned to be sure appropriate plans are approved in the future.
Instead of trying create misery for RV owners, minor attachments should be approved for these owners, as they can only have one outbuilding. Homeowners can have several. Property with a home can have a garage, a shop, and a shed.
The county has never stated that his shed is in compliance with their code. In fact, county regulations for RV's states structures such as decks, rv covers, lean to's, garages, shops, carports are NOT allowed in conjunction with RV use and that only one 10x12 shed is allowed. They aren't even defining it as a shed when they assess it so doesn't look like any one considers this just a shed. If it was in compliance wouldn't he be able to get the county to back him??
With Dictator William's on his heels!
2 words… billable hours. You're ignorance is hanging out.
If he is so wrong, why did he win in court? Certain people are ignoring that key fact.
He won some of his money back but the judge did not rule on the complaint itself, that is why they are going back to get a definite ruling by a judge. That will end this discussion once that decision is made.
Please remember that cooperative members will not drive the change that is needed here. The good ole boys have to go. If they don't, I can see this association fragmenting even more, and eventually being forced to disband.
If you're trying to make a personal attack, it really diverts from the message when you can't spell or use proper English.
Probably not. The atrocious way this has been handled will still be a topic of discussion until these people are gone.
Congratulations, BOT, you drove a good man out of town. Be proud of that!
BTW - who's next?
Most of us see Patrick as a self serving troublemaker. Have it your way is not part of the HOA culture. Good riddance! We don't need any more troublemakers. Some good natured cooperation would go a long way towards mending this association and rebuilding trust.
Re: June 20, 2018 at 4:25 PM
Really, I recently spoke to the man and I did not pick up on this at all
"Most of us see Patrick as a self serving troublemaker"
Could it be that you might be the problem?
6:18.
You might feel that way and are entitled to your opinion just like I am of mine. But after more than one talk with the man including an unsolicited long phone call I feel the opposite.
Surfside will benefit from the departure of the troublemakers. Current and potential members don't want the problems and expenses that the rule breakers cause.
This community was created to be mixed use community, and RVs properties are a part of that plan. Owners have bought these properties in good faith, and many take great pride in keeping very well maintained groomed lots. There's really no reason not to allow well designed and constructed raised porches wood racks, and shed attachments. They are only allowed one shed, so why not give some latitude to APROVED well designed "appurtenances" such as a porch or overhang to help create protected work space ?
Was the first "trouble-maker" the person who started the development ? That may have been the attitude of many locals. There is generally opposition to anything new, and usually because it is "new". Nothing is ever built without a determined individual making it happen, rules are never embraced by all who are effected by them, justice is never a given, in the same way that dissent is the only means to bring change to bad policies.
Drive around Surfside Mr. Cox. Take a tablet and record how many RV lots are an unsightly mess and how many are well maintained and attractive. It may be understandable that the RV lots do not get regular or good care because the owners are not there. However, it is not forgivable. Same goes for lots with homes on them. If you aren't there to do the work you should hire someone to do it. Your neighbors are not happy with the mess, the fire dangers and the wind dangers that you leave unattended. You are not in compliance with the covenants.
That drive around Surfside should surely reveal why approving a bunch of tacky, unattended structures on RV lots is not such a great idea. It is a small number of RV lots that are well maintained.
I don't agree, and why are you saying "you are not in compliance ?" I do not have an RV, and I am not in violation of anything bub. I come here to enjoy our place and the beach. I don't drive around with a tablet, or worry my little head about the RVers. It is a different style of vacationing than staying in a stick-built structure. I accept that it is more like camping, which I have done weeks each year, for decades.
Neighbors with homes who have concerns about their RV neighbors, need to establish good communications with them, and try to find compromises where there may be conflict. Same for any neighbors really. Many properties leave their grounds somewhat wild. Rvers should mow their grass near their firepits to avoid wildfires during the Summer.
Cox would be singing a different tune if his condo was surrounded by thoughtless RV users who have no intentions of negotiating or properly maintaining their lots. Year around residency also proves to have lessons to be learned.
Post a Comment