Once each year the members have the opportunity to speak and vote on directors and motions from the floor. Below is the meeting agenda and below that is a discussion on the agenda and the issues.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
This is a motion made from the floor and seconded by a member to accept the agenda as presented above. After the second is made, is the time to make a motion to change the agenda to include "motions from the floor" I would suggest it be on the agenda following Nominations for Board Trustee's from the floor. After discussion a vote is taken by the members to include this and possible other additions. This is your right and this is your meeting.
VOTING BALLOTS ON MOTIONS FROM THE FLOOR:
The voting should not be by voice or raising of hands. This should be a paper ballot that is issued to members in good standing who are in attendance at the meeting. This is a simple matter of each voting member receiving a pre-printed form. That form would include a number of lines with a yes and no box. That form with the voting member name, would include the number of proxy votes that member has that allows them to vote on "other matters" This insures that members not present, do have a legal voice. This would also apply to the ballots that are distributed to the Board. After voting on all motions, the ballots would be turned over to the DECC (Janet Cory) for tabulation.
MOTION TO REMOVE A BOARD MEMBER:
If such a motion were to be made, the vote would be included in the ballot above. Any other method would and could be not accurate.
In my opinion and judgement, Gary Williams should be removed from the Board. He has repeatedly violated his oath of office both as President and a Trustee. He has engaged in spending member funds and taken actions without full Board approval. I do not advocate the removal of other Board members. I attribute many of the errors they have made are due to lack of information and false information plus lack of experience. To remove Williams would send a clear message to the existing and subsequent Board members that the members will not tolerate behavior and actions that are not consistent with our own governing documents as well as State RCW's.
NOMINATIONS FROM THE FLOOR:
This is more important than most realize.
We have 3 positions open and 3 candidates. Should there be an expected vacancy of one or more, the process requires an appointment from the Board until the next Annual meeting in July of 2019. Past practice has been to appoint the next highest vote count for the Board. We saw this happen a number of times this past year.
Notice in the "Agenda" above the item: NOMINATIONS FROM THE FLOOR OR BOARD.
The "OR BOARD" is a new addition to that line agenda item.
This could indicate an attempt by some to get a name on the list with enough votes to fill an appointment position on the Board. This is why I suggest you write in a name such as Deb Blagg or another.
WHERE I STAND ON THIS;
I see myself as a reporter more than an active participant. That is one of the reasons I left the Board.
I will provide information and report on the Annual meeting, but will not be an active participant there, other than to cast my vote and any proxy assigned to me by another member.
WHO HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY?
The Board Secretary, Scott Wingar, Elections Committee Chair, Annette deLeest, Secretary to the Board, Kimber Holtermann, and Designated Election Committee Chair DECC, Janet Cory, have the responsibility to see that the motions and ballots are presented, voted and counted.
THIS IS YOUR MEETING:
This is also your association. It is past time for the members to take control and hold our elected Board Trustees accountable.
28 comments:
Happy to see that George has stressed the need of paper/documented voting for any issues that may arise at the Annual Meeting. Non-members have passed themselves off as members at these meetings far too many times with inappropriate commenting and voting.
So 1:47 PM lets see one shred of documentation for your claim of illegal voting. I have to check in each and every time and Janet and her crew handle that well. As far as comments I doubt it but someone at the door to verify should curb that.
Spouses, live-ins and friends have accompanied members to the meetings. Comments and votes have happened from these individuals who are not members. One case that I am aware of would be ratting on a friend so I don't want to do that.
What 3:27, spouses aren't members?
ARTICLE II Membership
Section 1. The membership of the corporation shall consist of the incorporators, owners or purchasers of one or more tracts at Surfside Estates and other persons, all as approved by the board of trustees or its membership committee. Ownership of a tract at Surfside Estates is not a condition precedent to membership; however, no tract may be purchased at Surfside Estates without becoming an approved member of this corporation. No person or purchaser of tracts shall have more than one membership regardless of the number of tracts so owned or purchased, and the interest of each member shall be equal to that of any other member, and no member can acquire any interest which shall entitle him to any greater voice, vote or authority in the corporation than any other member. If any tract or tracts are held by two or more persons, the several owners of such interest shall be entitled collectively to cast one vote.
Section 2. No membership shall be voted unless such member has paid the initiation fee as set by the board of trustees and unless all dues and assessments are currently paid.
ARTICLE,BYLAWSFinal.doc 9
Section 3. As to memberships of owners or purchasers of tracts at Surfside Estates, memberships and certificates of membership evidencing the same shall be inseparably appurtenant to tracts owned by the members, and upon transfer of ownership, or contract of sale, of any such tracts, membership or certificates of membership shall ipso facto be deemed to be transferred to the contract purchaser. No membership or certificates of membership may be transferred, assigned, or in any manner conveyed, other than in the manner hereinbefore set forth. In the event of the death of a member, the membership and certificates of membership of such member shall be and become the property of the personal representative of such deceased member upon the appointment and qualification as such in a judicial proceeding and such personal representative shall have all of the rights, privileges and liabilities of the deceased member until title shall be transferred or contracted to be transferred.
Section 4. No membership shall be forfeited nor any member expelled except upon foreclosure for non-payment of dues or assessments, and as to members owning tracts at Surfside Estates, no member may withdraw, except upon transfer of title to the real property to which his membership is appurtenant, as elsewhere herein provided. No compensation shall be paid by the corporation upon any transfer of membership and no member whose membership is transferred shall be entitled to share or participate in any of the property or assets of the corporation
check the last sentence in Section 1 of the Bylaws, Article II. some owners of more than one lot, designate separate ownership of the lots so that the spouse has a vote. one lot, one vote
The office says that if your name is on the deed then your a member. You can state opinions, make motions, but only one vote per partnership per lot.
Conclusion, spouses have a voice!
girl friends, boy friends, live-ins, cousins etc. that are not on the legal ownership documents do not have a voice or a vote.
We have had an incident of a mother, after selling her property in Surfside, adding her name to the ownership docs of her son's Surfside property in order to be on the board and to vote.
Guests are not to be allowed in community meetings, and yes, spouses are in most cases on the title and considered members. How many times does this need to be said for it to sink in ? With only about 100 or so in attendance, how likely is it unauthorized people are attending AND voting ? As was mentioned, everyone should identify themselves at the door.
If a couple of odd-ball votes are cast as in the case mentioned, it isn't a big concern. How big a concern is unlimited legal spending ? Part of the Board being shut out of important discussions and votes ? Unauthorized actions bearing on lawsuits ? A Trustee who has not been determined to be in non-compliance, being threatened by a lawsuit if he does not resign and sell his property ? Get real people. There is bad stuff going on that DOES merit great concern and it isn't about unauthorized spouses attending the Annual Meeting.
If anyone makes a motion at the meeting for removal of Williams or any Trustee I will also make a motion to have Patrick removed. I feel that if any Trustee has decided to leave the HOA by putting their property up for sale the should do the right thing and resign to avoid the replacement situations like we had this year. In Patrick's case the fact that he knowingly bought property that he knew had a covenant violation but wasn't going to fix unless a complaint was made qualifies as another reason. Along with that he also didn't follow the rules when he modified his approved plans from the Arch Committee without getting further approval.
Now before he and his defenders come on here an attack me let me say this. Although people may have a right to make the motion I don't feel it should happen. In the many years I have lived here it hasn't been done nor do I believe it ever has. No matter how I feel about a Trustee, since they got the votes I feel they should be able to serve their term. But if one group decides to play that game I will be happy to join in.
6:45 You don’t know the history. The entire Board was removed not that long ago. What Patrick has done pales in comparison with what the executive committee has done. If you had the “gang of four” work a deal to force you to move, wouldn’t you. He is being forced out. Not the America I fought for.
Patrick created his own problems. Deal with it.
Patrick issues, are a direct result of the actions of few power hungry self aggrandizing fools dragging SHOA down as a result ... how are the property values holding up in Surfside with all the current issues and coming ones?
Probably at least 80% of Surfside members own property elsewhere. There are no minimum requirements for how many hours, days, weeks, a Trustee or candidate resides in Surfside. The fact that an owner may have their Surfside property for sale, does not diminish their membership.
Patrick has given his time as a volunteer on committees and as a Trustee, and may never have missed attending a Board Meeting. Mr. Flood by contrast has only attended a half dozen or so meetings in the last 2 years, in person. Some HOAs allow removal of any Board member who fails to attend 3 or more consecutive meetings.
While Patrick has purchased property elsewhere on the peninsula, he is still a full-fledged member and property owner in S.S.. Sale of property can take months or years, so there is no basis for the claim he should resign. He has not been found to be non-compliant or in violation of any S.S. covenants. His circumstances should have been resolved long ago. The shed meets County standards, and there isn't a good reason for any further restrictions.
He apparently bought a different shed kit than the one that was approved, but our covenants have no restrictions on sheds, so he presumed the one he put up was okay. Once the structure was constructed, it would make no sense to demand it's removal, when all that was necessary was to caution him to build only approved plans in the future. Now, in the 3rd year of hassling him over this, he is threatened with a lawsuit in Superior Court, over a County compliant shed on an undeveloped cul-de-sac.
Mr. Williams has offered to drop the lawsuit (which has NOT been properly approved by the BOT) if Patrick resigns from the BOT and sells his property. Mr. Williams has no authority to be making deals that threaten fellow Trustees with banishment. The Board has NOT approved this so-called "DEAL", but Mr. Williams imagines himself above following proper procedures, and sees no problem with threatening Patrick over personal differences of opinion.
To 12:28, June 22: That's extortion! Can you prove this? Or is this another made-up theory?
This should be brought up at the meeting before motions are made then everyone can vote the facts because, I too have heard this but with a different board member involved.
9:08 AM I moved to Surfside in 2001 and have attended almost all of the annual meetings and the monthly meetings. You are an absolute liar when you state that an entire Board has been removed. My language may seem harsh but such statements cannot be condoned.
And our blog host was not much of a participant when he served on the board (twice) so I find his comment about reporting only rather odd.
9:08 AM I moved to Surfside in 2001 and have attended almost all of the annual meetings and the monthly meetings. You are an absolute liar when you state that an entire Board has been removed. My language may seem harsh but such statements cannot be condoned.
And our blog host was not much of a participant when he served on the board (twice) so I find his comment about reporting only rather odd.
Nice try Kirby. Fake news.
To 12:14 and all of the others who keep talking about property values. Just got got mine a couple weeks ago and they have gone UP. I know I'm not the only one either. Coincidentally and surprisingly I have also received a couple mailings from local realtors asking if I would be interested in selling.
So there's your answer.
To 10:33, pretty much everyone’s property taxes went up, has nothing to do with SHOA. Realtors send those to everybody in a certain area, not just SHOA. Are you really that ignorant? Or are you a friend of 6:40? Or the same person?
1:26 .... Williams had Mark Scott propose the "deal", and I have e-mails exchanged by Williams and Scott, sent to Johansen telling him he needs to not tell anyone about the offer. OOps !! E-mails get around ya know ?
Why is Mark Scott even involved in negotiations with Patrick? I think I know the answer. They figure that if they get him involved, he will be on their side. I hope Mark is not a fool and will see thru all the game playing.
RESIGN NOW WILLIAMS! HOW DARE YOU. YOU SHOULD BE TARRED AND FEATHERED AND SENT ON YOUR WAY OUT OF SURFSIDE. DISGRACEFUL!
I see Patrick is back with his unsolicited emails once again. Guess I will be showing up and finding a flyer on my door once again also. Hopefully he will at least spare me the knock on the door.
As with the Jehovah Witnesses just don't answer the door. And we all get dozens of unsolicited emails daily.
Nice try 6:47.
The comment I was answering talked about property VALUES. I responded with the fact that my property VALUE went up. Same with others, their property VALUE went up as well. Never once said anything about taxes. While yes taxes did go up because of certain measures but since they are tied into property VALUES that had something to do with it too, at least in my case. But I would assume a smart person like you knows that. Also, didn't say the cards had anything to do with SHOA, just my property.
So while you may have had your little fun accusing me of being ignorant, you have provided sufficient proof that you are.
Post a Comment