These could be the most significant changes in 50 years...
This was the first meeting in my 14 years here that the members really had the time to state their views and make motions. The comments and motions went on for well over an hour. For the most part, other than one loud mouth bully who attempted time and again to disrupt the process, the member participation went well. This is what a member annual meeting should be about. You may have liked or not, what was said, but the members were able to say it.
Thanks to Deb Blagg and some others, the items for discussion would not have happened if not for them. It would just have been another boring Annual Meeting. I have to give credit for Gary Williams for not being a block to these discussions. He did make a failed attempt to limit speaking and only lost his cool once with a banging of the gavel on the table. That was a bit embarrassing. Time and again the association attorney, Sam Jacobs, was consulted during this time.
The motions that failed, and/or delayed:
Everyone of these motions is worthy of a separate posting topic and will be done, but for now, so that you will be informed, I will briefly summarize them.
1. Motion to dismiss the lawsuit against the two shed violations.
The Attorney spoke on this and stated that the Board was elected with the authority to act for the members on legal issues. This motion did not proceed. (I agree with this)
2. Motion to change by laws that would allow electronic voting.
3. Motion for member approval of covenant changes by vote.
Discussion....
What is really significant, is that the Board President, Gary Williams, agreed that the second and third motions would be put to total membership vote and that ballot would be included in the November budget ratification sent to all members.
This puts the decision making regarding covenants back into the hands of all the members, as it should be. Past Board Trustee, John Williams, A J Place resident, worked for his 3 years on the Board, for this change.
Those that fear a vote on a covenant change that will affect their individual interest, will vigorously oppose this change. They fear a loss or modification of covenants. New or modified covenants could make Surfside so much better. More restrictions may be needed in some areas and less in others. Let the members have the final word.
Note:
I think I may be missing another motion, but not come to mind right now. I did make a recording, but may not be entirely clear. It was difficult once again to hear members speaking. Time and again, members said "we can't hear you"
21 comments:
When I pulled up the site this AM, there was a great historical article by Ken Karch. Now it is gone. What happened.
Thank you for sharing, George. You provide a vital outlet to this community.
Until we can establish a broader voting base, which is the intention behind the electronic voting change, we can expect the voting on these issues to be lackluster, and the motions fail. Williams is confident in this, and that is why he has offered it so willingly.
And why shouldn't this silly lawsuit be dropped ? Claims that this is not going to cost the community much is baseless. It is perfectly obvious that this is strictly an excuse to try and boot Patrick off the BOT. He has not been found non-compliant on any issue, yet he has been asked to sell his property and resign from the BOT, because Gary Williams wants him to. That can't be defended.
The members need and deserve transparent and nonbiased information on which to base votes. Technology can assist for many members to be better informed and more comfortable with making choices when voting. It should not be forgotten that we do have a number of members who do not use smart phones or computers so accommodations must be made for these folks. The board and employees must be trained to be transparent and nonbiased as they carry out their responsibilities.
Johannsen has pressed to change things to suit his personal wishes without regard for the existing covenants and policies. He is a trouble maker not a cooperative HOA members. Change happens with negotiations not with a few pushy folks demanding that things change to suit their whims.
Please tell us exactly what changes have been proposed by Patrick. I can’t think of any other than something that violated no existing covenant.
RV's on lots year around in all areas of Surfside. That's what he said to me.
I find it funny you call the gentleman calling to table that issue a bully! He felt like he was being bullied by the motions coming from floor and pushing for a vote of 85 people vs making the entire membership aware of these motions. Also interesting that Johansen & Blagg hid their agenda while out canvasing at the compactor, they never mention the specifics of the motions just asked that they get all the proxy votes.
They appear to be the bullies and trying to speak for the membership while keeping them uniformed of their motives.
Best thing that could happen next is for Johansen to do the right thing and resign
Amen 10:48
"They appear to be bullies and trying to speak for the membership while keeping them uninformed" Sounds a lot more like the current BOT than it does anyone else.
Patrick has been bullied, to a extent that is shameful. Deb as well. All for attempting to change status quo, which is a worthy goal.
The measures should have been published by the HOA so owners could consider the changes proposed. More rights for owners - easier voting, and the opportunity to have a voice in any covenant changes. Most HOAs require member approval for covenant changes. We are handicapped in the respect that in most communities owner signatures can be procured at the owner's door.
Owner presence in Surfside is unpredictable.
The majority of the Board do not want to make it easier for more voters to vote, or more candidates to take interest in serving. They oppose the membership having more say, and oppose members making proposals such as covenant changes. These are not issues in most communities full of full-time residents.
The only reason the measures were kept under wraps was to prevent the motions from being blocked. But the fact remains, owners should have been given an opportunity to consider the measures. That's where having online communications could offer information long before the vote. The measures are not new and are not complicated, so I think the supporters just wanted to assure the opportunity to bring these matters to the floor.
In that respect their effort was successful. Nothing to be bent out of shape about. They saw this approach as the only way to bring it to a vote, and they were probably right. The rumor was, any motions attempted would be squashed. It's just politics folks.
To make things clear so there are no misunderstandings, someone should post the actual handout with the floor motions Deb Blag proposed.
10:27 There are at least several hundred other familys that would like the same thing. Do you also propose to hound them as you have done Patrick until they too move out of here?
Without a doubt. That's the level of anger and control here.
I asked the office they said they were not given the paperwork and even at the meeting it was only being handed out to those voting. The question goes back to Blagg, why didn't you make this known to the entire membership prior to the day of the meeting?
2:11 There are more than several hundred members who do not want RV's on some lots year around. Those who bought the lots with covenant limitations accepted those terms when they agreed to buy into Surfside. Live with it as you agreed to do.
3:51 - 'more than several hundred members' Where? Sound like more delusional tripe to justify your aging and outdated position.
Once again. with smaller words - Covenants need to be reviewed and examined for change on a regular basis. That doesn't happen here, mainly due to people like yourself, whe put personal interest in front of the public need.
In agreeing to those terms you so loftily refer to, I never agreed to no changes forever. That is illogical and irresponsible to the community.
There is no doubt that those who have counted on the RV covenants as they are will let you know just how many we are if you try to change the covenant. In 8:04's mind we are all old, outdated and full of delusional tripe. We bought our property with the promise of some controls on RV's as a promise in the covenants. I paid in market value for the protections and promises in the covenants Try to break that promise and you will have a fight on your hands for sure. If I had wanted to live in a year around trailer and RV park with lots of empty trailers and RV's parked (some abandoned), I would have purchased in that kind of a development or homeowners association.
8:04 and the others like this member are trying to get something that they did not pay market value to receive. Markets naturally devalue lots that have limits on usage. Those who paid more to have the limitations will be suffering damages and can sue.
Buying property in Surfside is not an agreement that the covenants are without faults. The Board can change the covenants with a vote in an Open Meeting. They are supposed to make such proposals to the membership for comments, but can then vote to change the standard written.
They tried to change the roof requirements for sheds earlier this year, for the sake of their efforts to hassle RV owners. A vote of approval was made, but dissenting voices prevented the change from being instituted. They had intended to bring it up at the Annual this year. They decided not to in order to be able to make Blagg's efforts seem unexpected.
The Board knew that there would be a recall effort, and likely a proposal to drop the Johansen lawsuit, which was proposed. The BOT should have reviewed the proposals and put them on the ballot. Blagg really had no option, and measures can be proposed by the membership. Nothing improper about it, except that the BOT insists on controlling the dialogue.
What you see as a fault in the covenants may very well be the clause in the covenants that prompted your neighbor to purchase their property. Use your heads folks. It really is not all about YOU.
You either.
Post a Comment