Do the numbers...
With Winegar and Williams approximately 30 proxy ballots each, this is a potential for them to cast 60 ballots in favor of not removing themselves from office. They would have included Flood in that.
Those ballots should have been given to the other trustees. (maybe they did. There needs to be an answer to this)
It is clear that the majority of members did not want to table the motion for removal. The number to table, correlates to the number of proxy ballots in the hands of the Directors.
If, as suspected, Williams and Winegar did vote the proxy's on other matters, (motions to remove) the election should be declared invalid.
The Board Secretary, Scott Winegar, is required to certify the election and apply the corporate seal. The ballots and results are then placed and retained in the safe for perpetual keeping.
Do you see a conflict here with the voting process?
With 89 voting members present, It is a safe bet that the majority present, voted for the removal of the 3 Board members.
32 comments:
your "safe bet" is way off George. A large part of the members present was very vocal in their support for Gary, Jim, and Scott. I do not know how many proxy ballets Deb had but it took her a very long time to fill them all out. Why can't they vote on the motion? They are trustees and they have the right to vote those ballets. Were you even at the annual meeting. Your recollection of what happened is way different than mine.
In matters such as this, the individuals who are the subjects in the motion recuse themselves. This is inappropriate, and everyone knows it. Must recalculate the vote!!
It's not a vote of who LIKES these guys, They have knowingly and audaciously done whatever they want to do, without any notice, communication, regard for Larry, Deb and Pat. Some issues Patrick recused himself from. Check the record.
This vote needs to be recounted by a 3rd party.
They should not be able to vote more than 1 vote on anything, especially when the motion is about their own removal. This is a clear conflict. The actual numbers can be found. The ballots of the members present can be sorted out and the actual way they voted can be determined. The same can be done with the proxy ballots done by the Board members. Without actual examination, the whole truth is not known and your and mine recollection is nothing more than that.
The proxy voting system is flawed because of the interpretation of it's intent. We do not have a straight mail in ballot process. The only way a mailed ballot can count is if done by proxy. The proxy validates that a member in good standing has cast a valid ballot. It should end there. Our governing documents clearly state that each member will have only one vote. There should be no authority to vote on other matters or fill in the blanks on voting. This is an abuse of power that probably should be settled in court.
You can make a comment with your opinion with out the smart ass "Were you even at the meeting?" I find that offensive and disrespetful.
While I agree with the thought that the subject of the action needs to be recused from the voting, there is another point that may affect all of the Proxys cast. That is, was the block to "vote for all matters" checked? Some folks, even though they submitted a proxy, may have only wanted a vote in certain matters. As this issue was not addressed in the agenda, nobody knew it was going to be voted on and if they did not give the authority to vote "for all matters", that vote needs to be dropped. I would hope that before the Secretary certifys the vote, that he study each ballot very carefully. He wouldn't want to be caught basically falsifying the outcome of the election now would he. I am also assuming these ballots would be available for an independent review?
Last election smelled. This one stinks. We will never get a fair result without independent verification.
I swear this place keeps getting more like Fox News every day. And not the Shepard Smith type.
10:39 That’s great as Fox has the highest viewership in the country - higher than all of the major news networks combined. Check out the polls. So must be a lot for the public to be truthfully informed about. Why mention only Shepard Smith? Are you homophobic?
Give me a break. If anyone is going to be accused of rigging it would be the Blagg posse with its end around with the motions and her shameful attempt at removing the Trustees.
Let's be honest here. This whole thing was a set up. They couldn't find people who wanted to volunteer their time to be on the board and knowing that not many of the membership attend the meeting the plan was to show up in mass to try and put their agenda through. As others have asked, why not let the motions be known to all beforehand? I'm sure those that gave their proxies didn't expect such important changes to be brought up and definitely not for the removals. I'm willing to lay odds that the stack of proxies from people Blagg had all knew. This stunt is exactly the reason why I will not be voting online if it comes to be. I will wait until the day just in case another stunt like this happens, as I'm now sure it will.
And I'm sorry, the host is being disingenuous here. You all know darn well if the results had gone the other way he wouldn't have been calling the vote invalid.
right on 9:57!
Good point 9:57
except, If it had gone the other way, which it probably would have if Williams and Winegar had not voted the proxy's, it would have been a valid election. You prove my point.
9:57 - this election was crooked as a snakes belly. This is same type of crap we've been victimized by for the last year! Same people doing highly questionable things.
If anything should be learned from this debacle, it should be that the voting covenants need to change! I can see where that will be terrifying to certain people, as they no longer will be able to control which should be a free election.
I've lost any confidence in this election at least until how it was ultimately handled is explained to the membership. As an aside, at the meeting while Deb Blagg was speaking and reading her motions, an observation of dejavu to a national presidential debate immediately occurred. Hillary had spoke to a few constituents seated on stage while her opponent lurked behind her using intimidating body language to speak for him silently. Very similarly, a few feet behind Deb loomed Gary Williams with a constant and maddeningly distracting rocking back and forth, foot to foot, throughout her every word until the very moment she finished; Williams then took his seat. In that one window, aware or not, he spoke a thousand words about how the meeting was going to progress and the kind of HOA president he is.
Unknown if it is analogous to anything that the next speaker was male but my guess is Williams would stop his foot dance for anyone next up who was not Deb. He did it off and on later but not with the same degree of obvious body language and timing to match the speaker.
I notice you overlooked both Ms. Blagg and her husbands constant interruptions of people that were voicing their questions against them. No different from the behavior I have witness from her first hand at board meetings. Once someone brings up a point she would talk over them. So if you want to talk bully, there you go. I thought Mr. Williams let that go on too far to be honest. Same at board meetings.
And please, no more Hillary comparisons. This whole Blagg thing was a tactic from the other side.
Sorry, you don't run this blog, much as you would like.
Your constant derogation of Deb and her topics has grown very weary. Find somebody else to hate on, you troll!
It’s all they got 7:17,🤷♂️
Others have already stated my feelings about how the Blagg contingent didn't let their intentions known to all members before the meeting. I find the hypocrisy of saying you're for all members of SHOA while purposely trying to circumvent the will of the people with those shenanigans quite telling. Same with the accusations of backroom dealings. A private Facebook page may not be a room, but it still qualifies.
What I have a problem with was the attempt to remove the Trustees. Like it or not they were voted in by the majority of members who vote. They should be allowed to serve the full term unless they choose to resign. They are volunteers. They have chosen to donate their time to serve the community and should be respected for doing so. If you don't like it step up and run for the board or find like minded people to do it for you. Obviously the Blagg contingent couldn't do either so they resorted to what we saw Saturday. I'd call it shameful but why bother. Can't shame someone who has none.
On that note I have a question for all of those who voted for the removal. The same people that come on here using the term faction, mafia, and junta to describe board members. They also speak of those of us who voted for them with less then positive terms, status quo being one of the more tame. While I know George doesn't answer anonymous comments except when he does, I'd be interested in his answer too. My question is this, after Ms. Blagg's overly emotional motion for the removal, why didn't any of the status quo folks get up and make a motion for Patrick or Larry's removal? Same with last years meeting when George was still a Trustee. One could have easily made the case that since Patrick has decided to move he shouldn't be in a position affecting policy for the future of SHOA . It even appears the votes could have been there for the removal. Yet no one did.
So ask yourselves, Why is that?
Could it be that unlike the Blagg contingent we respect the voting process and the Trustee position for the reasons I stated above? Could it be that unlike the majority of the Blagg contingent who spend little time here we actually know we have to live with each other as a community? We see each other sometimes almost daily from walking the neighborhood, the beach, at Jacks or at the Roo for Prime Rib night. Because of this no matter how we may feel differently about an issue we still treat you with respect. We don't have the option of picking up our house and leaving. So maybe we know better how a community should be and how its members should act.
Or maybe the answer is a simple one. We just have a little more class.
But now we know how low you want to go. You succeeded in upsetting a bunch of people including even some RV'ers in my neighborhood. There are more houses being built here every year. Although I doubt there will be an anti Blagg contingent FB page it doesn't mean that we will not start organizing more so we can use the same tactics that were used Saturday in the future.
For that, thanks.
Well 7:27, we also have a majority on the board and we foiled a coup.
But you have cute little emoji's so I guess you win.....
You seem to think you have the moral high ground here. It could not be farther from the truth.
You support a board that has violated its own covenants, and for all intents and purposes rigged this election.
As I believe long rambling diatribes are virtually useless in this forum, I will not imitate the former writer.
The moral high ground is certainly not with the rule breakers who violate the covenants and then demand that the covenants be changed to suit their rule breaking minds. The election "rigging" and attempts to circumvent usual practices is also on the small group that is pressing for self serving changes. It has been the rule breaking jerks who are stirring up the problems, creating hateful divisions within the membership and using under handed tactics to achieve their goals. There are respectable and honorable ways to achieve change. Look again 9:06, the covenant violator trouble makers have taken the low road. That is the truth.
There is so much of the "I am better than you" stuff going on here that it makes me sick. Nobody is above one another! There are a number of us who do "obey the rules" but would also like to see change. Are we "the low road" as well. Get a grip, you are no better than any of your neighbors. Try and solve the problem, don't make it worse. Get a cooler head or get out.
Get grip 11:23. Your paranoia is showing. I've seen no evidence of people who obey the rules speaking up in meetings and working on committees to achieve fair covenant changes. All I've been seeing is pushing, demanding jerks who will use any form of deceit to get their way. Show up and speak up if you haven't lied about yourself ll:23. You'll be welcomed to be part of the good guys.
Good guys? Hardly, unless you count malfeasance, coercion, and dishonesty as positive attributes.Considering past posts, you probably don't care as long as you get what you want.
Clearly Williams and Winegar should have recused themselves and given their proxies to the remaining Board members. There was a very obvious conflict of interest, given that they would personally gain by the motions failing. I don’t know how many proxies they each held - and its likely the motions would have failed anyway - but it would have been a fair process.
There were enough votes against them to show there is a significant lack of confidence in their leadership. My sole reason for the motion was in Gary claiming the need to file a lawsuit in Superior Court was so urgent that it justified excluding 5 of 7 Trustees from the vote. The meeting didn’t follow the RCW rules for open meetings and was a terrible abuse of the urgency exemption. My motion was to protest Gary’s repeated exclusion of Trustees who are not part of their inner circle, making the decision to spend HOA funds on litigation a prime example of misconduct.
To Ms. Blagg's comment.
I find it laughable that you now want to talk about a fair process and inner circles. I notice you haven't addressed the many comments here on why you didn't let the full membership know about your motions beforehand and that you were also planning on removing Trustees. Instead you and YOUR inner circle of FB friends, who obviously did know, came in to try to pull a fast one. How was that fair to the entire membership?
To the proxies. I noticed that you had quite a stack. I'm willing to lay major odds that most if not all that gave you theirs knew of the plans also. Those that gave them to Williams and Winegar didn't, just like the majority of the membership. However they did entrust them with people they wanted to vote for them and for that fact they should be able to do so. If you would have been honest and transparent with your intentions prior to the meeting then your argument may have carried some weight. But you weren't, so it doesn't.
1:01 Kirby, Kirby, Kirby I see your sphincter has tightened up once again. Why don’t you just go out and write complaints against your neighbors like you seem to do. Perhaps you will feel better about it all.
Dear losers,
Your deceits and dirty tricks lost. Suck it up and move on.
With fhis there were no winners, only losers.
Remember the kid from the Six Sense who saw dead people everywhere? I guess he moved to SHOA and now sees Kirby. Give it a break.
Bottom line, everyone lost.
Members still have no right to vote on individual issues.
The elite minority still rules, but will be fighting for the rest of their lives.
The majority of members are still getting ripped off.
False claims of covenant violations are still used to bully.
Real violations are ignored.
It has been almost a week since I made the comment on how the "status quo" people actually respect the voting process and board positions and how they didn't sink to the level of trying to remove elected Trustees at the meeting like the Blagg contingent. I asked why is that? I notice none of the contingent came on to address the question. Your silence is deafening. I guess the truth does hurt.
Status quo is a big part of what is wrong with this association. We need people with vision and commitment, not old dinosaurs rooted in old ways.
Why isn't it considered to be a rigged election when George is getting voted onto the Board? Same procedures and many of the same people on the Board for past and current elections.
Post a Comment