Admission of Blunder or whatever.
They "received the correction too late this afternoon to make the change to the Weekender's Annual Meeting Summary!"Who sent the correction? They are trying to spin this to appear that someone else made the error. Here is the correction....You made the damn error. Own up to it and disclose who told you to make the false statement. You admit that your first posting was correct and I based my previous blog on that. This does not pass the smell test.
They could have sent another Weekender to the members and posted it on the web site. There should be a full explanation in the next Weekender with an apology and accept responsibility for the false information.The question remains in my mind ....Did someone, like Gary Williams, direct that the false information be posted. And, how many members actually read their un-authorized Face Book page? The Board needs to get to the bottom of this with the real facts of what happened. A conspiracy theory? Maybe.
Speaking of conspiracy, notice on the list below that Kurt Olds received 60 write in votes.You will probably ask, Who is he? He is the husband of Peggy Olds who is the chair of the Tree Kill Committee. J Place residents.They are willing to condemn Deb Blagg to hell for making motions, but we can see there had to be a considerable effort to get enough write in votes so that he would place highest on the candidate list below the three elected. Now why would they do this?
The answer is simple. It is about control of the special interests.We saw this past year that when a vacancy on the Board occurs, the Board appointed the next highest vote getter to the vacated position.Sam Jacobs, the association attorney, spoke of this at the Annual Meeting. He made the statement that there is no rule or policy that the next highest candidate shall be appointed. The Board can appoint anyone they feel is qualified or has a particular talent or experience that is needed.
It is easy to see why it is difficult to get qualified members to serve on a committee or seek a position on the Board. In my opinion, we have a disgusting mess.
Surfside Homeowners Association
We received the correction too late this afternoon to make the change to the Weekender's Annual Meeting Summary! We had the election results correct to begin with on the Facebook page. See below for the correct 2018 Annual Election Results:
Click on the page below to enlarge...
85 comments:
everyone who is has ever been on the board has some sort of self interest that they want to preserve or get moving on, everyone, including you George! Not saying there is anything wrong with this?
You are ignoring the main point George is making. Virtually all who opposed the measures claimed that it was inexcusably sneaky of Deb Blagg to propose these measures without presenting them to the Board and/or the membership, well ahead of the meeting.
There hasn't been a peep about this candidate who, as a write-in got 60 votes, so this was clearly planned well ahead of the meeting, probably appropriating one vote from all of their proxies to this unannounced candidate. And what happened to Mark Scott ? He was actually ON the ballot, a shoe-in.
1:38 sez....oops! I see Mark on the list. All he had to say was "I think I did a good job, so please vote for me. Too risky to stand for anything, but he does support Gary Williams !!
Self interest is understandable to a point. Being underhanded is not.
This whole thing smells like fish rotting in the sun. Typical of the self-serving crap we have had to endure for many years.
What provisions are there in the covenants to annul this farce of an election?
A lawyer that serves the members and not just the board.
So it is OK to blast Deb for doing things the right way (brought up in a public meeting)but keep quiet about the underhanded campaign to put another person on the Board that they want. I doubt if 98% of the people in Surfside have ever heard of Mr. Olds, let alone enough to write him in on a ballot. Clearly what has gone on is a secret campaign so that when the Board exercises its replacement for Patrick (who has to leave when his property sells) it will be Mr top vote getter, a person whom I am told has serious anger issues and little concern for the majority of property owners here in Surfside. Now that is underhanded politics and just shows the lengths this Board and the minions (read Tree Committee) that support them will go to in order to retain control. I wonder how many of those 60 votes were actually legal? I hope the rest of Surfside wakes up and forces a total recall. I am sure some of you are patting yourselves on the back, of course you putting a knife in the rest of our collective backs. I fell sorry for Larry Raymer as he will be the only one left on the Board with common sense, compassion and unlide the others, no thirst for unbridled power.
Do you think that Miss Peggy's good buddy, Annette deLeest, would write in Mr. Olds name on her stack of proxy ballots? No, she wouldn't do that. She is an unbiased board trustee.
Hey new board trustees, deleest didn't vote for one or all of you. Watch your back.
I really find it hard to believe this hasn’t appeared In the chinook paper.
I find it interesting that Mr. Olds chose not to run as an announced candidate. After all, the head of the nominating committee is the good friend and fellow tree committee member of Mrs Olds, so why not run announced? It was because now they elected three "go along with the Board" candidates and have the next in the wings - they might have lost one of the other dunderheads. Now we see why the Board President wants Patrick to resign so quickly, so Mr. "Hothead" Olds can replace him.
The source or root of the dissent within the association was the outspoken opinions of Patrick and Deb. It was clear that an aggressive coalition was being formed with hopes of overthrowing some of the current board members and changing the covenants to meet self serving goals. A reaction to this aggression was a simple matter of preservation. It has given me a chuckle that the minority membership of trouble makers, those pressing for self serving changes, are now accusing the group formed in defense against this aggression to be the source of the manipulation and evil intentions. If the buy into a homeowners association and then aggressively press to change the rules to suit your personal wishes, you are the trouble makers, the aggressors and the evil manipulators. Get a grip on reality folks. Spinning the facts in an attempt to make underhanded actions appear to have integrity is just plain crap.
Yada,yada,yada, you repeating yourself over n over has gotten really old and is not winning any converts. Next?
Converts not so much needed LOSER.
I considered providing my motions to the Board in advance, but I had no confidence they would have made the ballot. The Board would have voted and by a 5-4 decision would have refused to send them to the members. This is why I made the floor motion - there is no other way to get past the Board’s constant efforts to suppress the members from having any influence other than by electing Trustees. The Articles & Bylaws and the RCW say that at any meeting of the members, any Member can make a motion for a vote. The BOT was ready and armed with the attorney who always defends the Board - and never the members at large. I did publicize that these motions would be made.
I did put it on my SHOA Facebook page and on this blog that I was going to make the floor motions. I had handouts prepared for folks to read. In no way was I being “sneaky” or “secretive” - as always I say what I think and I use my name. This transparency obviously was used by our sneaky and secretive Board to block the members from voting.
I did not come to the meeting with plans to make motions to remove Williams, Flood and Winegar from the Board. I had heard that Tom Brazier was going to move that the lawsuits be dropped, which Inhad hopes would put an end to the ridiculous shed nonsense. When the lawyer again stood by and placated his gang, I made the decision to try and oust the “Executive Committee” because these officers exceeded their authority under both the RCW and Articles & Bylaws by conducting secret meetings or discussions and making a unilateral decision by 4 of the 9 Trustees to file the lawsuits against Johansen and the Ottersons. I felt this was such an improper action that they should be removed. The fact that they didn’t recuse themselves from voting on the motions is a great example of how they ignore conflicts of interest to do whatever best serves them and their friends.
I hope the 2000 plus members who aren’t part of the J place mafia like this Board and look forward to seeing it get worse. If Patrick Johansen’s property sells, they are all lined-up to replace him with Kurt Olds. Have mercy on Surfside. I’m sure it was just a coincidence that Kurt received 60 wrote-in votes - especially considering that Williams, Flood, Winegar and Clancy - had at least 60 proxies among them.
Just keep in mind, Karma can be a bitch.
Interesting you would use the term bitch.
Exactly where did you publicize the nature of these motions, on your closed facebook page? Handing out the info before the meeting doesn't count. The question that had been put forward was concerning letting all members know beforehand, not just your crew and people the day of.
Just because you say the board would have refused doesn't make it so. Same with the blocking of votes.
After your gang that showed up you have no business doing any name calling like the mafia bunk. But I see you have officially taken over 100% of the rhetoric of your mentor.
And once again, when voting doesn't go the way you like you complain about it. Funny how you forget that one of the reasons you made it on the board last year was do to a considerable amount of campaigning by a board member. Let me also remind you that there were more candidates last year and look who got elected. The only reason you made it was due to a resignation. So maybe more members are just happier than you.
So now the lawyer is part of the gang too? I'll at least give you points for not using consigliere.
Since you brought up Patrick selling his property, if Williams was instead I have no doubt that you and others of your group would be on here demanding he resign from the board.
But let me be clear. You all are in your right to say and do what you will but at least be honest about it, don't point fingers and make accusations at one group then turn around and do the same.
Before the election people, including the host, were OK with the idea of having members doing write ins. In fact George had a topic where he said he was doing so and gave his recommendations on who we should write in. But of course now that the results are someone they don't agree with they are complaining. The level of hypocrisy on this blog never ceases to amaze me.
Bottom line, members vote and write in who they want. I always find it interesting how the people that come on here and talk about being for the will of members are always quick to condemn when the members choice doesn't agree with them.
No change can come if those who are impacted the most by discrimination are not willing to stand up for themselves.
Posting anonymously on a blog is not standing up for yourself. Standing up for yourself requires you to make yourself seen and heard. I do not want the changes promoted by Deb Blagg. I agree with her right to stand up and demand the change she desires. If she could just get more members to stand up with her then she may have a chance.
10:09. Thank you for being kind. Would you mind telling me why you don’t support online voting, requiring the Board to notify you in advance of special meetings and being able to vote on covenant changes? These are the only changes I have advocated. I just think it’s fair for members to have more influence over the rules we live by.
I’ve been accused of wanting RVs on lots year-round and wanting to eliminate the tree Covenants - neither of which are true. What I want is for the members who would like changes to be able to put them before a vote by the Membership.
Personally I don’t want to keep our RV on our lot year-round for storage, but I do think I should be able to come to my lot with my RV at any time of year, without having a special permit. I’m OK with putting a sticker on the bumper that identifies me as a member of Surfside, but I disagree with having to get a special permit to use my property. I also think there needs to be some willingness to compromise on the tree Covenants. I don’t have a specific recommendation, except to reevaluate what we now have and let members vote on any decision to change.
Fact check...
Jim Flood was not present at the meeting in person. He was present by phone. He did not have any proxy ballots.
Every Board member should be present at the Annual meeting. The only excuse for missing it should be illness.
In my opinion, the attorney was wrong in his statement against motions being presented without advance notice to all members. If a Board member can be removed without advance notice, any other matter should be allowed to be presented and voted.
The only requirement is that there be a quorum of 10% of the members present or by or with proxy. During the meeting and just before, members present have new information to review and discuss. There was a table full of sheets, including the financials. These were not released before the meeting. It is proper for the members to make any kind of motions they want. It is a member meeting and not a Board meeting.
The RCW's state that a Board member may be removed. You do not even have to state a reason. It is all about the will of the people.
The question has been asked many times on this blog but never answered so once again, if what Mr. Williams and other board members are doing is such a flagrant violation of the RCW's , as has been claimed by numerous non-legally educated persons, then why has no one contacted the AG's office to open an investigation and prosecute the offenders, either criminally or in civil court. One could surmise that those who claim violations on this blog as tho they are very knowledgeable concerning legal matters either have been told by someone who does know the law that there is no conduct that violates the law or they don't know and don't want their name associated to a legal action.
George, as the one in charge of this blog and therefore responsible for perpetuating the claim of illegal action by the board I would think you would be out front leading the charge. Anyone can make claims on this blog without any proof. Making them in an official investigation requires a name on a public record, a investigatory report, that is available to anyone thru the public record disclosure laws. Allegations without evidence to back them up fall on deaf ears. Cite your legal precedence and sections of the RCW's with case law that upholds your position. Go to Shepherds and make sure your cites have not been vacated or overturned then you will have legs under your argument..
The board has no influence with judges when it comes to a court upholding the law.
Just because you repeat it often does not make it true. You are the spinner!
The AG and other State and County officials have been contacted time and again. The answers have always been the same. There are two things you can do.
Remove them from the Board and/or sue in a court.
The RCW's concerning HOA's lack rules and regulations for enforcement. A member has been in contact with legislators who favor a strengthening of the RCW's. Don't expect much to happen there in an election year.
Essentially, what they are saying now is...It's your mess, you can fix it. Get rid of them (Board members) or take them to court.
Legal fees and a court case can be expensive.
We have seen that our association will spend your money to defend and sue.
Small claims court is more affordable for the average member. The results for the members has been wins.
It has been stated, and I agree, that if this tree height issue ever went to court, that policy would end. It would be interesting to see a court decision in small claims court on a member being forced to top their trees, resulted in the loss of that tree. Surfside may find themselves paying damages as well as court costs. This is a legal matter best handled by an attorney and settled in court.
I am hearing that a member is preparing to go to court over the tree issue. We will see what happens.
Watch out you old dinosaur, change is coming!
Thank you for the information George. Unfortunately I see a long line of litigation coming. You supporters may want to rethink that, as you will be paying for the bad decisions of a power hungry BOT.
10:59 .... You are literate - read the covenants front to back, and read the State RCWs. These docs clearly outline proper procedures for conducting HOA business, and make it obvious that the Surfside president has no real independent authority, and that ONLY actions presented for review by the entire Board, and so approved, are valid.
One of a few roles the president is allowed, is to appoint members to committees, and his recommendations must also be approved by the BOT. The State RCWs address the making of action decisions outside of open meetings, requiring that ALL Trustees be consulted, and IF they all agree to it, a formal vote must be taken by the entire Board, subject to the urgency of the decision. Such actions require an account (minutes) given at the next open meeting. (This has not been happening either.)
This is obviously a critical issue, bearing on the required transparency of all such organizations. A few rogue individuals can self-proclaim their authority is beyond needing to be honest and transparent, and geez, whataya know - that's exactly what is happening on the Surfside Board !!
Everyone in the community should be well aware by now, that this is what's going on. Mr. Williams has been making his own decisions without the full Board's knowledge, including prompting the spending of large sums of member funds to pursue stupid risky legal actions, in part targeting an adversary on the BOT.
There is a great deal of trust put into the decisions made by the HOA, and members should be able to trust the seated Trustees to follow proper protocol in the Boardroom, and expect these individuals to work cooperatively in an honest effort to abide by the covenants and State RCWs.
The RCWs make references to "the Executive Committee" at times, referencing all members of the HOA Board of Trustees. Our covenants do not give the appointed president, v.p., sec., or treasurer, ANY unique authority over the other Trustees. All 9 individuals have equal authority in decision-making in this and most HOAs, and other State Boards.
In some such organizations, the president cannot make motions, and votes only to break tie votes. It is not intended that such organizations should have any single individual who has independent authority. The Boards of HOAs being volunteers, it is not expected that these individuals have specific backgrounds and knowledge to act independently, and without oversight.
Jeez George, I called the office and asked what happened. I was told there was an email from the DECC stating she had sent the numbers incorrectly. Why wouldn't you just call and get the correct information instead of accusing people first. There is no one that hasn't made mistakes,but at least place it where it belongs. These blind accusations are really beneath you and do not lend to your credibility
There are places mistakes should not be made. Election results rate highly on that list..
12:45. The problem with your covenants and the RCW's is that there is no remedy stated for violations by the board. That's what you need to get into your covenants. Without a stated remedy you have a crocodile with no teeth.
Call the office? No, call gary williams. Just another lie. BS
Has anyone taken notice that the blog host and Blagg are two people who resigned from the board because they couldn't take the heat of criticism? These two are peas in a pod who flake off on the responsibility that they agreed to do and then work like hell to undermine the association.
2;35PM, your opinion is just that without any proof backing up your statement.
My opinion, they gave up do to the corruption and out of control board that has been going on far to long. Recent example, they miss handling of hazardous water pipe that will come back to bite the HOA and you and I will pay for it.
2:35 Nice try. My term was ending on Sat. I resigned on Fri so that I could make motions as a member, not as a Trustee, because I was concerned they might try to say Trustees can’t make floor motions. Taking the heat? There was no heat, but it was frigid as my fellow Trustees repeatedly shut me down, rolled their eyes and excluded me from participating in key decisions. I was never treated as an equal member of the Board. I’ve been dogged on this blog over my “agenda” to change Surfside, when all I’ve ever advocated is letting members decide if and what to change based on the majority of members.
Blagg and her buddies have whined incessantly about how she was being picked on with blog comments attempting to bring the truth of her actions to the surface. Now, we know that she couldn't cope with eye rolling, being shut down when she was shooting off her mouth and she felt excluded. Boo hoo! She can cope with devious subterfuge to get her way though can't she.
2:35 - How many more decent people will you chase away with your anger and sarcasm? All that share different viewpoints?
She was being picked on, and you and people like you were the culprits. You really should be ashamed, but you have already proved you have no shame.
The truth will rise to the surface and sometimes that is very painful for people who have been deceitful. Blagg put herself in the line of fire and held herself out as holier than thou. I think it became a larger and larger issue because of the blog hosts deletions and Blaggs inability to moderate shooting off uninformed and unpopular opinions.
You are entitled to your opinion. I see it another way and BTW, are you including George, Patrick and Larry in the pipe issue or just blaming the Trustees you disagree with? Just want to clarify.
Which brings me to my comment.
George left out one key point. There is another way to solve their issues instead of involving the local officials. Find someone you like, get them to run for the board, get them elected then get them to stay there. But no, instead of doing that they resorted to crying to local officials. How did you think they would respond, send in the troops?
The same stuff has been going on for years here. For some time the big complaint was that the board was full of G st and J place people. Of course the elephant in the room that was ignored was the fact that they were the only candidates who stepped up to volunteer. Then and now the same happens, they are met with criticisms on day one, just because of their address.
Last year there were more candidates than usual but even after an unprecedented campaign by Patrick he only was able to get enough votes to get one elected to a year. Even so, when you look at the results last year it was one of the most diverse in my memory. You had a couple from the East side, some from J&G, some from the valley, and 2 RV'ers along with a couple former ones. Again, before the first meeting after the election the attacks started.
Now this year. This time none wanted to volunteer. So you get what happened last week. Along with that Ms. Blagg is now saying on another topic people should move to Seattle along with making insults at the new board. Nice way to treat the Mafia.
I have a feeling that next years meeting will be a long one with a bunch of motions. I'm sure the plans are in the works already. In response the status quo people may want to revisit the RV extension that was passed awhile back along with a few others.
Some of us had hopes that extending the RV provisions a few years ago would shut up the whining from the RVers and that it would result in better cooperation with getting the RVs off of lots within the restricted times. It seems to be a matter of "give them an inch and they want to take a mile". We will not longer consider further privileges being granted to members who continue to press for more and more. We paid for our place with the understanding that we would not have to worry about decaying and vacant RVs being parked in our neighborhood year around or wind storms causing RVs and the crap around them to become dangerous projectiles.
Yeah, we've heard the wind storm/ RV fright story before.
Some of you have persecuted RV owners for years. "not consider future privileges"? What about their RIGHTS? Or is this more of the 'nothing will change' act? At some point you will have to realize the only constant in our lives is change. Either that, or go out with the dinosaurs.
Find someone else to hate on.
The RV rights are exactly what is published in the covenants and the RV members know that when they decide to buy their property. You don't get a free pass to change the rules. Can't you see that changing the rules for your wishes very likely is stepping on the rights of your neighbors who made their buying decision based on those covenants? At some point you will have to realize that you do not have a heaven sent right to have it your way.
If I didn’t know better I think I see a few board member comments. Oops, your slip is showing,lol
There has been no persecution of RV members that I have ever seen in 12 years in Surfside. This myth is pure crap! The stupid complaint method to enforce covenants may have created inequities between stick built and RV lots. That is not a matter of persecution. It is a matter of a truly nasty, divisive and hateful policy persistently pursued by the board. You want an issue of fairness to fight about. Think about getting behind fair and consistent covenant enforcement.
I would prefer to think about getting behind fairness, but apparently that option isn't offered here.
But 'a truly nasty divisive and hateful policy persistently pursued by the board', in my eyes, is persecution.
The point, 7:57, is that the perceived persecution resulting from the complaint method of covenant enforcement applies to RV members and all others. RV members are not singled out for this ridiculous form of covenant enforcement.
Agreed. Looking back, it doesn't seem like we had these issues when we had a General Manager.
That’s because a general manager is a paid employee, not a bitter bored retiree with an ax to grind.
Perhaps a better model to follow? A GM would certainly be less expensive than repeated litigations.
3:21: A better solution would be to hire Association Management company to run everything. This works very well in another COA community where we have property. All COA business is done through the website, the members are much happier and participation in COA meetings and events is very high and is actually fun. I’m afraid anyone hired as a GM in Surfside would be too much of a target of the BOT, but might fare better if employed by an independent management company.
Very true.
Another excellent idea! Thanks, Deb!
Do malcontents ever take a day off? If you want change convince enough people to make the change happen. If you can’t convince enough people to support your change then accept it with dignity. You do not help your cause by constantly criticizing those who do not support your position. Stop making it personal and keep to the issues. Use that tactic and in time, you may just succeed.
It depends on how you define malcontents.
Have the issues of a bungled election, bad communication, and personal vendettas has been resolved? No? Stay tuned.
I think 8:17 protests a bit much n often. Sign of fear n no life.
Did 8:17's comment hit too close to home there 11:18? Happy for you though that coming on here to respond gives your life meaning.
Malcontent according to Webster:
A person who is in active opposition to an established order or government.
8:10. Better than the opposite: self-serving.
“Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance”. ~ Robert Kennedy
No one forced you to buy into an association, these rules were here before you. Everyone before you agreed to them. If you don't want to follow them why did you buy here? Plenty of property available all along the peninsula with theses rules.
Blagg has grandiose and self righteous ideas about her self-serving, truth spinning self. Best to ignore her crap until she fades away. She is an attention seeker who will surely wither without her needed dose of adulation from her band of RVers. The improve the lot of others in the quote caused a gag at this household when applied to what we know about Blagg.
Very brave “again” anonymous, I’m anonymous because of people like you. No wonder office staff is afraid.
Speaking of the “brave anonymous” I again ask about the vote for Mr. Olds. He obviously ran an undercover campaign for write in votes toget 60. I doubt that many people in Surfside know him, only his wife. And oh by the way, the Chair of the nominating Committee is their good friend Ms deLees. Why not make it an open nomination? Afraid he would lose? Might still get the next highest amount of votes, so Williams would have put him in anyway when Patrick leaves. Just more dirty tricks from theTree Committee folks. If he didn’t have enough confidence to run in the open and let his wife and her friends do some underhanded campaigning for him, maybe he would not be a very good Board member, no backbone. Or maybe the head of the Nominating Committee did want to vet him for some reason, or this would guarantee the three hand picked folks would win if only three were nominated.
You have grandiose ideas about your self-serving truth-spinning self. At least she's up front, unlike some trolls I see.
Your attacks on her speak more more about you than they do about her.
Once again, who will be on the hate list?
The hate list and trolls exist only in the minds of the minority who will try anything to get the changes that they want to serve their own whims without any regard for the opinions of the majority and the good of the association. The bottom line is that the covenants that they object to were in place when these people decided to buy their property in Surfside. The hate that is referred to in so many of the comments on this blog is the hate of those with a bad case of buyer's remorse.
Confronted with the truth guarantees a spin, spin, spin explanation from Blagg because she does not really adhere to the covenants. It is all about aggressing to have her way with no regard for those who disagree with her opinions. We have heard from her and we don't really want to hear any more from her. Her lot looks like a hodge podge of crap. Perhaps we need to take up a collection so that a fence can be installed to cut off the ugliness of the views from her head and her lot.
Sorry there 4:22. After the stunt pulled from the Blagg group to try and remove Trustee's you can't talk about dirty tricks or undercover campaigns towards someone else. A reminder, George was on here asking people to do write ins and gave his choices. I'm willing to bet if one of those would had gotten the same amount or higher votes than Mr. Olds you would have been fine with it.
Btw, I see Mr. Olds is on the Tech Committee and shows up. Same with Fire Wise. I've also seen him volunteering his time at the gate for the chipper site for a couple years. One time I was there he helped a member out by using his truck to haul some stuff. Same with Ms. deLeest. Besides stepping up to be a Trustee she also serves on many committees and also works the gate at the chipper site. Her husband was one of the volunteers building the cache building. All examples of members serving the community.
Care to tell us what you have done for the HOA? Seems to be obvious that the only thing you can donate is criticisms. While you're at it maybe you can also explain how the candidates were hand picked and guaranteed when they were the only ones who volunteered. Again, they made a choice to serve the community and all you do is crap on them.
Annual Meetings are "member meetings" and as such are the appropriate venue to stage a recall vote. It has become common knowledge that Williams refuses to abide by the covenants and RCWs in conducting HOA business, and has been calling the attorney at will, spending HOA funds without Board approval. That is solid grounds for his recall, and he has been enabled by Winegar, DeLeest, Flood and Clancy behind the scenes.
ALL HOA business is to be transparent, all Board Meetings and decisions reviewed and approved by the ENTIRE Board, all such business a matter of public record, and all poor performance a matter of member responsibility to oversee.
Williams and his pals knew that there would be a recall attempt, so boohoo, nothing sneaky about it.
There is no " vetting " by the Nominating Committee or anyone else to run for the Board. As long as your dues are current you can be a Republican, Democrat, Communist or whatever. You can hold Satanic rituals around the old campfire and it doesn't matter. As long as the Board chooses to select the next highest vote getter to replace a departing Board member I found the strategy (if it was that)from Mr. Olds and his supporters rather clever. And many of you forget that if you fill out your proxy properly to not allow finishing off a partial one all the Board member or your neighbor is doing is signing the thing on your behalf. Nothing sinister about that.
Deb, According to Webster antonyms for malcontent are: blissful, delighted, glad, happy, joyful, joyous elated, exultant, jubilant, and triumphant. Self-serving is not listed as an antonym for malcontent in any reference I could find. BTW, quoting RFK's "Ripple of Hope" speech was precious. Of course, Bobby was speaking on the horrors of Apartheid not tree heights and RV's. A little melodramatic to apply those sentiments to Surfside don't you think? So, Bobby gave his speech in 1966 and the ripples of change took almost 30 years to end Apartheid. At that rate we can all rest assured that your ripple affect will not produce any change in Surfside anytime soon. Please do no give up the struggle, those oppressed masses and their children and grandchildren are counting on you to save them.
You know, If I hear one more time that "you knew the rules when you purchased here", I think I will throw up.
To try and use that as an excuse for not making positive changes, is nothing more than the same repeated BS. I wish the person who keeps saying it, would give it a rest.
Not all change is good and in this case I don't believe it is. Change for the sake of change isn't good either.
Maybe, when people say, "you've read the covenants when you purchased", are really saying, They like it the way it is!
One mans "positive change" is another mans "negative change". Just because someone or a group of someones think a change will be positive does not make it so. That is why change should be slow and methodical. The change must be proposed in a manner that clearly and plainly states what the change is and what the change intends to accomplish. The need for the change must be fully understood by all who will be affected. Then comes the debate in an open and transparent forum. It is incumbent on those who are proposing the change to convince all who will be affected that the change that is needed and will be beneficial. That is how a democracy works. You cannot circumvent the process just because you are impatient or arrogantly convinced you are right and everyone else is wrong. After all the debate is done then the vote by the affected people will be the final word on the matter. At the risk of being overly repetitive, it is incumbent on the group that is promoting change to convince the rest of the group that the change is needed and will be beneficial. You do this by repeated dignified efforts that include petitions with signatures, town hall meetings, personal conversations, and convincing arguments. Wanting to effect change is the American way provided it is done with dignity and persistence. The status quo is not an enemy. The status quo is the friends you must convert. If you cannot convert them then either your change is not needed and will not be beneficial or you lack dignity in your tactics.
Prepare to puke. You knew the rules when you bought here. Some changes proposed by the few step of the toes of the many. The many is right behind using technology to achieve transparent, timely and accurate information flow to the general membership. This change would require rewiring the thinking of the Board and most employees. They are accustomed to secretive, misleading and less than timely information flow. Proposed changes to enhance storage sheds are unwanted and a slippery slope to misuse of the sheds which are amazingly supposed to be for STORAGE. Those of the many who live in areas where RV's are restricted from sitting, mostly vacant, year around are opposed to any further reductions in the limitations. We were sold a bill of crap a few years ago to extend the time for RVs with the hope/promise that the whining and covenant violations would diminish or stop. Yeah right. I've yet to see a reasonable proposal for changes to the tree covenants. Mostly it is the whining of the few who do not want to fulfill the responsibility that they agreed to when they bought their property. Show us an overall proposal to make the tree covenants a matter of fair and safe. We'll consider that. "Positive change" is not a matter of fulfilling the wishes of a few people who are experiencing buyer's remorse or the willful desire to tromp over other people's rights. Answer this question. Why do some people persist in buying property in an HOA that has long standing covenants that they don't like? These people are free to find property that better suits their personal preferences. They are not free in an HOA with covenants to do whatever in the hell they want to do.
Thank you board member. Since you said “we’ll consider that” . Least use your name so we know which new member you are. None so far have presented writing skills before. Almost miss the regular board member writing, least they get to the point faster.
I gotta correct my last comment. Deb does know how to write. Ok, now you can excoriate me.lol
Not a board member. Not that into negative life experiences. "We'll consider that" meant all members will consider. This guessing at who is making anonymous comments is a silly waste of time. I've been accused of being Kirby a lot of times on this blog. It gives me a chuckle each time it happens.
Your ugliness shine in its example of troll behavior. You obviously have nothing good to say, so maybe its time for silence... yours!
Maybe they're saying, that since the deck is stacked so tightly, they have no way to effect change. Following that up, based on that philosophy, who would want to volunteer for this mess? Only the ones who want to maintain control.
This organization will not see daylight again until the current board of trustees is gone, and their attitudes with them. It that includes you, feel free to go.
Neither are you, but that's not the way it's working right now.
Then maybe you should look more closely at what you post.
Deb and company are not powerless. If they want to see changes they need to work for the change. The board is not their enemy it is the governing body of Surfside. If the board seems to be resisting Deb’s efforts then she should keep at it using better tactics. What proposal has the Technology Committee given the board to consider? Has Deb tried circulating a petition to demonstrate to the board her support for her proposals? The board is in control. They do not have to maintain control, they already have control and rightly so. You have to work within the system with patience and with tenacity.
Good point on the Tech Committee. I have yet to read any useful information from the minutes. To my knowledge they even haven't posted the response from that flawed survey they had.
Welcome to the club 6:25. I have been accused of being Kirby on many occasions myself. I assume it is only coming from one or at most a couple people that need to resort to that when they are confronted with a fact they can't handle.
I've been hearing the same stuff about the boards for years. The only reason that the board is "stacked" as people accuse it of being is because of the people who run for it are not part of this vocal minority. Like it or not the true majority are the ones who like it here, bought here because of way things are and care enough to run for the board and work for the community. Until that changes you'll just have to continue to come on here with your complaints and call us all Kirby.
The 'reason the board is stacked' is because of a highly questionable General Election.
It's easy to be a voice of moderation when the deck is stacked your way.
You're welcomed to your opinion but that's all it is, an opinion. Repeating your claim doesn't make it a fact.
The board is what it is because of of the people who step up to be candidates get the position either because they are the only ones to do so like this last election or when there are more like the prior year they get the most votes. Unfortunately for you people that you may not agree with run for the board and vote. Crying and making up stuff doesn't change that. But if coming on here to complain about that fact makes you feel good than by all means, enjoy yourself.
The way this Board has operated over the last year relieves anyone of the need to make things up.
Post a Comment