Error below....will there be a correction?
Below is a part of the Annual Meeting Summary that was posted in the current Weekender of July 20, 2018 issue.
"Nominations/Motions from the Floor: There were several motions from the floor that were deemed invalid. Voting results were not available until 3:20 p.m. MSP to table the vote to remove Gary Williams, Jim Flood, and Scott Winegar from the Board. Motions to remove Gary Williams, Jim Flood and Scott Winegar from the Board were deemed invalid as the tabling of the matter superseded them."
By their own released figures...
Motion to table...
87 for
129 against
Here is the real news, not the Fake Weekender news..
129 members out of the 300 or less voting, favored a vote on removing Williams, Flood and Winegar.
74 voted to remove Winegar
72 voted to remove Williams
70 voted to remove Flood
Flood can spin this to say...I am the most popular because there were more votes to remove the other two than me. Williams can say...They wanted to remove the Secretary more than me. About the only thing Winegar can say...I was just doing what I was told by the other two.
More members actual present votes combined with the proxy votes on other matters was more for not removing than those for.
Is this false information an attempt to cover up the real truth that a substantial number of members are not happy with some members on the board. Are they trying to rewrite history?
Is this information just an error or published by design? What does this say about the credibility of the information in the Weekender? Do we wait a year until the next Annual Meeting for a member to approve these minutes?
What should be deemed "invalid" is the voting by proxy and the whole Annual Meeting. In less than a week, the cover up of this disgraceful event has already started.
Even more disgraceful is the fact that Gary Williams was re-elected as President.
I can't figure that one out.
28 comments:
Let me fix this for you.
A substantial number or members who were present at the meeting due to knowing that there WAS going to be a motion to removal. Big difference when you consider the fact that there were are greater amount of members who voted in said members.
Sorry, but you lost me on your comment. The information published in the Weekender was wrong. Are you fixing that for me?
What is this "deemed invalid" business ? This is a public meeting of the membership, and as such, the members have a oerfect right to make motions, and second them to take a vote.
Since this is NOT subject to the Board's approval, an attorney present could urge the members to reconsider due to a legal factor, but it is not up to the BOT to decide if a measure is "valid", and certainly not their decision to make, as to allowing a recall of Trustees.
The point has been made here numerous times, that given the president's attitude that he alone can make policy decisions, it would have made no sense to ask the Board to put a recall on the ballot.
People who have not paid attention to the inappropriate actions of some Board members in the last year, don't grasp that these measures could only be presented on the spot. The rumor was, that Williams suspected his ouster would be attempted, and intended to block it. This "fake news" is obviously from the Williams camp.
These folks survived the vote by the skin of their teeth. The Board as a whole needs to take this to heart, as the next time this comes up, they aren't likely to be so lucky. If the Board does not follow proper procedures, conducting business ONLY as outlined in our covenants and the RCWs, a more serious recall effort is sure to be mounted.
Olds votes are the way the status quo board planned on keeping a seat in their favor. Sounds mafia to me. I.e conspiracy.
I seriously doubt that the Mafia takes a vote on anything. Find all these sinister labels amusing and frightening.
5:54 as you should take them as frightening. The membership has been totally excluded from all decision.
Can we stick with the fact that the general membership mostly does not have a clue about what is going on in Surfside? A few self serving RV using members took it upon themselves to attempt to force the opinions of a minority onto the majority. They lost. Spinning the facts and devious plotting didn't win. Yes, the board should pay attention and work to build transparency and integrity into the future of Surfside to better serve all members. The trouble making minority should go back to their homes away from Surfside and think about how they made a personal mistake in purchasing property in an association that doesn't really fit their ideas about how things should be.
8:41 “A few self-serving RV members took it upon themselves to attempt to force the opinions of a minority onto the majority”.
I guess you consider it self-serving for:
— all Members to be notified in advance of the date, time, location and purpose of all “special” meetings of the BOT.
— all Members to have the option of voting online or by a mail-in ballot (an actual voting ballot - not a proxy)
— all Members to have the right to vote on all changes to the governing documents & Covenants. Also for all members to have the right to propose changes to the same, either by asking the Board to add to the ballot, or by presenting a petition signed by 50 members.
I’m truly interested in hearing WHY you consider these proposed changes to be self-serving? These changes would benefit all members and were supported by many homeowners, also. They have nothing to do with RVs whatsoever.
The only motion that would have directly benefited two members who happen to own RVs, was the motion by a J Place homeowner to drop the malicious, wasteful lawsuits against Johansen and the Ottersons. Had the lawyer not predictably stood by the Board that feeds him, this would have benefited all members by stopping the waste of legal fees.
If you really want to consider the only truly “self-serving” issue in which a minority is shoving its agenda on the majority, look at the change being made to the Covenants. The Board has tightened its control over how property owners can use their property by tightly restricting the length of roofs on sheds. They were supposed to conduct a hearing - let folks speak on the pros and cons of such a change, answer questions and then proceed accordingly, based on the best interests of the Membership. Instead, Gary Williams response to those who objected to the change was to say that if we really don’t like it, they will consider changing it. WTF?! There wasn’t a single rational, reasonable reason provided for making this change which is being shoved down the throats of the members by the same small group of malicious Trustees who have wasted a year of the Board’s energy - and the membership’s money - harassing and suing members because they don’t like their sheds. If those members were already violating the Covenants, then why must they be changed? Because they know they are going to lose the court case and this is the only way they can impose their selfish will on the members. I can’t really call them self-serving, because I don’t see how anybody’s interests are being served by this petty restriction on sheds.
By the way, the minority in Surfside are the full-time homeowners, who the part-timers and RVers subsidize. If you really want a high-end, private gated community, how about moving to Seattle and buying a house up there? Surfside has been a mixed-use, beachside vacation community for over 50 years - ever since the original developers found out the hard way that people don’t want to buy into a high-end suburbia - all they want is a relaxed, laid-back place where they can enjoy the beach, camp, sit around the campfire with family & friends, go fishing & clamming and not be bothered by a bunch of nosy, holier-than-now control freaks.
Notice since stepping down Ms. Blagg has really let the hate flow on here now. Knew it was always there. I do wonder if she turns as red while typing the hate as she does speaking.
Again, if you feel that the majority of the entire membership would have agreed with your motions then why not make them public to the entire membership a week or two beforehand? Instead you resigned the day before so as to do your little drama filled performance at the annual meeting with you gang.
Instead of blah, blah, blah it should be Blagg, Blagg, Blagg. We've got your number cupcake. You are not creditable, you are devious and you are hell bent to force the ideas of a minority on a majority. Every time I read your posts, I am thrilled that I don't have property anywhere near you.
8:38. That makes two of us.
The blog host has chosen to support fringe issues that do not reflect the concerns of the majority of the members. The Blagg forum is tiresome and off the mark for this association. Some revisions in the tree covenant to ease the height restrictions in the shortest tree area to match the restrictions on G Street makes good sense. Enforcing the simplicity of basic storage sheds with square foot (foot print) restrictions is sensible and fair. A drive around Surfside quickly reveals that areas that allow year around Rvs on lots means trouble for the Rv owners and their neighbors because Rvs were not designed to withstand the weather conditions on the coast or to be left sitting vacant most of the time.
Do you have a macro that just repeats this garbage endlessly. Obviously, Surfside is not too small for trolls!
WTF I keep seeing these comments that allege that someone is repeating the same stuff over and over. I have not read any comments that are a repeat of another comment. I'd say the troll is the idiot who keeps alleging repeats that have not happened.
Learn to read the thread, and include your own posts.
8:33 & 8:38 & 8:51.... Back at the Blagg bashing eh ? 8:33 definitely sounding like Kirby, all have this sexist twist that if they keep at her she'll cry.
Interesting how many Blagg-bashers think that the motions Deb made are RV related, when they simply would give owners more rights. The motions had nothing to do with the Tree Policy either, though some have made that assumption. Crazy that people become hysterical over their own shadows, imaginations running wild. Pitiful.
That's what happens when you base your opinions on rumors and heresay.
The opinions about Blagg are based on her own words on this blog and the words that have come out of her mouth in speaking with Surfside members. Think again 9:58. Blagg has been quite open about how she thinks things should be in Surfside. When confronted by errors in her thinking, she has waffled in efforts to build a coalition to accomplish what she personally wants for Surfside.
She has openly expressed opinions on a number of subjects in Surfside, none of which are extreme or new. I hear the hysteria in your voice from here. She hasn't tried to meddle in anyone's affairs, as have numerous other Trustees, making private agreements on the sly. She and her husband keep a well maintained property.
She has tried to focus on bringing more communication to a broader audience in Surfside, and electronic voting to make it easy for more participation in voting/elections. She, like anyone, supports fairness in HOA standards, and as an RV owner, cares about RV issues. She hasn't made any RV related proposals, and supports the current limits on RV year-around use.
You have a lot of empty complaints and a million bogus accusations, which makes your motivation a quandary Other than your hating a woman being on the Board with a head on her shoulders, you've got nothing to show to justify this relentless harassment and bitching about Deb Blagg. You are weak beyond description.
Thanks for the anonymous comment Deb
That should have been -
Deb, thanks for the anonymous comment.
I'm not Deb paranoid fool.
There are a lot of people out here that aren't Deb, but still see through you.
Keep posting though, as good laughs are hard to come by these days.
Unfortunately the office folks don't have the option to delete their mistakes like George does here. Imagine if they could publish his misinformation. It would make for a fun read.
4:02 ....You just continue living in your own little imaginary world. Unlike you, Blagg openly states her opinions, so doesn't need your subterfuge and gilly suit. She is a good person with a lot of supporters. Being honest makes her popular. I know, you've got a bottomless bag of b.s. and a bogus claim for every comment.
Did somebody tell you that banging on the blog post was a community activity? You are the only one doing it, and your prejudice stands out like a road flare.
8:17 am You made my day! LMAO
Nope, never was a correction. How many members do not know what really happened? Maybe it will be corrected at the Aug. Board meeting. I doubt it.
I'm sorry George, but your desire for correction will not be met. Why? Because it is the reasonable and fair thing to do, and this board is not shown any inclination to do either in their tenure. More redirects and obfuscation to come!
Post a Comment