Talk about adding "insult to injury"..
Everything below is what I received in an Email today, 8/23/2018
You may love or hate this blog, but it is the only place where you can get real information in real time.
David Tollefson, committee chairman, after finding out through the grapevine that the Tech Committee was abruptly deactivated at the last Board meeting, submitted a final committee report and asked that it be published in the Weekender. Laura Frazier, Surfside Business Manager, refused to publish it without explanation.
Today, 8/23/2018, she finally told David:
It is not fact based.
It does not promote harmony.
Also, the committee does not answer to the membership.
The committee is to answer to the Board of Trustees.
Here was the article he asked her to publish.....
Click on the article for a larger read.
46 comments:
WOW! Looks like Office Manager is prompting harmony? What a farce!
The blatant disregard for the membership's best interest is appalling, as usual!
I am not a member (we bought outside of Surfside because of the corrupt board members).
If I was a member, I would be 1st in line to sue them for the improper, unjust,illegal actions that have taken place, and I would put in my fair share of funds to make it happen!
Ugh. I feel sorry for the good people who are victimized by a small group of nasty, self serving low life's. Just WOW!!
This further illustrates the arrogant attitude of the established clique that has been running the Association for a decade or more. The governance of Surfside is THEIR realm, and everyone else needs to get that in their fat heads, in their view.
Many of us have been saying from the first mention of the TECH Committee in an open meeting - that the "ruling class" who insist on strict enforcement of the Tree Policy for the sole benefit of J place owners, and hardline restrictions on RVers, would not allow the Tech Committee to develop better communications in Surfside, because it threatens their stranglehold on the community.
Williams, deLeest, Clancy, Flood, Winegar, Smith, and strangely, Larry Raymer, have all conspired to prevent this from running on its' own, to see if broader communications can draw in more diverse participation from uninvolved owners. Our community has become large enough, that there is a great deal at stake. We have an annual budget of 1.2 million dollars, and that creates a lot of opportunities for abuse.
The rogue actions surrounding the Johansen matter has spotlighted the potential for abuse of power, with the unlimited spending that has been going on in trying to squash Johansen like a bug through legal action, now being pursued in Superior Court. None of these expenditures have been discussed in open meetings or properly approved by the entire seated Board.
All of the Board opposed the initial charter for unstated reasons, with Williams and deLeest taking the lead, but insisted that they were not at all opposed to a Tech Comm.. The outcome here is quite predictable. All of these folks are afraid of a community with broad communication of facts, easier online voting, and timely reports of BOT attempts to carry on business in secret.
We hear that there is no conspiracy to prevent openness and transparency - meanwhile, the BOT has re-elected Williams, supported his actions and runaway legal spending, all decided in private among only a few Trustees. In their first meeting of the year, they have pretended to have the authority to change the shed roof covenant without member review, and randomly make it retroactive - totally preposterous ! They suggested charging owners $450 /sale of Surfside property, and decided to put $11,000 overcharged to the members on water meters, into the general fund.
The money needs to be reimbursed to all of the Surfside owners who purchased water meters as a discount on their assessments, and not spent at the BOT's discretion.
But we are seeing the authority we have entrusted to them thrown in our faces, and an elitist attitude tells us "what are ya gunna do about it ?" That's a good question, because we can't trust ANY of these people, the head of the Business Office/Compliance Officer in-league with them. Owners are going to have to start challenging this b.s. for anything to change.
Not that it matters to you and your rant but just a couple facts. Winegar and deLeest voted AGAINST the termination. Plus deLeest actually helped Blagg with the writing of the charter so saying she took a lead in the opposing of the Tech Com isn't correct. Finally, if you had attended the board meetings you would have heard and known that actually there were stated reasons given before the committee got its approval. But go ahead and continue with YOUR B.S.
And tell me, how would have online voting changed this last election
Numbers bubala, numbers.
Sorry bubala, your numbers response makes no sense. But since you felt the need to make the comment, tell us how the results would have been changed with different numbers. And given the survey totals just how many numbers more could be expected anyways.
If we had on-line voting etc. the results would have been much different. The initial survey was limited in scope and availability to a lot of members. Not everybody uses Facebook. If mailing was done, I never received one. But then I intermittently get ballots. Sad I had to explain a pretty obvious statement, but that says a lot also. Tech Committee is great for members, but not for the board. Do I need to explain that also?
there you go with a part of the problem - not everybody uses Facebook. Not everyone who is a surfside member is able to use a computer, tablet or smart phone. while the better use of tech would certainly assist with better information dissemination and possibly improve the number of members voting, it does not fix a board that has dug in and gotten away with hiding the facts and the mistakes. employees should be skilled and pushing the association towards better use of tech. a committee who doesn't have the skill to put together a valid survey much less actually do the work to implement tech advances serves no real purpose.
Sounds like a good beginning for a class action lawsuit. Any takers?
The tech committees ultimate goal was to research and present a plan of action, that would ultimately be implemented by the office staff. Without that pressure, nothing will be done. Mission accomplished for now.
6:18.... I attended the meeting where Blagg presented the first draft of the charter, which was rejected by Williams and the Board. I attended the following meeting when Blagg presented the rewritten charter, which Williams and deLeest in particular were not satisfied with. Williams asked that Blagg, who has experience writing such documents, meet with him and deLeest about it.
As soon as the charter was approved, the BOT voted to make it only a temporary committee. Delays were enough to assure that the committee would not be able to put online voting in place before the election, but the committee was breaking new ground, so had next election to work toward.
William's insistence on dissolution of the committee was obviously an act of revenge, as he was angry at Blagg. What was also obvious, was that Blagg is no longer a Trustee, and had only an advisory role on the Tech Comm.. That Winegar and deLeest recognized this dissolution as premature and inappropriate IS commendable.
We see William's lack of sincerity and support of a fellow Trustee, and his lack of professionalism in addressing his personal issues above Surfside interests. That the Tech Comm. chairman and members were not notified by the BOT or Office staff is inexcusable. All who voted for the dissolution have done the community a disservice.
Blagg was the wrong person to present anything to the board or anywhere. She has a tendency to be an overbearing, know it all who spouts uninformed opinions and spins like top whenever confronted with her own lies. Her hidden agenda (that was really in plain sight) to fulfill her self serving wishes for RVers and tree huggers in Surfside also detracted from her self righteous concept as a do good individual.
Typical of most old men, embracing new ways of doing things seems to be an insult to their declining testosterone. These stereotypical board members have not served Surfside well. Surfside could so well benefit from the injection of some younger people with goals to actually serve the best interests of the association and its members.
Surfside members have paid for all the software, hardware and equipment upgrades and upgrade mistakes while failing to recruit the people who have the brains to make it all work. The smarter members will not volunteer to work with the mostly arrogant dunderheads who are currently attracted to serving on committees and the board. How do we fix this?
Many people in my age group don't own a computer or a smartphone. I can see why this online anything can be intimidating. I understand this committee's dismantle.
The old fashioned paper system has worked for decades so I'm not sure why All the fuss.
Sounds like a bunch of spoiled brats not getting their way.
Guess you arent one of the members that dont recieve ballots, etc. Im one of the naughty members that has spoken out on the poorly managed SHOA office and board. Online voting would have prevented anyone from punishing outspoken members like me. If you see where changes could be an improvement in Surfside, you are labeled a spoiled brat! Hmmm!
All of the back and forth aside, it seems the BOT would have the HOA stuck in the age of pencil and paper and not moving into a system that would result in all members being able to vote, pay dues on line, etc reducing HOA administrative cost and streamlining our ability to improve age old policy. Sad.
Russ you are being ridiculous. Surfside has a website and other multimedia outlets. It is hardly a pencil and pape operation. The billing and accounting software operates on computers. The tech committee was not taking their charter seriously. They agreed to deadlines they did not meet and when they got behind they canceled meetings without notice.
12:27:
Did you also attend the initial meeting when Blagg showed without her draft because she had, of all things, technical difficulties printing it out? Do you remember at one of the meetings Williams was trying to read a statement from the chair of the CRC concerning the Tech Committee proposal and Blagg kept interrupting him and not letting him finish?
Not all delays were solely on the BOT.
You insinuate that this was planned so as to not have online voting for this pass election which has no basis in fact. Do you really think that a couple extra months would have been enough to get online voting up and running? Please. They couldn't even get the flawed survey online properly in a timely fashion.
Which brings me back to my question that you avoided. Even IF by some miracle online voting did happen, given that there were only three candidates how would the election results be different?
Same to you 9:18.
“Surfside has a website and other multimedia outlets” “The old fashioned paper system has worked for decades so I'm not sure why All the fuss” “Many people in my age group don't own a computer or a smartphone” “Blagg was the wrong person to present anything to the board or anywhere” WTF!
Are you listening to this stuff? Where is the part about keeping the woman folk pregnant and at home or running “those people” out of surfside! I feel like I stepped into the Twilight Zone and am paying $600 to be assaulted by it! Unbelievable!
5:23
Billing is still postal, labor and mailing cost, why not offer on line voting ? Just thinking why not be current with technology that is available and improving performance. Seems some members have not received ballots on time, also billing statements have been late in my case and maybe for others.
On line voting has legal implications that must be taken into consideration. First Articles nine, ten, and eleven of Surfside's Articles of Incorporation will need to be amended as well as the the By-Laws. After that there is the logistical problems that will need to addressed. Changing to include on line voting will require professional assistance. Is it really worth the expense, and there will be expense, to provide a supposed convenient voting method to members who do not have an interest in voting in the first place? If you really want their vote, why not visit them in their home and coerce it out of them.
8:02
You are assuming many members who do not live here full time are not interested in voting, or do have statistics to back up your claim.
Think outside the box.
Opposition to the Tree Policy has nothing to do with "hugging trees". It was a policy created to sell ridgetop properties at a premium when the community was largely RV users. It is a policy that has destroyed trees throughout the community, where they created shade and enhanced the appearance of properties now laid waste by this policy.
The area with the most severe restrictions - about 14 to 16 feet is a mess. Properties on the ridge do not sell at premium prices, and many more properties have suffered great loss of resale value as a result of this elitist policy. It serves only a couple of hundred lots, while victimizing several hundred lots to the west of the ridge, and adversely affecting the entire community.
Some have this paranoid vision that there are radical groups meeting and plotting - "the RV coalition" (there is a facebook page, and no coalition), the "Tree huggers" (there is no coalition, just opposition to a stupid policy that is obsessed over by the HOA), "Patrick and his cronies" (many owners dislike the treatment he has received by the HOA, again, no coalition). He has moved out of the community.
Stupid policies generate disdain and opposition. It's just that simple. By trying to demonize public opinion, the HOA does us all a disservice. Policies need to be retooled from time to time.
Without vocal opposition, policy changes never take place. When there is a lot of opposition, the policies need to be reviewed to see what can be improved upon. It's part of the process of governing - showing a conscience, and listening to the constituents.
The HOA has no idea what most of the community thinks about Surfside policies, and has alienated a lot of owners with its' policies. That's a clear message that we need broader communications, and may benefit from trying to make a fresh start through new internet sites and electronic voting. Few skills are needed to learn the basics of computer use, and workshops can be offered if needed.
Blagg simply started the Tech Committee, and as a Trustee, had only an advisory role. That ended when new Trustees were elected. Deb was not a Board member when the committee was dissolved, so had nothing directly to do with the rash actions of Williams and those who supported the dissolution. This was very premature and unnecessary. The first survey was just an exercise and test run. They didn't intend to deal with any controversy.
10:29 please run for the next election. You make all of this mess come into prospective. We had a conversation with a realtor not too long ago. One thing is for sure;we have suffered GREAT resale loss. Thx to the elitists!
First of all, allowing members to vote electronically is NOT a big deal. It's very easy to setup a secure site to handle this and it does NOT require any outside expertise. Unfortunately, our members with these needed skills are smart enough to know to not get involved with SHOA for any reason (in part thanks to this blog). Until the BOT and business manager are replaced with people who truly want to better SHOA no changes are going to happen. Yes, no doubt a law suit that dissolves these idiots is going to be our only recourse.
Second, even if members do not own a computer or smartphone they can still vote by paper ballot or find an internet cafe or library with computer/internet access. But as I say, it will never be allowed with the current BOT and office personnel.
Once the financial numbers are published, showing how much money was squandered by the BOT/SHOA, lawyers will be hired. Members are sick and tired of how things are being run, blatant disregard for our own bylaws, possible crimes being committed, and who knows what else the office is hiding from members. The possible addition of charging members a "fee" when selling their Surfside property will guarantee a law suit. It's gonna be real interesting around here...
Without this blog you wouldn’t be aware of how screwed up SHOA is, and be able to make your comment. Hmmmm?
I guess we will never know with the results of a truly honest election would be, and it appears you are all right with status quo. That means you support a dishonest, morally bankrupt group of conspirators that has seized control of OUR organization.
Sorry, but the word is out. Speak to any Ocean Park resident, and mention SHOA. Cringeworthy.
This blog is a public service, and George should be commended for keeping us informed.
I have stated this repeatedly. Perfect choice of word: cringe! Should have listened to the warnings when we purchased 11 years ago. No one local ever said they would love to own property in SHOA. Now we are paying for our mistake! I take the blame for stupidity.
10:29 BRAVO!! You have it exactly right!
Right, as if Ocean Park is the epitome of excellence of the peninsula. People in Long Beach talk down about OP also. Talking with people over the years the only adverse things I have heard have been about not wanting to live in a HOA in general and not wanting to live this far north.
Bottom line, I could care less what anyone thinks. I love it here, that is why I chose to live here full time. Those that don't please leave, there are others who will be happy to replace you.
To 10:29 and the "premium price" comment. What exactly does that mean anyways? All I can go by is the selling of houses in my area on J. Except for one that is priced ridiculously high all have been sold at their asking price, some even before they were listed on make me move site. So to say they are not selling is not accurate and more wishful thinking that saying so will validate your disdain. And again, only going by my neighborhood, there have been a bunch of new houses built and sold in the valley
And to your RV coalition comment, what would you call that group that showed up at the annual meeting attempting the coup?
But you're entitled to your opinion, even when you feel the need to use terms like "elitists" and others from the Fox news playbook.
11:25 - I'm with you. I love it in SS, been hear for nearly 16 yrs part time,I plan to live full time here soon. I'm on G St. I like the proximity to the beach. Don't care about the trees, I've cut mine down long ago, I like the sun and being able to see the ridge.
There are a lot of homes and lots for sale and being sold on G. I don't see any slow down, actually I have notice a pick up in both. I think its healthy.
I think the RV laws are fine as they are. Actually, with all the new homes being built we won't have to worry about RV's too much longer anyways, at least in the G and H street areas.
No slowdown with property sales if you want to give your lot away. Definitely the buyers market in SHOA.
Please provide proof of your statement nobody is giving their lot(s) away 1:19 SHOA, once again and example of pure rubbish and misinformation on your part.
oh, and if anyone on this blog would like to give away their lot, I'll take it off your hand ASAP!
That's the key, we don't want to give anything away, based on the actions of the Board. They're blind pursuit of self interest has exacerbated the situation, and will not be resolved until they are gone.
"Fox news playbook" is a priceless comment considering the SHOA President spouted off typical Fox News rhetoric about liberals at the annual membership meeting.
How do we do that? Give us a resolution to rid ourselves of the whole bunch! BM as well. Start from scratch.
How do you do that? You participate!!! You can't sit here waiting for someone else to fix everything for you. They'll never do it the way you want it done anyway, why not do it yourself. If you don't like how things are being done, run, volunteer do something other than complain!
If you volunteer and do not follow the party line, you are vilified, insulted and demeaned. Just for voicing a dissenting opinion. Who wants to volunteer in that environment?
I was on RV committee until it was abolished. BOD didn’t feel a need for this committee so terminated its existence. Since I am a RV low life, I took it personally. Guess they didn’t want impartial hands in their pot!! Just sayin
11:27 how long ago was that??? This BOT or the last had anything to do with an RV Committee
Last BOD. Maybe 3 years ago? Funny how you lose track of time when you get older.
11:25.... Judging the Surfside realty market by J Pl. sales misses my point. The properties most restricted by the Tree Policy are the properties most impacted in diminished value. Many of these properties have a minimum of foliage of any kind, trees that look like umbrellas, 14 feet high, virtually no shade or protection from weather - on the N.W. Coast !
There's a lot to like about our geographic location, but for those who seek to have a home on the N.W. Coast with N.W. Coast appeal, Surfside is clearly a community with severe restrictions on trees, taken to the extreme in a completely manipulated and unnatural environment.
It isn't necessary and makes no sense.
Ms. deLeest’s “help” consisted of providing an example of another tech committee charter from a business. I used this template as an example, modified for our non-profit HOA to draft the charter. Even after I used her template, Ms. deLeest voted twice to reject the charter. I included measurable objectives and a schedule to keep the committee focused. I have learned from many years in business that you can’t manage what you don’t measure; a foreign concept to our BOT as evidenced by the goals which are published without metrics and without continual tracking. I went through 3 iterations of revisions to the charter until the committee was reduced to a temporary committee with only one goal - to submit a report to the BOT. The draft charter was sent to the BOT for feedback twice; it was also sent to the Community Relations Committee by Ms. deLeest. The watered-down charter was finally approved in February.
After being approved in mid-Feb, the committee kicked-off in Mar and met 5 times, during which a survey was created and disseminated in paper form and online. The committee elected to not require names to encourage participation. The survey period ended with the last surveys received with election ballots in July. The results were compiled and identified the members priorities - highest rated was electronic voting along with emergency communications, online transactions (permits, pay bills) and an improved website.
The committee then looked at each of the priorities. I researched online websites and voting platforms, I presented a verbal report on online voting to the committee in May. In Aug I submitted a summary report of three potential HOA website platforms for inclusion in the final report. Turnkey cost for a new website hosted by a company specializing in HOA websites would be $100 to set up and a recurring cost of $500 per year. All of the HOA websites reviewed would be a big improvement - and would make Member-to-Member communications possible via messaging, without sharing private email addresses or phone numbers.
The work of the committee was abruptly ended in Aug by the BOT. It was not on the agenda and the Chairman was not notified that a motion would be made to terminate the committee. Our final Aug meeting was canceled and the Board didn’t want to a final report which would have included survey results and info on online voting and HOA website options. The work of those on the committee was essentially thrown in the trash - all in retaliation of my motions at the Annual Meeting, which were my personal actions and had nothing to do with the Tech Committee. The malicious BOT and their office puppet refused to even let David inform the Members of the outcome of the Survey.
From the outset, the Board resisted this committee. They delayed its approval and implementation to ensure I would be off the Board before it’s work was complete. They wanted it under the CRC, for more control. The CRC also wanted to own the committee because they are charged with “communications between members”. The fact that this committee was supposed to identify how we could use technology to improve communications and manage the business of the HOA. In reality, the CRC - aided and abetted by the BOT and office - places a chokehold on communications. As is obvious from the Tech Committee’s article being rejected, members cannot publish in the Weekender and cannot freely, easily communicate with other Members.
Thousands of HOAs across the US use online voting. It is legal in WA - we just need to amend the bylaws, which I proposed legally in a Members meeting or the RCWs. The Board and it’s attorney denied the members a vote. However, there was a commitment by Gary Williams to put this on the budget ballot in Nov. Once we amend our by-laws, we only need to choose from one of many online voting platforms which will cost less than the mailed ballots and hiring someone to count ballots. There are reputable companies that use secure online protocols for voting with reliable results. Those who don’t use technology can still submit written ballots which are added to the online votes for tabulation of results. The BOT rejects this technology - along with all other technology that will make it easier for members to communicate and vote. The 25% who are currently controlling everything in Surfside will continue to do so until the other 75% decides to stop them. When they are ready and willing to demand change, I will be happy to help. In the meantime we will continue with the status quo.
So lets spend tons of money and time on something we already do? We would still have to mail out all ballots! So not only the regular expense but another on top of that one? We will always have to mail ballots, so why do both?? Folks had prepaid postage and didn't bother, why not? Why aren't people sending the ballots back in? They don't care enough to. Just because you want it doesn't mean the majority does and that seems to be the problem here, no one wants to listen to the majority. However silent it may be.
Post a Comment