At the Board Meeting today, August 18, 2018, on a split vote, the Technology Committee was abolished. This was not on the agenda, and no motion was made to add it to the agenda. One hour and nineteen minutes into the Board Meeting, Board President Gary Williams stated that he wanted to abolish the committee. Jim Flood then made the motion.
Williams stated that it "was not beneficial" and after their "antics at the Annual Meeting" we should "terminate it as it stands today". New Board member and Treasurer, Rudd Turner, Said they should be given more time, perhaps until the first of the year. Mark Scott, Rudd Turner and Patrick Johanson voted against the termination of the committee. (There may have been one other also)
Valerie Harrison, a member of that committee, stated that they had another meeting scheduled soon and they had compiled a list of three priority items and had a cost for an improved web site. Williams insisted that the committee should be terminated.
Bill Neal, Contracted Water Dept. Manager, stated that specific technology improvements could be given to the staff to prepare and their involvement was crucial. I am sure that the new Board members became aware of the difficulty of making changes. I have seen several times in the past where committee's have been abolished because they became a threat to the status-quo. And this,with the same cast of characters.
What a shame that this committee of volunteers, who have worked so hard, find this information first here on a blog. And you wounder why it is so difficult to get members to volunteer for anything.
The majority Board continues to divide the members.
Click on the last reported minutes for a larger read...
35 comments:
I will be posting a report on the entire Board meeting, but felt that this was important, but discouraging information that has priority to be shared with the blog viewers.
Same thing happened when THEY abolished the RV Committee a few years back. I wad one of the committee members and i had no idea this was coming. When is enough, enough with this Williams Joker? Guess folks arent fed up yet!
The survey put out by the committee was a complete joke. Better to shut this committee down than to continue with recommendations from a committee based on crap survey data. Too bad that something was not happening to truly improve the hoa making better use of tech.
A smarter approach to tech based improvements would be to hire people in the office that had some decent skills. The amounts spent on tech support for the most basic tasks is ridiculous.
Whether the bashing of Williams and others is justified or not please keep in mind that the termination of this committee could only be accomplished with a majority vote of the entire Board. Off with their heads !!!
Wow George, you apparently felt safe enough to return to the boardroom after your past drama. You were at the meeting and felt it was important enough to post the comment “ there might have been someone else that voted against abolishing the tech committee”. But you did not name them for whatever reason or maybe you still don’t know how to spell our name right? So when someone else commented on your comment you delete their post? So much for freedom of speech! But i guess it’s your blog and you are only going to put your one sided spin on things. This is just one of the reasons why this blog is bad for Surfside. By the way I am Fred de Leest husband of Annette de Leest the other trustee that you failed to mention for whatever reason! But i’m sure you will respond with some smart remark about her being part of some conspiracy. I’m calling you out!
Golly Fred, that's just terrible. You generally have something nasty to say on the blog, so thanks for stopping by on your high horse. Annette was a merciless opponent of Deb's efforts, and has tended to be onboard with whatever Williams wants. You tend to project a smugness and sense of privilege and here, taking it so personally that Annette wasn't applauded for finally speaking up for what is right.
George didn't name all of the Trustees, so what's the big deal ? You're "calling out" an 84 year old man ? Pitiful.
Williams chose to turn this Tech charter into a personal issue, and because he was angry at Deb, wanted to eliminate the Committee she started. An entire Committee worked together to research communications possibilities, and none of these people should be a target of an abusive president.
The lawsuit against Patrick is another personal battle created by Williams, against a Trustee who has dared to disagree with him. Why are ANY of the Trustees enabling Williams and allowing him to use his position as a bully pulpit ? It is more than obvious what is going on here.
I do think that if Patrick can persevere in the face of Gary William's/HOA lawsuit, Patrick will prevail, and the HOA will have to bear the brunt of community anger over the wasting of what could become a couple hundred thousand dollars - paying Johansen's legal bills AND William's legal spending spree.
Well now, as I have stated many times, I will not delete even an insulting comment about me if you use your name. You said it, you own it. I am a truthful person and report as accurate as I can. I admit to mistakes. When the vote is taken on resolutions, It is difficult to keep track of who is voting and how they voted. Many times I only know that it passed or failed. I was only able to catch how a few voted on the abolishing of the tech committee.
You will notice that most times I will post "How They Voted" after the Board minutes are approved and accepted at the next Board meeting. This is because Kimber will include how each Board member voted. Even Kimber has had trouble getting an accurate number on votes and how they voted. At the Saturday meeting, she showed me a new form she made to better have an accurate record on the motion votes.
It is no ones fault for the confusion on voting. An improved procedure might be to have each Board member called by name and then cast their vote. This would help on the recording also.
Your calling me out? Yes I know who you are, and I was a little concerned about attending the meeting. Your calling me out along with other veiled threats from you or others anomalously, would concern most anyone. The only "smart" remark I see is yours.
And, to set the record right and correct from a previous comment, I am not 84, but will be 82 this Winter. Regardless, both is old. I am not going to engage in a back and forth with anyone. My goal is to report the news, not be the news. I do appreciate you using your name and hope you continue to do so with a discussion of the issues and not jut "Calling someone out" Pro's and con's on any issues are welcome.
We have a new shed in town on 306th and M Place interesting must be 196 sq. feet and 12 foot high.
2:34. Better get over there with your tape measure! Gotta worry about that kind of thing in Surfside. Give me a break!!!! Time to narc on a member?
Heaven forbid that anyone would be held accountable to the covenants that they agreed to live by when they bought their place in Surfside. What a shame that there is an attitude in Surfside that exposing a rule breaker is a matter of being a "narc". What an incredibly juvenile attitude!
Definition of maturity: calling a senior citizen out?
To 2:39
I will not be called a "liar" by an anonymous coward, or by anyone else. I am not a liar. Never have been and never will be. Your not welcome on this blog.
Thx George for keeping us informed on this blog. You can be assured we wont hear the facts in the Waste Ender. Keep up yourinformative efforts.
I'm sorry to see this committee dissolved. I was hoping to join the twentieth century in voting.
The vote would require 51% of the entire membership to send in a vote to change the Bi-Laws, that will never happen.
The hope that this Board would do anything for the good of the general membership is long past. After all, technology could lead to accountability, and we can't have that, can we?
7:01 agreed. Accountability, and I also believe the threat of the silent majority finally coming out and voting down the self serving trend.
I really don't see any other reason to not even display a business case to the cost and difficulty of implementing new tech to how we vote. These guys have assumptions to how it would be and they don't like it. Again, the above I believe is the reason(s).
You cant just have online voting. The BI-Laws have to be changed, which requires 51% of the membership to cast a vote. No matter much you want online voting if members don't vote it will never happen, that has nothing to do with the board.
I don't come to the beach to get on the internet as far as I'm concerned the less technology the better. Give me a stone and a stick to write on it.
8:26 Oh we need to vote on it? I guess we shouldn't even try to look into then... shoot 51% is hard...
Of course we'll vote and laws may be changed. My point is the power grab at making the decision to kill it before the people can speak to it.
If these guys really want to get involved and make a difference by joining the board, why not build a legacy and have SHOA be the diamond of the peninsula.
The board is involved! They are here donating their time, its up to the members to get involved and vote. The tech committee sent a survey to every member and yet less than 200 were returned. That tells me members are not interested in these issues.
Why should we get involved? To be marginalized and denigrated such as other former board members? To simply be a drone to the existing board? To watch hard work such as the technology committee simply cease to exist, in an environment where it is so desperately needed?
I've watch the situation closely over the last year, and have had property here much longer. As long as the ruling junta is in power, you will get my dues and nothing more! Perhaps if they run out of free labor, they will reconsider their positions, though I doubt it. The board seems to want to make all decisions without consultation or debate - let them do the grunt work as well.
Another option would be to dissolve it, and start from scratch. Homeowners is a quasi - governmental operation, and no government is better than bad government.
You don't vote, you can't bitch and moan
the tech committee survey was poorly designed and a turn off for many members. better use of tech to serve the members is a good idea. it always takes some convincing or salesmanship for some people to do things a new way. the wrong individual, a liar and manipulator, presented the idea of having a tech committee which naturally resulted in a negative reception from the board. people with tech knowledge and skills and a respectable reputation would better serve to move surfside towards using readily available tech to serve all members in an improved way. i agree that hiring people in the office who do not have the skills to do the work using tech to best advantages is bad judgement on the part of the board.
Who said anything about not voting? I'll keep my right to bitch, thanks.
Back to the Deb bashing again? People should be able to look past the personality, and examine the message on its own merits.This obviously was not done, and will not happen while the current BOT rules. After all, technology might bring accountability, and we can't have that!
The tech committee got approved despite Blagg's personality. The problem is that the committee fumbled the ball with a worthless survey and no well constructed suggestions or plans for future improvements.
A reminder that Blagg is her own worst enemy. She created her own problems.
2:43 you're providing excellent examples as to why the BOT makes poor decisions.
It makes no sense to abolish a program because the first group or attempt wasn't successful. Real leadership would review and advise as to how the group should proceed forward.
Agree that better leadership would have worked to make the best uses of tech for the association a long time ago. Hiring employees with skills would have been a good start. Why are we thinking about a committee of volunteers for things that employees should be doing as a responsibility of their jobs? Why are we expending thousands each year for tech support of the most basic nature? Because we have unskilled employees which is absurd in this day and age.
To 8:04:
Which "ruling junta" are you talking about? Check out how each board member voted and get back to me. What is written above isn't accurate.
So called "silent majority" = majority of people who don't care either way. Even Blagg's FB posse couldn't muster enough people to pull off a coup.
Why hasn't the opening statement false info still not been corrected? Why are comments constantly being deleted? What ever happened to the so called search for the truth? Why do I need to keep asking these questions?
Post a Comment