By changing the Articles of Incorporation by adding and an amendment on electronic voting, is nothing more than circumventing the will of the members. To change the Articles requires a 2/3 vote of all members. This is nothing more than another broken promise that was made to the members at the Annual Meeting last July. Those in control of the Board do not want electronic voting on anything.
This issue should be an amendment and/or addition to our Bylaws. The requirement for this is the same as required for members at the Annual Meeting. All it takes is notice to all the members of a "Special Meeting" or an agenda item at the Annual Meeting. A quorum of 10% of members present in person and/or present by proxy and a simple majority vote would allow electronic voting. Those on the Board know that this would happen and not likely to get 2/3 vote on change in Articles of Incorporation.
What do you do about this deception? I don't know, maybe remove them and be careful who you elect to the Board next July. Until then we are stuck with them. We saw how hard it was to try and remove the President last July. As long as the Board members remain ignorant and unwilling to step up, nothing will change and that's exactly the way they want it. What makes me so angry is that they think we are so stupid we don't see what they are doing. We are not stupid.
From our Articles Of Incorporation:
ARTICLE IX
Notwithstanding any provision in the Bylaws of the corporation, the Bylaws of the corporation may be amended at any regular or special meeting of the corporation, after required notice has been given, by a majority vote of the members present at the meeting or represented at the meeting by proxy.
ARTICLE XI
Notwithstanding any provision in the Bylaws of the corporation, at all annual and special meeting of the corporation, ten per cent (10%) of all of the members of the corporation present at the meeting or represented at the meeting by proxy shall constitute a quorum.
Read below the false statement that the Trustees believe that an electronic voting system is not needed. This is a flat out lie. The Board had no discussion on this or any vote on the contents of the statement.
Click on each page once or twice to enlarge.
 |
| page 1 of 2 |
 |
| page 2 of 2 |
35 comments:
The pile of corruption just gets deeper and deeper. Such a shame that my letter and many many others to Washington officials have fallen on silent ears. Guess if you don’t like what’s going on in SHOA, that’s tough luck for the members. Kick myself every time I hear of another scheme of the BODs! Buyers remorse in a Nazi controlled HOA.
Notice the last line of ARTICLE XII.
voting "be" electronic means. They need to hire a proof reader.
I thought it was 2/3 of the quorum at the November meeting, not 2/3 of the entire membership.
The real issue is getting ignored as electronic voting is discussed and considered. Electronic voting does not accomplish anything for the betterment of Surfside as long as the voting members remain without sufficient information to cast an informed vote The root of many of the problems in Surfside is the lack of timely and accurate information for the members As long as there is a board with employees that are allowed to obfuscate and hide what is actually happening, an informed vote is not possible whether on a piece of paper or the click of some keys on a computer or tablet.
By trying to build greater participation in numbers, and building a base of email addresses, reminders can be sent to participating members of the important opportunity to approve electronic voting for instance. There are issues and policies that members could change or exercise influence on.
Getting 2/3 of the members in attendance to approve of anything the BOT does not like is not a simple matter, but would be a strong step in the right direction. Our Board has become a one note song, with a group of 5 individuals tending to vote however the president wishes them to vote. Meanwhile the president makes community decisions at will, outside of open meetings.
A guarantee that there will be no transparency, is to allow the president to hold secret meetings with his Trustee pals, and allow decisions to be made without documentation or participation by the full Board in Open Meetings as is required by the State RCWs. This has become commonplace.
Drawing a few hundred more members into participation in community issues, and voting on measures and candidates would be a big improvement by creating a broader base of owners to scrutinize BOT business, and broaden the base of folks interested in serving on the Board and Committees.
We can't predict miracles, but we can approve electronic voting, and work on broadening our communications with disenfranchised owners, show some patience, and commit to making the community better in some very significant ways.
The Board is reticent to give up any power to the members, and this bogus letter and the written proposal demonstrate that. They want to insist on retaining the authority to intervene and stop electronic voting at any point, when this is intended to be a members decision.
This is the same approach that killed the Tech Comm.. After delays of months to approve the charter, the pretense of allowing the committee to function, then quickly making it a temporary Comm. answering to the Community Relations Comm., and a quick dissolution after a few months of work. This was all slight of hand, and a ruse. This letter smacks of the same intentions.
I called the office, they told me it was 2/3 of the vote at the meeting as well 8:28, so maybe there is a misunderstanding how what the requirements are
Was, until they changed it.
8:28 is correct 10:57, that was what was said and was the plan for the next meeting. It was stated that they will contact the lawyer just to make sure but the plan was for the meeting not the entire membership. Of course you are going to read people saying otherwise here.
To 10:14's "group of five who only vote as the president wishes" remark. Who exactly are this group? While you are at it explain the votes on the killing of the tech committee. I'm willing to lay odds the names of your five don't match up with the vote results. At this meeting there was agreement between all trustees on pretty much everything, so I guess the five has grown. Your tired old claim is not only insulting to the trustees it is factually incorrect.
2:58, either way, you sound like this is a good thing?, or you just having fun?
A quorum is 10% of the entire membership. Over 200 members will have to attend this meeting in order to vote on anything. The meeting, scheduled for Nov.17th, is probably not known about by many members, and will surely fail to generate much attendance. Given that the Annual Meeting only has about 200 attendees, achieving a quorum at this "Special Meeting" is doubtful, I think.
There are really too many ways in which this is screwed-up to make this measure worth passing. This is a member mandate, and as such, MUST BE written by the members or a designated committee of supporting members. The Board has written this proposal, and have made certain it can be revoked at the will of the Board. That won't work. That is the same conveyor belt that the Tech Comm. was set upon, never given an honest chance to accomplish ANYTHING.
The best outcome of the Special Meeting would probably be to reject the proposal as it is written. Then to insist that a committee be assembled of proponents of electronic voting, making assembling an accurate data base of member email addresses a part of a a mandate to modernize communications in the HOA.
A Special Meeting cannot rally a significant number of members given the dismissive attitude of the BOT and the Business Office. We know that many owners never receive ballots or HOA information, and the Business Office has no explanations or concerns.
Email is an effective way to send members timely reminders, and the content of those reminders can easily have specified parameters with respect shown to owner requests.
What Nov 17 meeting?
They already have a database of email addresses.
They could have electronic voting without all this cr@p, having it setup is extremely cheap, heck of a lot cheaper than the cache. Still never heard who gets to use it. Bet it’s already full too.
7:07 ...This stuff has been talked about in detail repeatedly on the blog. The cache was detailed in the Surf-In-Sider, and offered to anyone interested. Word is, there are only 2 owners who bought in, buying the gear boxes required.
If there is already a fairly complete database of emails, a limited list of matters that the HOA wants to be able to communicate to owners may need to be drawn-up. This would seem to be the key to broadening communications, such as an immediate notice of the Special Meeting. I believe the stated requirements for notice of this kind of meeting may only be 5 days.
We know that many owners never receive notice or ballots, so better to use email once owners have okayed communications. I's going to be challenging to get enough voters to have a quorum, let alone approve electronic voting, which is simply Surfside's best hope for moving toward better governance. I know that's a jump - but there is great potential.
Proxy votes count as votes, so 200 people don't have to show up, please check your facts before misleading the membership
Ballots will be mailed out so the membership will be made aware of the meeting. We will be voting on the budget. It happens every year for the budget ratification. The online vote will be added in with the budget information.
Mr Cox, do you check anything before you start talking??
2:58 ... The president has made a number of decisions outside of Open Meetings, and the entire Johansen lawsuit was orchestrated by him. The Board never voted in approval of a lawsuit, nor did they approve vast spending of at least $60,000 on legal consultation.
A few board members have expressed support of the president, so obviously do not have a problem with facilitating conducting business without notifying the entire Board of such decisions, or of proper documentation or transparency. We can hope that the newly elected Board will conduct business as is required by our covenants and State RCWs, but it's way too soon to gloat.
Where did the statement of opposition to electronic voting come from ? It states that it is the majority opinion of the Board, yet there has been no open discussion or approval in a monthly meeting verifying this claim. It is obviously from Mr. Williams, and inappropriate without a statement of support to APPROVE this measure, which the BOT opposes for reasons of control, and not expense.
Golly 8:42 ...Did I overlook something ? Do you think there will be 200 votes cast with a five day notice ? I get your drift. You're an expert, I'm not. I try to always be accurate, and the main points I am trying to make are not as trivial as the issue you are hung-up on.
4:48 5 day notice? for what? we will be getting all this information for the budget ratification meeting November 15th by the first of the month. Proxies will be sent out to all members to vote both the budget and the voting.
You give out wrong and misleading information, I am not the first one on here to tell you that. Why give out misinformation and confuse people even more
I apologize for that mistake. I agree, that's a significant blunder and I should have double-checked it. Once writing a comment, it isn't easy to check.
Obviously you are privy to specific information on the mailing that few would know. We'll hope the mailing IS timely. We will see. The minimum requirement in the Bylaws is 5 days notice.
It's interesting that you have to beat me up, and can't just offer your information to clarify. People make mistakes don't they ? Like spending tens of thousands of dollars on a worthless lawsuit, or ignoring EPA requirements.
According to the Community Relations minutes of Oct. 2, 2018, it states under "Other New Business:"
"1. Budget Meeting Mailing
The mailing is planned to occur between 10/27- 10/31. CRC volunteers will be notified when they can help get the mailer ready to go out to the members." November 17th is the next regular Board Meeting. The past practice has been to have the Budget Ratification meeting and vote with count, prior to the regular
meeting. The ballot will state the date and time of the meeting. (I will be posting the CRC minutes soon.)
Mistakes are fine, but you repeatedly come on here with information that is wrong and misleading. Quite a few people have said the same but it hasn't seemed to make a difference.
If I have questions I call and get the answer. Simple. I am always treated respectfully and they seem to appreciate that I call to clarify when I have questions. Maybe you should do the same.
I don't know if your addressing me or just talking to yourself. I strive to share accurate information and if something is my opinion, I state that. If I can find the information myself, I do so without calling the office. They have enough to do without answering questions where the information already exists or is available. As a matter of fact, I did contact the office with a financial question I had today. I do agree that they have always answered my questions respectfully and I appreciate that.
Your old tactic of attacking the messenger is so obvious. Most here appreciate all the time I spend trying to provide information so that they don't have to call the office.
George - I think this comment is aimed at me. 12:51 - Your statement about me is false, but an easy way to change the subject. Quite Trumpian ! But I am using my name, seeming as an invitation to some to trash my reliability. Yep, Deb's gone - no need to pick on her.... Patrick's gone..... oh, there's a target !
But I hear you. Mistakes, like spending ridiculous amounts of member funds on gratuitous lawsuits is fine, creating and maintaining an adversarial relationship with the membership - fine.
You are apparently a Trustee or fan of the current politics. I'm the sittin' duck out here insisting this HOA is going down the tube without reassessing it's objectives, and connecting with more of the residents. I tend to be grounded in my comments, usually am well informed, and am willing to call out bad behavior when I see it. I am also willing to admit to being wrong - when and if I am.
"Once writing a comment, it isn't easy to check." Are you serious? A reasonable person would check if they are right before the comment instead of making a claim they only think is factual.
Plus nice to cover up your blunder by changing the subject. Is that considered a deflection or a pivot?
Agreed 5:23
A reasonable person knows that most of the " facts " presented here are of the National Inquirer quality. And if you ask someone to back up their " facts " you get shot down with look it up for yourself. Which is tantamount to admitting that it can't be verified.
You folks are consistently accusatory and totally without substance. What are the "facts" that I have stated that you dispute ? I dare say you just don't effing know, or are afraid to say. I invite you to the challenge wiseguys !!
Stevie, seriously, between this topic and others you need to calm down a bit and step away from the keyboard for awhile. Maybe take a walk on the beach if you are here. If you're in Lacey I have no suggestions except to get down here for that walk. Either way, relax.
As I have said, you have the insulting part down, but offer no substance. You know nothing about me and are offering advice - which simply makes you a fool. I'll leave you to your imaginary world. I suggest you say this to my face wiseguy.
OK George, now your friend is making threats on here. Your silence says you condone this.
I'm not your dick guy. Nothing I said was insulting, just a suggestion. Your response is an example of why I made it.
You are right (happy now?), I don't know you. I only know of you by your comments. And by these recent ones I'm glad I don't and hope I never do.
6:10 - As you are well aware, you and a couple of other commenters have joined forces to insult and discredit me, unwilling to offer your names or validate your claims that I am out to deceive members. I consider that to be exceptionally low and cowardly, and at the same time hypocritical. You offer no evidence I have said anything false, and in so doing are misleading anyone who reads the blog.
I stated repeatedly that the lawsuit against Patrick and (?) was doomed to failure, and it has been withdrawn. I was criticized roundly for stating that the Budget Meeting was to be Nov. 17th, and told it was the 15th. I was correct, and apologized without needing to. I stated that the CTP enclosure building was not properly permitted and requires carbon replacement - facts - and was told I was lying.
I stated that the change in covenants made by the BOT knowingly put several owner's sheds into non-compliance - a fact also disputed. People wanted to argue about the total number of S.S. households and quorum requirements, when I was correct from the get-go. And all of this wrapped in a juicy insulting package of unsolicited advice from people who are too cowardly to give their names.
You are unable to see yourself or check your own lame behavior, so yeah, that pisses people off - your goal really in a nutshell. Now you want to whine that I'm turning your insults back on you, and to return in-kind comments is "THREATENING". Boohoo. That IS sad.
I don't have a bit of trouble distancing myself from this nonsense, but you and other's b.s. needs to be called out for what it is. My only objective is to help members as George does, in trying to get to the truth, and get that out to the members.
Well said Steve. The real trouble makers and those spreading false information are the minority ones who can not back up their statements with fact. That is why they attack. Don't get discouraged, as these people fool no one and the "majority" of those who follow the blog, do not comment. That is a fact. You and I and some others do not hide behind "anonymous" No one is perfect, but if we make an error, we apologize, correct it, and move on. You and others would be amazed at who follows this blog inside and outside of the membership. Your comments are being read. Thanks to you and the others, anonymous and named, who share factual information and those who ask honest questions.
Steve Cox:
Again, look at my comment @ 12:29. There was no insult to you. There was no attempt at discrediting you. I didn't address any of your comments as false hoods and in fact didn't address any at all. I am not the people you had been going back and forth with. My comment had to do with how you were responding to others here and the whole "Dick" thing you ranted with on another topic. Obviously you thought it was appropriate, I didn't and just pointed out that maybe it would be best to step away for awhile instead of getting increasing more irate. Basically, to calm down. How is this insulting?
Then what was your response? You called me a fool living in an imaginary world, a wiseguy and even the whole "say it to may face thing". Now again you have come back on here to take aim at me with more name calling an accusations for no appropriate reason. Again, I'm not your "Dick" guy, OK?
George:
I would like to point out something that you seemed to overlook. You stopped going to board meetings on a PERCEIVED threat, none that were actually made. You made many topics about it. Yet you have no problem overlooking the one made above just because it is someone you agree with. Mr. Cox likes to talk about people being hypocritical. Well, this is a prime example.
Fact check:
I have been to a Board meeting since the "PERCEIVED threat". And, "just because it is someone you agree with". is a false statement. Now you claim to know what I am thinking? Your nameless attack is a "prime example" that you don't know what your talking about. As for name calling, guess I will have to call you anonymous. Talk about hypocritical.
Post a Comment