These are the minutes of the two (2) Board meetings with no notification to the membership. This is a violation of our governing documents. We probably would not have seen this, except for them being disclosed here on this blog. It will be several months before they show up on the official Surfside web site. So much for open and transparent.
Note the time spent on the phone with two (2) lawyers.
At the end of October, our legal fees have reached 75,230.38 It is estimated they will reach 100,000.00 by year end. The amount budgeted was $50,000.00 We are now 150% of budgeted amount.
My unanswered question is simple....Why the hell does Williams remain on the Board, let alone President? Also note the dropping of the Superior court appeal which cost the members thousands of dollars as well as Patrick, who paid God only knows, out of his own pocket in preparation to defend himself.
Click on each page once or twice to enlarge...
 |
| page 1 of 2 |
 |
| page 2 of 2 |
78 comments:
I sat in a board meeting months ago when Johanson tried to state his case to the board. The President was having none of it and even called for the sheriff deputy to stop it. It was pretty obvious the President was taking this event personally. I certainly do not know all the facts. But It appears that this was a personal vendetta against a member who had to pay for his attorneys and a President who had no liability personally. This should have been worked out or gone to arbitration. Now that we find out it cost some part of 70,000.00 we decide to quit? We should demand to see the break down of the attorney costs.
I have a mutual friend of Patrick’s. He told me that Patrick had to spend 10000$ out of his own pocket to fight this insane Williams’s vendetta. Williams should be picking ditches in Surfside to help defray the costs he’s incurred. Oh yeah, and cleaning the SHOA toilets too!
Section 4. Special meetings of the board of trustees shall be called at any time by the secretary on order of the president or of a majority of the board of trustees. The secretary shall give each trustee notice, personally, verbally, by mail or by telephone, of all regular and special meetings at least one day previous thereto.
This is from the By-Laws, it says they can call special meetings, so now I'm really confused
George I think your math is a little wrong on that percentage, I think it should be 100% over budget for lawyers.
First, these documents do not constitute "minutes". These folks are so intent on keeping everything they can from the members, that these two meetings dealing with legal matters, which are NOT secret meetings, do not even whisper what was discussed or decided.
What members should be concerned about is the president's behavior prior to the election, and his inappropriate actions at the Annual Meeting. While Deb Blagg was on the board several significant decisions were made that WERE in secret, void of minutes, outside of open meetings, with some of the Trustees never contacted or consulted.
The legal spending was what was proceeding without the full Board's knowledge or approval, and that is a BIG DEAL !!Williams wasn't willing to let more stable minds alter his intentions to eliminate Johansen however possible. He asked a Trustee to offer a "deal" if Johansen resigned and moved out of the community. How pitiful is that ? Patrick had already put his property up for sale.
Well I thought we were all supposed to be notified of meetings as well. seems as though this Board thinks there is nobody else out there (the members) and they can just get together and have a jolly old time spending our money. I was surprised at the latest Board meeting when the President announced, as he has in the past, that all of the legal actions will "only" cost the HOA $10k. Just wonder how an insurance company would pay for legal fees if you just dropped the case as the HOA did. They don't pay for little exercises with no results. Also, as pointed out, we are at 150% of the budget for legal fees for this year ($75k spent, $50k budgeted) and note the legal budget for nest year has been upped to $75k. Am wondering if this money is used to pay the $10k fine we incurred for no permit before building the water treatment plant,k or the $13k we had to pay to remove the asbestos pipe, or the $27k fine we have to pay L&I, and the as yet undetermined fine yet to come from the EPA. The insurance company sure as hell isn't paying those fines because they are due to negligence on the part of the HOA. The treasurer moved most all of the projects for next year to the right for a year, save what he could contribute some small funds to left from this year. That was to keep the assessments lower this year, but hold on to your pocketbook for 2020, all to pay fines we should never have had. Glad the Board decided to give the employees a 3% raise and bonuses. Have to come out of retirement and work for them as the COLA (highest in years)is only 2.8%. As someone who has worked in organizations that leaders and workers, it amazes me how this organization has not recognized the "Peter Principle" runs rampant in the Board. Most of these people would have been replaced long ago, even in a highly bureaucratic organization that doesn't embrace change. but you know what folks, whether you praise or complain you haven't got much leverage. There were only 8, count'em 8 members outside of the BOT members at the last Board meeting. If you continue to sit on your collective asses, this organization will continue to founder at your expense. If you can live with some of the grossest incompetence I have seen in my 7+ decades, then don't bitch about it. If you don't want to continue this series of illegal missteps from the BOT, then come out and speak out!
so 4:37 you'll be running for the board?
If the members could get rid of at least 7 current members of the Board and the water dept head, I would love to, and maybe save this place before it implodes. How ‘bout you?
The Corrupt Actions against Patrick is inexcusable. Why hasn’t Williams been tarred and feathered and sent on his miserable way? How long is this pitiful mess gonna continue. Problem for so many members is that we aren’t there year around so our hands are tied other than voting. I haven’t received ballots two separate times. Speaking out against this BOD for years seems to be of no good. Are we just stuck with this incompetent crew?
Our only hope unfortunately, is the current EPA ongoing criminal investigation.
Interesting fact that some don't know or choose to forget when the topic turns to Williams and Patrick. Back when Patrick was a trustee and was doing his unprecedented campaigning Williams was one of his choices he was stumping for with his sample ballot. Funny stuff there.
That’s human nature to make a campaign mistake. I have stumped for a few candidates that turned out to be miserable. Can’t hold that against Patrick as he was blind to this guy’s real person. When EPA investigation is completed, I don’t think we will have to worry about getting rid of Williams. He will go down with jail time! What goes around comes around Bully Williams!
7:51 no one is going to jail SMH
The key word is “criminal” investigation. Smh.
I stand corrected: CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION! 8:20.
I met Patrick the year he ran for the Board and he was full of energy and optimism. Deb Blagg was the same way - very excited to have an opportunity to do something worthwhile for the community.
I don't think anyone takes on such a role without having ideas about things they might like to see changed or done differently, but no one expects to be without opposition either. I think the "olde guard" on the BOT were intimidated by their enthusiasm, and proceeded to belittle ignore and oppose everything they wanted to address.
The Blaggs have distanced themselves from Surfside, bought property elsewhere, and may sell. Patrick sold his lots and bought on the Bay.
The way these nice people were treated is a shame. Both are kind and good, and very intelligent. Some folks have sought to absolutely crucify these members on the Blog, making outrageous claims and taunting them with name-calling.
This was not about issues, but about refusing to yield any authority or creedance to independent thinkers with drive and optimism.
So here it is thought hilarious that Patrick wanted to think the best of Gary Williams and believed what Gary said to him, and supported him in the election.
Key word is Investigation, they have to prove criminal intent, which I highly doubt they will find. Making bad mistakes does not mean it was intended as a criminal act.
Maybe not, but in the real world, they would step down, or be removed.
Thx 11:51 for your kind words about Patrick and Deb. The opposition went to NO ends to belittle, stalk and crucify these two that were so excited about serving and being owners in Surfside. Didn’t take long for them to see the real picture of “the ole guard”. Talk about discrimination in our country! Just visit SHOA.
Get real! Both of these people proved to be rule breakers and trouble makers with personal agendas that had nothing to do with the improvement of the community for the benefit of the majority. It was all about their huge egos and their will to change things to suit themselves.
3:42, is prime example. And says statement over n over. He just can’t resist.
Agree 100% with 3:42. I've witness first hand Blagg bullying at board meetings more than anyone, and I attend more than many here. Then she showed her true colors at the annual meeting with the coup.
The reason Patrick supported Williams was based on him being a RV owner. It was part of his plan to stack the board with RV owners. Simple as that. One last thing before some of you attack me, I heard it from the man himself.
Discrimination? What a joke. Please, think before you write.
And many others of us considered that against all Olds, they were doing the right thing!
Olds doing the right thing? She is The supreme bully.
This notion that anyone on the BOT, or in the community could stage a "coup" to change RV restrictions is absurd. Both Patrick and Deb were RV owners, and like most RV owners in Surfside, wanted to see some changes in RV restrictions.
Nothing Deb did on the Board had anything to do with RVs. Patrick tried to promote a few changes and was immediately blackballed by the other Trustees. The entire period of 2 1/2years that Patrick was a Trustee, the Arch Comm. was on his ass over this stupid shed business.
A big problem with your conspiracy theory is that Homeowners outnumber RV owners by at least 2 to 1, and many RV owners do not vote or participate in S.S. politics.
Both Pat and Deb understood, as surely all RV owners do -that no changes in RV standards will be made without the support of homeowners who understand and respect the wishes of RV owners in the community. You have to work hard to make this sound like there was some sinister plan, bad people with terrible intentions are going to hijack your community !!
Bull----
No RV changes will happen without the approval of the County! SS can not be less restrictive than the county codes. County codes do not allow year round living in RV's. Nor does Pacific county allow a structure larger than 10x12 on an undeveloped lot ( RV ), its not SS, its the county that runs the show.
County does not require rvs to be removed from lots. During any season. Amongst other restrictions in shoa. You do realize most tree, rv, etc restrictions don’t apply in all parts of surfside? Not all zones are equal.
Cox has no trees on his lot and no RV lots next door. Yet, he has definite OPINIONS about the issues surrounding these two concerns in Surfside even though he has no up close experiences. His OPINIONS are just that, OPINIONS, not factual and not necessarily helpful to those who might be reading this blog to learn the truth about Surfside. His supportive comments about Deb and Patrick reflect his identification with those who want to stir up trouble in Surfside. He appears to always side with the members who do not want to comply with the covenants and who have agendas to change things to suit their personal preferences. HOA's are about people who are willing to cooperate and respect the covenants to build a respected and coveted community.
As in some other HOA's, the covenants apply to certain areas due to concerns about environmental issues, safety issues, view issues and other concerns. Those who buy property in Surfside agree to follow the covenants whether those covenants apply to all members or only some members. If some members do not like the particular covenants that apply to them, there is always the option of selling out and finding a property that better suits their preferences. Equality is not an essential guarantee in Surfside or any other HOA.
You missed an option. The option to modify or change the rules. Isn't that what a democracy is all about? Those who buy here also agree that our association rules and covenants are subject to change. If your not willing to make changes as needed, you can also follow your option of "finding property that better suits" your preferences. Your comment does not pass the smell test.
the majority rules in a democracy and it should in an hoa. you don't get to ignore and change the covenants because a few people want to make changes to benefit themselves. 11:59 comment really stinks --- speaking of the smell test. it reflects the miserable attitude that is bringing so much contention and expense to our hoa. if a new lot owner believes that they are here to break and change the covenants, they are a hateful and miserable trouble maker.
From what I am hearing, there are many full time residents who also favor changing the covenants. By your way of thinking, guess they also have a "miserable attitude". You come across as the "miserable trouble maker" Your not a very nice person. The best way to know what the members want is to have a vote. Bet you don't want that either.
we are okay with a vote if one is warranted. simply a few members wanting to make changes for their own benefit does not warrant a vote. like it or not, we all agreed to what the covenants are when we bought our lots. lived here for 13 years and have heard only one full time resident in favor of no restrictions on trees and zero in favor of more privileges for RVs. btw many people have shared with me that they think I am a nice and reliable person.
Not an rv'er but object to the term " privileges " when referring to our non stick built neighbors. Without their $$$ we would fail to exist as a hoa. A simple fact whether they were aware of the limitations or not.
4:06 comes across as an overly angry person. These kind of people scare me. I agree with 4:36 about the term "privileges" This shows a mindset that favors the rights of only some and for others to have the same right is a privilege and the demand to express their views are labeled as "trouble makers". He claims to be reliable. What does that mean? Pays his bills on time and not late for an appointment? What has reliable have to do with anything discussed here? Reasonable and fair would be a better attribute. He seems to lack that.
i used the word privileges because I couldn't think of any other way to describe adding rv's parked on all lots in Surfside year around in any other way. since those already here agreed to the part year covenant, i remain thinking that they would see a change as a privilege that they did not have before. the few who want the covenant changes have proven time and time again to be hateful, name calling and generally mean spirited. i don't break the covenants, i am friendly, i am helpful to my neighbors. you would want me as a neighbor only if you also went by the rules and acted like a decent, thoughtful person regularly. why do you few members believe that you must demonize anyone who does not support your ideas? you don't scare me. you just show yourselves to be the small minded, self interested people that you are.
Fake news, the ratio of name calling n rude comments, by a wide margin, are the few individuals that are on, or support the current board majority. Those nasty comments come from the same people over and over, as they repeat the same statements, in the exact same style. They are not fooling anyone. They have repeated themselves endlessly, even before Deb, etc were on the scene. You very rarely can make any statement without them repeating the same tired quotes, For them it’s a job.
People here insist that the covenants are sacred, but in fact, they have been changed from time to time. The covenants once stated that views were protected. That wording was removed on advice of the HOA's attorney. Wonder why ?
And let's be perfectly clear - Surfside HOA has no data to indicate that the majority of owners support the covenants, most of which were written and borrowed from other HOAs, and are about 50 years old. Tree restrictions are a rarity in the N.W. and recognized as an elitist fabrication to enhance the wealthiest owner's property values at the expense of those less fortunate.
There is no data or information in the HOA's possession that would indicate that the HOA cares what the majority wants, nor data indicating what members think about the Assoc.. With about 2100 households in Surfside, only about 300 votes are cast annually, giving no indication what members want. The Tech Comm. aspired to put together surveys to seek out this kind of information, and try to establish widespread member involvement through internet communications.
Fear of more member involvement has driven the BOT's opposition to the Tech Comm., and because they were too timid in their first trial run, all of that fear turned to anger and opposition to a systematic attempt to reach out to disenfranchised owners, and find out what they think about Surfside.
Someone here even suggested that it was "troublemakers that brought all of this conflict and corruption to Surfside". The BOT failed to get proper permits for the Water Dept filter enclosure building. It is still partially built as Winter comes. The Filter units need new reconditioned carbon, but the BOT will wait until January or later.
They've been busy wasting over $70,000 on worthless lawsuits, and facing the wrath of the Federal EPA for incompetence in handling and disposing of ASBESTOS. Mr. Flood has been the primary driving force behind the replacement of pipe at $150,000 annually, and has been on the Water Comm. for many years. Where was the oversight ?
Open your eyes people. Deb and Patrick are in no way responsible for the mess this HOA is in, and the corruption is sitting in the president's seat.
Now why can’t the other side on this blog illiterate their thoughts so well? They have none, and can not resist filling their statements with vitriol and venom. Good job 6:56.
Well said 6:56,
I get satisfaction that I can do a little part in being able to provide a venue where well spoken people like you can share your thoughts and insight on issues. You speak to the truth, unlike some others on here which label those expressing a need for change as "trouble makers" What we need are more trouble makers, if that's what it takes to truly make our association a better place. It has even surprised me as to the lengths that some will go to preserve a vanishing view, kill and deform trees and discriminate against members. I know for a fact that most of our members are good people and a few are giving all of us a bad image that we don't deserve. Thanks for your fact based comments. It is really people like you that will eventually restore our community to what it deserves to be. If we just had 5 like you on the Board, things would be turned around over night.
There certainly are not 2100 households in Surfside 6:56. The rest of what you have to say is mostly the minority blather, not proven facts, that get repeated over and over and over by five people who want to change things to suit themselves. George, where did your integrity go. I can't believe that you would praise the 6:56 comment for being factual.
What we need are more decent, level headed folks who take good care of their trees even if in the zone of height limitations. How many times has it been said on this blog and in meetings and in general conversation that the tree heights are also reflected by the limitations on the height of the houses. The tree covenant and the height of houses could stand a review and rewrite if you truly want to move towards a fairer HOA. I'm sure that all those folks on I and H would love to add another level or two to their homes. You change advocates never seem to take a look at the whole picture. It is all about your limited and selfish concepts of what you want.
We need people who respect our rules and consider revisions in those rules only when a revision is warranted and sensible. Members who refuse to responsibly take care of their trees and flaunt breaking other existing covenants do create wasted time, effort and money for all of us.
Watch this get deleted.
I saw the total number of households published either here or in the "Insider" about a year ago - at around 2050. There has been a lot of building going on in the last year, so I stated "about 2100". The Business Office should have the current number if you want it. They will need to determine a quorum prior to the Nov. 15th Meeting. That's 10% of the membership, and about 200 attendees and/or proxies.
It's interesting that you insist on scolding me, but offer no information to support your claims.
Definition of household - "a house and its occupants regarded as a unit". There are certainly not 2100 households in Surfside. Mr. Cox who obviously chooses to be anonymous or use his name when posting might be lacking a few wingnuts in his hardware. Perhaps he is trying use an arbitrary number and definition to represent the number of members in the association on which a quorum would be determined.
I worked with some people like Cox and spent far too much of my career cleaning up the messes that they created. I hope that he will take better care about his comments if he is interested in being respected instead of a laughingstock.
No, leave it here so it may be addressed.
Your narrow minded 'nothings wrong here' attitude enables a Board that has proved its incompetence. Wake up!
Yeah, not everyone has a career working for 7-11. You would think you would want the numbers higher for a higher quorum number.
Dear 10:55,
I am not saying that the board is doing a great job or that everything is okay as it is. I've never been accused of being narrow minded. Since you are aware of the concept of a narrow mind, you might want to look in the mirror. The change things because 10 to 50 (generous estimate) of you out of more than 2,000 want to make changes that benefit themselves at the expense of others is definitely narrow minded. Surfside has problems. Try to open your mind to the concept of making improvements that the majority of the members can get behind. Small factions of tree huggers and RVers with self benefitting goals quite simply piss off most of us who want a decent community of members following the rules and acting responsibly.
Speaking of opening your mind, 5:11 makes the following statements that in fact have no basis in facts. They are just words that have no meaning or proof.
Small factions
Generous estimates
majority of the members
piss off most of us
Simply stated. This is the view of one, Mr. 5:11
Good start to improvements in SHOA: Down with Olds and her lasar gang! That’s a really good start to an improvement of this HOA. Try to open your mind to what a detriment this nonsense has caused Surfside! Take that in your pipe and smoke it 5:11!
Have you been smoking your pipe a little too much 7:40? The tree committee members are quite simply doing what the covenants outline and Surfside policy and practices ask of them. A few of our members actually get out there and do the work. Unlike you who agitate and criticize instead of getting out there and taking good care of all the trees in Surfside starting with you own.
Tree issues are a matter of some members not responsibly taking care of their trees on a regular basis with careful trimming where needed. The few tree butchers and those who neglect their trees are the problem that needs to be addressed.
Agree with 9:06.
7:40 could have just said they are against the tree covenants and left it as that instead of the personal attacks against those who volunteer for our community. It is quite sad that some people start their day and live with such hate.
Surprised nobody asks “why now”?. As far as enforcing tree height after all these years. Is obviously someone’s personal agenda, as enforcement is a relatively new thing. Otherwise parts of surfside wouldn’t look like it got a crew cut. You can say “ you knew covenants before you purchased” as Im sure you will. But when I first moved here, bout eight years ago, it was obvious it was not being enforced. Don’t not enforce covenants, then let someone’s personal agenda rule, and be part of the fall of surfside reputation. Personal selfishness and overinflated egos currently rule the day.
Enforcement has been a matter of requiring a complaint which most members do not like to make a complaint. The board is responsible for this haphazard and unfair policy for covenants enforcement. The result is an hoa that exists on distrust and anger instead of trust and good neighborliness.
9:58. Thank you for well spoken statements. The elitists will retaliate with their” if u don’t like it, move” comments.
Why now is so easy to answer. Too many irresponsible members did not take proper care of their trees. More members have felt compelled to complain about it. This is not rocket science folks.
Good job 10:47 !!You certainly managed to be insulting - good for you !! You still offer NO information. There are over 2000 households (memberships) in surfside, and a quorum is something over 200. You've got the indignant insulting bit down, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
I would always use my name but it is obviously an invitation to complete flakes who want to have somebody's name to insult, and babble complete nonsense - proudly ! Call the office and ask them how many households are in Surfside fool.
any one who would rely upon a precedent that a law or covenant was not consistently enforced in the past to justify not abiding by regulatory documents is a risk taking fool.
this has nothing to do with elitists or grudges. it is the natural consequences of the failure to fairly and consistently enforce the covenants.
And a couple of individuals like 12:41, to move in and cause havoc.
cox, can you wrap your head around the fact that memberships and households are not the same thing? memberships are based on the ownership of lots. another example of this guys hard headed lack of facts.
I don't think that anyone wants to insult Mr. Cox. It looks more like people are trying to urge him toward being factual or at least admitting that some of his comments are simply his opinions with no regard for facts. He seems to be fast and loose with doing the work to be factual.
I think there are a couple that do nothing BUT! insult anyone that makes a statement not in lockstep with theirs.
Are you being too thin skinned? I think a lot of the comments are meant to be funny more than insulting.
Now we have two of you who are incapable of dialing the Surfside Business Office to ask "how many households (memberships) are recorded as Surfside residences ?" The present requirement for a quorum is something over 200, which is 10% of the entire membership. YOU are incorrect. Pitiful !!
3:55 - Of course your comment is not worth responding to, as you like to insult me too, and that is your prime objective. You are probably the individual who constantly called Deb Blagg names, thinking you were cute. You make a lot of accusations but never can back up your statements. That is SOOOOO Trumpian !! Good for you.
You can take great pride in your efforts to sew anger and disrespect towards people who speak out about the dysfunction and corruption on the Board that now has become a burden of mistakes, State and Federal fines, and inadequate funds to complete projects already in progress. You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass.
i think 3:55 was trying to give cox a clue that more care with his comments could lead to better respect for his comments. there needs to be a better attitude in surfside about listening to all sides of an issue without hateful name calling. cox fails. his switching between anonymous and using his name reveals his intent to deceive.
You are an idiot ! I don't need your advice, and have no interest in deceiving ANYONE. I try to share information that is pertinent and put the pieces together on issues where the HOA is not forthcoming with honest information.
If you are interested in getting at the truth of what goes on in the community, I am trying to do that as well - so try to share what I know. I do express opinions at times, but do not pretend they are anything more. But even in 2018, facts are facts.
What purpose would be served by deceiving ? You have a screw loose apparently.
what does it do for you to post another crabby and hateful comment? anyone who follows the blog knows that you switch off between using your name and using anonymous. fact. think about listening and thinking sometimes instead of pontificating about what you think you know.
Your only goal is to argue over imaginary issues and to insult - you have no information to share, are unable to articulate a point of view, make accusations offering nothing to validate your claims. I am just annoyed you insist on assaulting my reputation because I have offered my name. So you are just a worthless idiot, out to piss people off and trash anyone who is willing to put their name behind their comments.
What a joke that you refuse to offer your name but claim I'm being deceptive if I contribute as you do - as"anonymous".
I'll just call you "DICK". Good bye Dick... signed, anonymous.
i would challenge much of what you say cox whether with a name or anonymous because it is offensive crap that has little to do with working towards a better association. you are annoyed because you personalize and feel offended when you would be better off pausing to think when you post comments. btw, thanks so much for the adorable name my dear decent person. oops, there goes your nasty side again.
Hey, DICK - You want the world to fit your image of how it should be, and can't handle the truth, which does not adjust to your belligerent attitude. You are a Board member, past Trustee, or covet an imaginary elitist viewpoint where you can dictate. Good Luck with that.
You have nothing to offer a community in strife.
Take 3 guesses who DICK is! He’s a jerk and always been a jerk. Keep posting Steve.
Now "DICK" jokes Steve? Really, that's what it has come too? You really need to take that other persons advice and step back from the keyboard for awhile.
Yup, pat n Deb gone, your turn Mr. Cox.
Speaking of Deb, notice the similarities between her and Cox? If you don't agree with them the anger starts to build and then comes out. Look at the annual meeting as an example. Her anger grew and grew to the point that produced her making the motion for Trustee removal. Yet none of the so called "elitists" made a motion to have Patrick removed, even though he was in the process of selling and moving out.
Then you have Cox doing the same. Can't handle anyone questioning him so he resorts to childish name calling and even threats on another topic. Notice again, no "elitists" on here making physical threats.
I've never consider myself an elitist, but if by calling me one separates me from these two and keeps you off my doorstep then by all means, call me one.
George, if I were you,to protect the purpose of this blog, I would block these purely obnoxious and rank comments. You and I know who these nitwits are. Please don’t let them continue with these last comments about Steve Cox. I don’t know the guy but those remarks are uncalled for.
I agree 7:19...They are removed and you get the last word on this perversion of the topic. I am ending comments on this topic.
Post a Comment