If your not there....you don't vote
There needs to be a requirement that a Board Trustee is present to be able to vote on a resolution.
Present by phone, should not be allowed.
Present by phone is disruptive to the meeting and discussion of the issues. The Trustees should be allowed to call in and listen, same as the members, but not engage in the discussions or voting.
The Trustee was elected to be present in person. If they can't attend on a regular basis, they should not be on the Board. Many times information is presented that can only be seen if your present. The only absence that should be excused would be for illness or a family emergency. Miss more than 2 meetings, and then you should be out.
The Board meetings drag on and on with useless chatter. A well run meeting should last no longer than one hour. Stick to business.
The safety report and patrol report is nothing more than a waste of time.
12 comments:
Agree. This needs to happen.
The HOA for our City home provides for removal of any Board member who misses 3 meetings in a row. We have never used phones as are used in Surfside, so that is not an excuse to be used as a substitute for being physically present. This community is only 100 homes. Surfside is a bigger responsibility, and should set limits as you suggest.
The State RCW permits Board Members to participate and vote by electronic means, except they can’t vote remotely at the Annual Meeting.
Sorry George, but on this matter I strongly disagree. I understand the frustration of telephone meetings, but yours is not a good idea. It is very important that remote participation be allowed - especially in an HOA where 85% of the members reside elsewhere. To not allow remote participation would exclude most of the members from being able to participate. What we really need is for meetings to be conducted on the web so that all members can participate. This works with corporate board meetings, so why not for HOAs? To invoke such a rule would only further tighten the grip of the 15% who live in Surfside year-round and eliminate any chance of part-timers or RVers from running for Trustee.
At present we are allowing Board Trustees to participate and vote by phone. How has that been working? Maybe on the web would be ok It does not seem to be working in it's present form.
Committee participation is a little different than attending 11 Board meetings a year. A Board meeting also provides an opportunity for members to interact with the Board.
I don't think requiring Trustees to be present 9 times is not asking to much. If Trustees can't be involved that much as a minimum, they should not be on the Board. Just my opinion. I would add to that even further, that the Board President should be a full time resident. There are issues that need attention as often as several times a week. Guess I am old school and believe in hands on and face to face.
I respect your opinion and think we can agree that what we have now is not working to the benifit of the Board, staff and members. I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time.
George, we agree that our Board is dysfunctional and having some Trustees who never participate in person makes it worse. There are only 10 Board Meetigs a year (no meeting in Dec and only a brief meeting in July after the annual meeting) so it is reasonable that Trustees should attend at least half the meetings in person. However, this would require changing the governing documents.
Note that according to the Washington Nonprofit Corporation Act, in RCW 24.03.075, “...Except as otherwise restricted by the articles of incorporation or the bylaws, members and any committee of members of the corporation may participate in a meeting by conference telephone or similar communications equipment so that all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other at the same time. Participation by that method constitutes presence in person at a meeting.” To my knowledge the Articles & Bylaws do not restrict participation in meetings by telephone.
I think we're ignoring the Elephant in the room. Mr. Flood has not attended more than a few BOT meetings in the last 2 years. He also is a key member of the Water Dept. Committee, the meetings of which he also does not attend in-person.
It's quite obvious that this guy is dead weight, and makes no more contribution in his role than a phone in the room that chirps once in a while.
Limits need to be established that prevent this kind of disrespect for the importance of the HOA in this community. Limits also need to be established that greatly restrict the president's ability to charge legal consultation to our account.
We have a major crisis on our hands with the failed permitting, EPA investigation, and fines, yet the HOA BOT has not acknowledged it, spoken of it, or published a single word about it in the nearly 2 months since it began. How is it that 9 Trustees allow this to be a terrible secret, and sit on their hands, unwilling to begin the process of dealing with this ?
And we're here making excuses for Trustees who fail to do their jobs. Phones are fine for a couple of meetings a year - if necessary, whatever the RCWs may say. The community deserves better than Mr. Flood is delivering, and deserves action on this to limit Trustee's laziness, setting limits on legal spending as well.
9:45. On that we agree. I don’t think Mr. Flood has been a good Trustee for many reasons, his lack of attendance at BOT meetings being a prime example. However, more concerning is his lack of representation of all members as demonstrated by his pushing through the pipe replacement initiative that led to our problems with the L&I violations and EPA investigation. His self-serving pushback on the county plan to extend a drainpipe that would alleviate flooding is another example. This would benefit Surfside, but because it would eventually result in growth of the dunes and potentially obstruct his ocean views, he rejected the county’s offer. Property owners on G street must contend with the natural impact of the dunes, although it’s rumored some have engaged in illegal dune modifications. Unfortunately, as long as we have such low participation from part-timers in our HOA elections, Flood will continue to align with his cronies and get re-elected. The only way to change the outcome of Surfside is to change the way we the members participate in elections. To do this we need to be able to connect and communicate with the 85% of members who don’t live full time in Surfside and don’t vote, but still share in the legal & financial liability of the Board’s mismanagement.
9:45 sez...I mean to say that I think George makes a valid point - mainly, that there need to be specific limits set on lack of attendance.
The requirements to hold open meetings is an important aspect of HOA governance that needs to be maintained, and few exceptions allowed by the membership. Transparency depends on policy put in place only by adhering to State and Covenant prescribed procedures which are in place to do just that.
We are not a huge commercial corporation, but an HOA community that has a representative governance in place, necessitating an emphasis on communication with the members, and soliciting their opinions and preferences. I think open meetings with all attending in person, best accomplishes these goals.
Yes, we need the Tech Comm. and a program to broaden Surfside communications, and electronic voting in our Annual elections. But we won't benefit from making it easier for Trustees to govern out of the public eye, or voting on community matters in a private venue.
Ms. Blagg. Now that you have taken up George's claim concerning the pipe extension, can you please explain how bringing the pipe closer to the ocean will decrease the amount of times it gets blocked AND reduce flooding?
It gets blocked after big storms or extreme high tides. The same happens to other outflows down the coast. The one in OP avoids this due to the longer distance it has from the ocean and the constant flow of water it has out of it. Others further south that are closer to the ocean than ours get blocked and has to be dug out more frequently than ours. When I walked by Friday during the high tides ours was blocked. When I drove down the beach later in the day the others I mentioned were blocked also. So again, explain how moving it closer to the ocean would change it and/or decrease the amount of times the county having to dig it out. Seems to me that you and George are using this as more as another way to take a shot at Flood and others who live on G.
Now before you start calling me a crony, as you tend to do when someone disagrees, I will not vote for the man. Although I understand George's point I agree with you about not making it a mandatory for a trustee to be present but can be by phone. But I do feel that they should attend the annual meeting specially if they have proxies. The fact that he and Scott didn't and members who trusted them with their votes which didn't get counted is a deal breaker for me.
3:10. Regarding the pipe extension, my concern is that one Trustee has influenced or perhaps even spoken on behalf of the BOT without due diligence. If what you say is true about the blockages, then a study of options would reveal the best course of action. The problem is with the process used to make decisions - unilaterally or in secret sessions. If the county thinks the extension would be an improvement then why not investigate, get the facts, perhaps even have a town hall meeting or floor discussion at a Board Meeting, then make a decision. If the facts show the current configuration is best for Surfside, then at least we know it was evaluated. If Flood has in fact been pushing this for his own agenda, then the board should stop him. The problem with our HOA is that the Board rarely makes decisions based on what is best for the entire membership and there is a lack of transparency on how decisions are made. There should be public review, public discussion, and public input. This doesn’t guarantee the choice will achieve the desired results, but at least it won’t be the result of a backroom deal. I’m not pushing for the pipe extension, just to consider the pros & cons
I went to both outfalls today. They had both been blocked and a contractor was there digging out the sand. Both Seabreeze Lake and the Canal had flooded. The pipe extension is not my idea, it is the preference of the County engineers. Go to the chipping site at 350th and G Street and look for yourself. A short walk on that beach trail and you can see for yourself. An extension to the dune edge, and no digging would be needed. Go look, see for yourself. Common sense should prevail.
You will see that the high tide storm waves cam to within a foot of going over the top and down onto G Street. The driftwood proof is there. Go look,. Call the County and ask them. I have shown pictures and repeatedly told you what I see with my own eyes. I am no expert, but I have eyes, a brain and listen what the County engineers say. That's enough for me.
Thanks for sharing your observations George. It just makes sense for Surfside to work with the County on this.
Post a Comment