and your fellow Board members.
Gary Williams has become an embarrassment to the Board and the association as a hole. (whole)
More than that, he has violated our governing documents with unauthorized spending of member funds. He has made decisions and taken action far exceeding his authority. Over the years he has been a contributing factor in the situation the association now has to confront with fines and criminal investigations.
The reputation of our association is only going to get worse as more details of misconduct and violations of law are revealed. The Board needs to get out in front of this now. We do have some good Board members who have been sucked into this and are unwittingly becoming co conspirators in a situation that they were not a part of.
Those who knowingly conspired with Williams should resign for the good of the Board and the community. This is mainly the Executive Committee. (President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer)
Why subject the members and some Board members the embarrassment that is sure to come?
Especially Mr. Williams, needs to resign from the Board. This situation is going to become more and more public. The Board needs to show that they are making corrections now. There is no indication that is happening. Accepting resignations from Williams and others would actually be a positive step.
Do the right thing Mr. Williams, resign from the Board. It would be the honorable thing to do, and include an apology for the damage you have done. The members deserve no less.
29 comments:
Well, good luck with that!
Really appreciate the sentiment, George, but this guy hasn't done the honorable thing yet. I'm thinkng he'll go kicking and screaming.
Can we the members, have it put on the ballot to vote for removal of him and Flood at the general members meeting in July?
Please attend the meeting in July.
GW won't step down, hes in too deep, stepping down would just send a guilty message. he'll have to be forced out of term out
Guy looks like he is laughing all the way to the bank......on our dime.
I made a motion to have Gary Williams removed from the Board at the last annual meeting it was a legal motion with a second and should have been brought up for discussion. The Bard went to the Lawyer and Sam Jaffy I believe his name if it is not I am sorry I got it wrong. He is said it was not a legal motion but it was I have done this before in an other organization with no problems.
Sam Jacobs
That mouthpiece is in their pocket, hat and hand. Do not expect him to do anything but gum up the works and parrot the party line.
To 10:03 AM your comment about the attorney is beyond laughable and would show you for the fool you are if a name was attached. A mouthpiece and in their pocket? You, like me, probably know less than nothing about our attorney.
There have been other instances where the attorney "gummed-up the works" maintaining a rationale that was false. What part did he play in the filing in Superior Court bringing suit against Patrick ? The suit was withdrawn after spending $80,000 or more.
Was this a rogue decision by Williams and friends, or was the attorney consulted ? We can probably assume that the attorney was on-board with the decision, and may have recommended it. He would get paid in any case, right ?
And then a second lawsuit filed in S. Court to demand fines be paid on a compliant member. Another lawsuit withdrawn after spending abut $50,00 we hear.To the Court, these matters are trivial, and well within the HOA's capability to resolve without great expense by either party.
The HOA having the might of over 2000 dues paying members, is clearly intent on inflicting serious financial hardship on these owners, which is difficult to justify from the Court's perspective. That's how it seems to me.
Sam Jacobs is a Partner at Helsell Fetterman. Given his professional experience and practice areas, it seems he would potentially share some culpability of our environment and health & safety malfeasance.
Look him up and tell us what you think.
10:10 you are the one that knows nothing. Look at the attorneys fees that were spent last year and so far this year. Tell me do you think that exorbitant amount is just good will? It is buying the Board a false legal opinion bordering on bribery.
From what I understand, a few members can't recall the board since the entire membership votes them in, the entire membership must vote them out. You can't void all others members vote just because you want someone removed from the board. That is why the motions didn't pass at the last annual meeting. All members have a right to vote in or out board members not just a few.
false legal opinions result in lawsuits and disbarments. false allegations can also result in lawsuits. 1:18 is out of line and clearly a troublemaker.
Wrong, 2:03
!:18 is not a trouble maker, he is a trouble exposer. The trouble has already been made by this sneaky board and anyone who exposes them is called a trouble maker by people like you who are in denial or a part of the trouble. Are you going to call L&I and the EPA trouble makers also? Now you want to silence allegations with the threat of a lawsuit? The voice of truth will not be stilled by your veiled threats.
Because he disagrees he's a troublemaker and out of line?
Stay tuned.
Better a troublemaker than a self repeating lapdog/boardmember. Because who else with any sense would support this bod.
it is not a matter of supporting the board, repeating or lapdogging. it is a matter of being reasonable and not throwing out rotten allegations with only guess work to back it up. a little integrity from some of you would help your cause. instead, you stir in the crap.
If the rotten board would be more transparent, there would not have to be rotten allegations. They hide behind a lawyer and say nothing. They need to consult a public relations company and get some practical advice on how to communicate with the members. By saying nothing, they are just making themselves appear to be guilty. Thank God for the blog. It is the only source of information. Hopefully the new GM will give the board advice that it so badly needs. Don't hold your breath.
A majority vote of approval at the Annual MEMBERS Meeting, recalling one or more Trustees, is a done deal. The membership at large need not be consulted. Everyone who is a member can/should attend the Annual Meeting, if they want a voice in measures that are put to a vote.
Anyone who doesn't recognize that the current Board has NO integrity, and cannot be trusted to continue, is incapable of protecting their own rights in this community. Manipulating elections by rejecting member votes and allowing Trustees to vote multiple times, unlawful decisions made in secret meetings to spend member funds, management failure to secure proper permitting before building, complete lack of oversight of WaterDept. procedures, deferring funds intended for Water Dept. maintenance to pursue trivial lawsuits, blatant lieing to the membership about HOA legal entanglements (Williams), promoting discrimination through policies like the Height limits, and shed rules that in fact only call RV owners non-compliant, refusing to be transparent as required by State law in all BOT decision-making,...the list goes on.
There needs to be an end to excuses made for B. members who disrespect member rights, regulations that come to bear on conducting business, proper permitting for building, protecting wetlands, and promote entitlements for J Place owners.
Why can't removal of specific board members be put on the general ballots that get mailed to members? This way it goes out to everyone, no excuses at the meeting that not all members had a chance to vote.
Let's vote out Gary and Flood.
03/19 9:33 PM.
Please help us review the state RCWs, governing documents, and CC&RS to answer your question.
Our Articles of Incorporation provide for member measure motions to be put on the ballot. So recall by individual, and a few motions seems a good idea.
Proposing approval of: 1) electronic voting option, (mail & proxies allowed as well) 2) Member covenant change approval requirement, are likely proposals that aren't really controversial, but put more authority in the member's hands, as should be the case. Our HOA is unusual in that covenant change is only the Board's right. We have many good reasons to insist on member approval being a requirement. What percentage of the voting members would be best, 60% ?
There will probably be a recall measure as well.
To 6:05:
As someone who lives on the west side of J, tell me what entitlements I have that you don't? I'm required to keep my trees within limits just like everyone else. I do so. Been doing it for all the years I have lived here and that's why I have never had a complaint against me.
Speaking of complaints, many people make them that don't live on J, even eastsiders so keep your hate to yourself.
Speaking of complaints, and not being on J, I am sick and tired of the current Board dealing with membership in 'mushroom' fashion - keepong us in the dark and feeding us s**t.
If that's hate, its been well earned.
3:19...Understand what you read ? There have been frequent discussions of the Tree/height Policy and a special section on the leftside of this Blog page for discussion on Trees. Your comment does not relate to my comment nor does it relate to the Blog topic. Why are you addressing this here ?
The entire concept of the Policy is based on a guaranteed entitlement for J Place owners. Living on the East side of the street, you are both a victim AND a beneficiary of the Policy. You surely recognize that trees aren't likely to interfere with your view, with or without the restrictions. Once large trees are topped, they will never grow much taller. It stimulates bushiness and wind resistance.
Most likely you have had no choice but to trim your trees, so maybe you're pissed about it and want everyone else to have to constantly trim THEIR trees. Otherwise, recognize that this is an unfair policy that was put in place to make J Place the elite avenue in Surfside, with property values exceeding the rest of the community.
Views are not at stake in 2019, as there are few to no views of the surf, and the ocean can easily be seen and would be entirely visible with all of the trees below at 25 ft or more. The policy is outdated and discriminatory. There is no guarantee of views for any Surfside lots to be found in the covenants. There should be no policy that bases decisions on that as criteria, and pretends not to.
Trees are private property and should not be considered fair game for the HOA to use as a tool for intimidation. The policy has seriously damaged both the appearance of the community and values of much of the property between J and G Street. Trees that are by nature inclined to grow to about 25 to 30 feet maximum, cut repeatedly at 12 or 14 feet, die. It should be perfectly obvious.
It is perfectly obvious to those of us without special interests. Others will fight it with rancor and anger, since their act is being called out for what it is.
That appears to be true. It would be a great advancement for the community to be rid of this useless source of conflict and heavy-handed enforcement.
Post a Comment