Definition: Another secrete meeting...
What? You didn't know about the Special Board Meeting?
It was published hours before the meeting in the "Weak Ender"
Was this another closed session like all the other Special Meetings?
Maybe all the members who attended will share what happened with the rest of us.
A General Manager will not solve the real 9 problems the association has. With the present controlled special interest Board, what will change?
You can attend in person, as in regular Board meetings, but not by phone? The trustees can attend by phone, but you can't.
You have to feel sorry for anyone who takes the job as General Manager. A yes man would be a better job title. What we really need is 9 new Board members, not another yes man. I hope the new hire has a good contract they can get out of after they learn the real truth about this morally corrupt association.
Poor Bill Neal, he is about to be thrown under the bus. Maybe after that happens and he is no longer on the dole, he will finally speak the truth. Time will tell.
Notice to the Board:
I got news for you, we are not all stupid and can see through your game playing.
SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
FRIDAY MARCH 8, 2019
2:00 P.M.
Surfside Business Office
The board will be meeting to discuss an applicant for the GM position
There will be a closed session for the discussion and a vote after closed session.
Most trustees will be attending via conference call
Members are welcome to attend in person
Call 360.665.4171 for details
94 comments:
Yet more secret meetings and no communication to the membership.
This general manager hiring has all the markings of an epic fail. George is right, we need a new Board before we need a new GM.
It was not a secret, no matter how many times you people say it. And given the usual poor turnout for board meetings which are known far in advance, how many people would have shown up anyways?
Funny, people have been complaining for years that we need a GM and now that we are getting one people are still complaining. See a pattern here?
To the calls for replacing the entire board I have a question, who with? How many people ran last time? How many are running this time? How many of the experts here who complain have stepped up?
Cue the crickets.
8:56 Please read the by-laws. I agree this was not in fact a "secret' meeting as there was a feeble attempt to announce the meeting, if only hours before it took place. Please read the Surfside By-Laws Page 10 ARTICLE V Section 2. As the announcement labeled it as a "Special Meeting", the following would apply and I quote " Special meetings of the members may be called at any time by the president or a majority of the board of trustees or by members representing twenty one per cent of the tracts within the jurisdiction of the corporation. NOTICE OF A SPECIAL MEETING, STATING THE OBJECT THEREOF, SHALL BE GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY BY MAILING SUCH NOTICE TO EACH MEMBER NOT LESS THAN FIVE DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH MEETING IS TO BE HELD". Obviously this was not the case.
Blatant disregard for the by-laws shows a significant malfeasance and lack of respect for the legal documents establishing and maintaining the corporation. As such it should be cause for removal of the President and Secretary as the two persons responsible for this violation of the by-laws.
Also, 8:56 I don't give a hoot if none of the members attended, the process was deliberately and wantonly violated. The announcement itself saying members had to attend in person, while allowing Board Members to "phone in" was discriminatory not only to all members but to members who may have a physical disability and unable to attend in person. Perhaps litigation is in order?
Yed, I see a pattern of mismanagement and questionable activity.
The general manager is great in concept, loved it when Ken Karch was around, but is doomed to failure with the current board.
As to stepping up, who wants to be marginalized and ridiculed for having a different idea? Differing opinions are not desired, and that's a big reason the current people need to go.
The fact that the meeting was allowed to take place with the knowledge of the Board members present also casts serious doubt as to their knowledge of the governing documents and agendas. As no one objected to the action, I must wonder about the moral and ethical compass of these individuals. Are they so full of themselves that they are totally ignoring the problems that we now face, who brought on those problems, and what they may mean for the future of this corporation? It is evident that some are extremely narcissistic, so lets get rid of them.
Since the Board of Trustees has been unwilling to speak publicly about the various legal issues the Board has brought upon the community, how are they able to recruit a general manager ? No one should be considered for this position without that candidate being fully informed of the multiple fronts on which the HOA is in legal trouble.
How is it that they think they can hire someone into this morass of legal issues and management failures, without coming clean with ALL of the serious issues involved ? Chances are, should they hire someone without their being fully informed of what they are getting into, that individual will either quit on the spot, or be fully unprepared and overwhelmed by the pile of mistakes and legal jeopardy the community is faced with.
But consider this dynamic. Those who are interviewing will either be unwilling to fully outline the HOA's circumstances, OR will openly discuss what they have been unwilling to address publicly for the member's sake, to a random candidate. Neither is acceptable. And they don't understand that ? This kind of mindless entanglement with legal issues is the "perfect storm" that all HOAs hope to never deal with, and it is a reality in Surfside.
We can make a motion at the Annual Meeting, that the Board e reduced to 3. We could get rid of 6 that way. Yes, it is in the governing documents about members selecting the number on the Board. Look it up, like I did.
I believe we have a new tactic for this year! Great!
I envision 3 variations of the motion George posted. In case we need them all. Shock and Awe my fellow Members.
You need to send "correspondence" by Email and registered mail to the office, requesting to make a motion at the Annual meeting for a member vote to reduce the Board size to three (3) This way they have plenty of notice.
Walk carefully here. It may be easier for them to stack the board with only 3 positions needed.
I totally support your position, I don't want to see the situation get any worse by our action… we need to make it better.
What about a motion for term limits?
Ok, will do George.
Keep The Vision, All
At this point, I am not sure on term limits. With a 3 member Board, it could start with an election for 1st 2nd and 3rd place. First would serve one year, second would serve for 2 years and third would serve 3 years. From then on, there would be an election each year for one Board member for 3 years. The Board President could be rotated every year, starting with number one, number two and number three. Every elected Board member would be assured of one year as President. The President would only vote if a tie among the other two. This is essentially the way North Beach does with it';s three commissioners.
With a General Manager, a three member Board would function very well. There would be no need for a Trustee on any committee. That would be the function of the General Manager. Just my thoughts, for what they are worth.
It gets depressing reading this crap
2:58, then a normal person would stop reading this. Friends, the problem is not the number of people on the Board (although the three person idea has merit) but the power that the Board wields. The Board has far too much authority to function properly. We have all seen what can and does happen when bad ideas become a new or altered covenant, or funds are spent unwisely. We need to rewrite the bylaws and give the corporation back to the people that own it. As of now, we have little to no voice in actions that involve us all.
Ideas and options being discussed here are exactly what a Board should be discussing. The reason they don't is simple. They want to maintain the status quo that favors their selfish agenda. Members have tried to form committees in order to get needed changes and time and again have been silenced.
Any reasonable mind recognizes that we have big problems and issues, if they know what is going on, but the Board has been effective in suppressing information. I agree that the Board is the problem and an election of only three will not fix it. My point is that we may have a better chance to remove a larger number of them is by reducing the number on the Board, rather than removing one or all. To be legal, you would probably have to make a motion on each individual to remove them. I don't know.
I do think a town hall type of meeting might be a good idea. It is true that it failed in the past, mostly because the Board got involved, especially Gary Williams with his promise to act, which he didn't. One thing for sure, we have to get rid of most if not all the current Board and at least see that none are re-elected. They are the problem and not the solution.
Lets have a secret meeting of our own before the annual meeting and come up with some changes. I will chip in $50. for stamps.
Thanks Martin! How may I get in contact with you? I'd like to share a letter for a meeting announcement with you for your review.
Unfortunately I will be away on the 15th (next Board meeting). Will somebody please address the violation of the by-laws that occurred this last week in the calling of the special meeting. Read my note above to reference the specifics. Please demand action to be taken against the Board for this action, for they are not above the rules that they hold us to. I would recommend resignations of the President and Secretary as a minimum.
This is a comparatively "minor" breach of proper procedures compared to the lack of public disclosure on all legal fronts. You are right of course, but a demand for action, and particularly resignations, will be laughed at and be counter-productive.
The Williams Board has tended to conduct their business outside of meetings, preventing any meaningful discussion in Open Meetings, often putting a number on a resolution, taking a speedy vote and finalizing without the members having a clear picture of what has been approved.
There is no respect for proper procedures or transparency, and as far as anyone can tell, all 9 Trustees are cool with that. There is no question it is improper, unnecessary, and in violation of State Law. Coverups amount to lies, and lies beget more lies and inconsistencies. They're fine with that.
It gets more hilarious by the day reading the comments posted with suggestions/solutions for how to fix the current mess we're in and try to make SHOA a well oiled machine. Committees fail (George) because almost no one wants to serve and produce. Been here since 2001 and tried a few times myself with board members or without. Seen several harebrained idea's floated and some selfish omne's or at least misguided. As for the possible 3 person board better hope that they aren't part timers. As for a GM I don't want him/her wasting time on them. And I don't want one saddled with secretarial duties like Laura was/is. We haven't (except for the asbestos mess) grown as a community and truth be told most just want to enjoy their lot in a reasonable fashion. I could mail my dues into a cold faceless entity and not be bothered a bit as long as I got my water and garbage. End of my rant. Einstein allegedly stated that insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different (better) results.
Remember the Surfside Town Hall meetings held outside of the community in 2006 with a few determined to change Surfside. As this time, it was a matter of a few malcontents wanting to have things their way with one malcontent hell bent to increase her business with Surfside. As long as the management decisions are being made by amateurs and those who seek to feather their own nests, nothing will get better.
So we just give up and allow this travesty to continue? I would vote to dissolve before that.
Here come the malcontents! Get Ready! Buckle Up!
Guess who this is!
So now your a malcontent because you see the mess we are in and want it fixed? You seem to forget why we are where we are. It is not because of the malcontents it is because of the board, plain and simple. The problems are seen as much more serious than being able to say it is just malcontent members. You have irate members that demand an explanation of why we are here and what is going to be done to fix it? If we had followed the recommendations of the Concerned members Of Surfside years ago, as Williams had promised, we would not have the problems we have now. 3:45 is part of the problem and the cover up. Your so called malcontents are just members wanting to make Surfside better.
When all the members find out what has happened, they are going to want an explanation. A class action civil suite is not out of the question. The real amateurs are the nine sitting on their brains at the board table. God help us, we are going to need it.
5:41
Do you really think we give a damn who you are? Your just another dummy who thinks they are clever. Stick you head back in the sand.
Hey folks, look, he called me a dummy.
Good for you 5:52!
Of course you don't care who I am. I only have one single vacant lot.
All HOAs are based on a democratic model, in the same sense that City, County, State and Federal representative bodies operate. Business is to be conducted openly, accurate records kept, transparency mandated, members to be treated with fairness and as equals.
That is not how business is being conducted in Surfside. Kept under wraps, the HOA was caught mishandling asbestos materials, was found to have built structures in a Wetland without proper permits, and was found to have ignored all protocol of safety in management of the Water Dept. procedures.
Fines totaling $27,000 were paid to L&I in early November without public disclosure, or proper approval in an Open Meeting. Four months later, no one on the Board has acknowledged these issues, fines or payments, all taken out of member funds while other maintenance at the Water Dept. were delayed and ignored.
While the management failures are a phenomenal screw-up, the BOT's failure to disclose what is happening is a crime in itself. The Board serves the members and are obligated to conduct business openly. This is a continuance of the entitled secrecy that got the community into this mess, and needs to be stopped. Who is going to demand our governance be respected and State Law taken seriously ?
This is not a matter of malcontents stirring up trouble, but an entitled Board, covering-up illegal conduct with still more illegal conduct - refusing to disclose circumstances that will cost the community vast sums of money in fines and legal counsel, and spending freely on legal matters without public disclosure or oversight.
3/11 @ 5:44 AM (my we're up early aren't we) your suggestion of a class action lawsuit is incredibly stupid (rude but appropriate) since you/we would be suing ourselves. Not to mention that these types of suits are filed by attorney's working on a contingency and if the party to be sued does not have deep pockets it will never happen. Love it when people just spew garbage out of their mouths.
Those who post here and don’t think there is a problem. Give your property to someone who gives a damn and then move away, far far away..
Any positive suggestions, or just banging on people as usual? Thought so. Try trolling somewhere else.
To 9:56
Comments against the blog and/or the host will be deleted. I suggest you start your own blog. Your not welcome here.
This was not a special membership meeting it was a board meeting and according to the articles they can call it like they did.
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.
If this were a membership meeting they would have to have given the 5 day notice, jeez people at least read the actual articles before jumping on the bandwagon
Then why the half-a**ed attempt at notification? Heat going up?
We've got a lot of members who do not read the association governing documents or don't understand them when they do read them. Hmmmmm! ignorance is bliss and malcontent.
BTW George, secret is spelled secret, not secrete.
Federal, State, County, or City statutes and laws legally have precedence over HOA articles of incorporation, bylaws, cc&rs, or operating procedures.
Review WA State 24.03 RCW and WA State 64.38 RCW.
You got it bass ackwards there 11:00 am. People who like it here should remain. It's people like YOU who don't that should give away their property and move to someplace where you will enjoy it, if there is such a place.
11:52 and 1:08. By putting into the notice that members can attend, it became a members meeting and therefore subject to the restrictions of the bylaws. Go peddle your lack of knowledge somewhere else!
But comments against board members, employees or committee members are welcome and generate multiple levels of hate. And forget about truth since the disclaimer on the blog leaves it up to the reader to figure out.The board may be guilty of many things but the venom here exacerbates it tenfold.
Any comments against board members are justified at this point. They operate in a manner that is inconsistent with a proper operation of a nonprofit corporation. We are forced to be members and party to the questionable and at times outrageous decisions they make.
One basic tenant that should be expected of a homeowners association is fairness. Here we have none.
Be on notice that the venom will grow until these issues are resolved, either through the resignation of the board, or the dissolution of the association.
8:52 your lack of knowledge is showing. They advertise every board meeting every month that does not make them member meetings SMH
The venom does not help your cause.
To Martin's request for a secret meeting before the annual meeting, that was done last year with Blagg and her F.B. group. So what you are saying is forget about having members vote on who they want to be on the board and instead get a group large enough at the annual meeting to push through their agenda. Funny how people condemn the BOT here for supposedly going against the will of the members yet turn around and want to do the same.
To the current topic concerning having only 3 Trustees. What happens if the 3 elected are people that a group of members don't like? Does that mean then at the next annual meeting we remove them also?
I've lived here for more years than most that make comments, certainly longer than the recent ones signing their names. I've heard the same statements made in one form or another by those with views that the majority of those that get elected don't share. Instead of running for the board and getting elected or STAYING on the board, they now look to other ways to get what they want. They don't care about those of us who do care enough to vote and follow the democratic process. The are just as selfish as they accuse others of being.
Apparently 6:13 can only say what wont work. Judging by his statement, there is nothing wrong with shoa. Differant tactic? Not really,lol
6:13 - Do you believe the current board has treated the membership in a fair manner?
We do not.
I too can count decades in Surfside, and I have never seen it worse that it is today.
As to the democratic process, it is broken up here. Good old boys rule. We would happily follow the process, if it were fair. As it is not, more imagination will be necessary. Stay tuned.
A Group of owners can hold a planning/discussion meeting to try and find common ground and plan a strategy for presentation of a couple of measures thought to be a better fit for Surfside 2019, without violating any rules. Owners who are planning this have no ill-intent, and the integrity of the process assures that a vote of the membership will make the final decision.
As it stands currently, the BOT has the say over covenant changes, which is not the case in most HOAs and similar organizations. Given the circumstances today, it should be apparent that the Board has too much authority to act without notifying or consulting the membership.
Their refusal to publicly acknowledge the mess the community is in, accept their responsibility and accept the need to be accountable for all that has transpired, is a violation of State and HOA requirements for transparency.
It should be perfectly obvious that the Board is unwilling to discuss their failures and establish changes in procedures and policy that will prevent the same problems from continuing. We know that last November the BOT paid L&I $27,000 in fines, and paid out $45,000 in Asbestos abatement costs, and have not publicly acknowledged any of this. This is deceitful and reason for their dismissal.
We desperately need more of the community members to take an interest in helping the community address the multiple failures of management that have lead to our legal predicament. Last December president Williams claimed that we are in compliance with all County, State, and Federal regulators. That was entirely false.
The Board has paid out vast sums of money in fines and legal costs, and continue to do so without any specific controls on legal spending, and without public disclosure of why member funds are being spent without proper approval and records made public.
Those who are organizing the planning meeting plan to send a letter to the entire membership disclosing all of the legal problems we all face, and propose 2 measures to be voted on at the Annual(members) meeting.
Setting up Electronic voting is thought to be our best hope of generating more voting participation, and establishing a member approval requirement for covenant change would take away the excessive authority the Board has, refusing to revisit covenants that are problematic.
The Board itself needs to set tight limits on legal spending and establish more stringent approval requirements. The Williams BOT has gone bananas spending money on failed lawsuits, and now fritters away untold sums on legal issues born of the Water Dept. Asbestos Debacle, and HOA failure to secure proper building permits at the Waterworks.
The Board also needs to establish solid oversight of Water Dept. procedures both in maintenance and in field work replacing pipelines. The Water Dept. Comm. should exercise these functions as their primary purpose, and Mr. Flood, who hasn't been in Surfside more than a couple of times in the last 2 years, needs to be removed from both the Water Comm. and his position of vice-president of the BOT, in his 12th year. He is dead weight and has done nothing to monitor the pipelaying procedures and safety at the Waterworks.
If viable candidates materialize in the next few months, then a recall seems appropriate. At this point there are no indications that the current BOT feels any urgency to do anything but protect their own butts, and everyone else can go screw. We don't have to put up with the abuse. We can remove them and elect new Trustees. Not a simple matter, but a dire situation that needs as much owner input as we can get.
Trustworthy members with no personal agenda to change things to their advantage are needed to lead us toward changes. Blagg and others who clearly have an agenda must step aside to allow more trusted members to step forward.
The above statements pretty much prove dissolution is needed. Anything else is a pipedream, pun intended. Or just wait for it to be disolvolved for us.
12:01 you are right on as to what you have posted. I wish you had put your name on what you wrote it is a starting place. thanks for laying it out.
A meeting called by members for all members is appropriate, legal and doesn’t violate the RCWs or the Articles & Bylaws of SHOA. If such a meeting achieves a quorum, it becomes an official meeting and those present may discuss whatever they want, introduce motions and vote on them. The Board does not control MEMBER meetings.
Last year at the Annual Meeting, we all witnessed a flagrant violation of member rights as set forth in the RCWs applicable to both Homeowners Associatons and Washington Non-Profit Corporations. I appropriately presented motions to the floor which the Board did not allow the members to vote on - even though we had a quorum. They argued that the motions were not on the agenda. Their attorney backed them up - just as he has stood by them on every potentially illegal action they have taken.
Note that the RCW requires only the that the BOARD inform members of the BOARD’s agenda items at membership meetings. It doesn’t require agenda items from members. It is ridiculous to think that floor motions cannot be made at a meeting of members when introduced and seconded. Floor motions, by their very nature cannot be placed on the agenda because they cannot be anticipated. The agenda is prepared by the Board, but the Annual Meeting is NOT a Board Meeting - it is a Member Meeting. Members can bring matters to the membership for a vote at any member meeting. Members present, and those holding proxies, may vote on those matters.
Note also that the proxy form itself has a place for members to indicate whether or not their designated proxy may “vote on other matters that come up during the meeting.” It is obvious that “other matters” are not on the agenda, but are anticipated and allowed.
We can hold a member meeting and vote on changes to the Articles & Bylaws to authorize electronic and mail voting, to require membership approval of all governing documents, including Covenants, replace Trusteees, reduce the number of Trustees or change anything else in our HOW may do so - if we have a quorum of 10% of those eligible to vote (less than 280 members). A quorum is met by those who are present and those who give their proxy to another member. This HOA exists and operates by and for all Members, not a select few. Unfortunately it may require that we hire an attorney and sue our own HOA to force change. I suspect that if we call a member meeting, nominate and vote for a member to lead the meeting and then make changes at that meeting, the Board will ignore the outcome.
No mention of the law breaking in SS this week in the Chinook O?
What about your agenda? You been bagging on Deb out here for years now. When do you step aside?
For her to step aside you would have to shut up, and I don't see that happening.
Once again, YOUR self interests are showing.
Let me make clear exactly what the secret “Blagg Agenda” actually is:
1) Shift power in Surfside from the Board to the members;
2) Member Control Over Restrictive Covenants & Policies - change the governing documents, giving Members approval authority over all Restrictive Covenants and other rules which members are subjected to, by allowing Members to place referendums on a ballot to vote on changes to the Restrictive Covenants, policies and rules. Allow this at all member meetings where there is a quorum with referendums passing by a simple majority of votes cast; and
3) Implement Mail-In and Electronic voting - change the governing documents and policies to eliminate proxy and live voting by implementing mail-in and electronic online voting, with members having the choice to vote by either method. Voting would be conducted and overseen by a neutral, independent contractor. The voting period would be open for a period of 30 days, ending on the last day of the calendar month preceding the Annual Meeting and Budget Meeting. Mail in ballots and online submittions would go directly to the independent contractor and results would be concealed from members and the Board until they are announced at the Annual Member or Budget Meeting. A quorum would be achieved provided ballots are received by at least 10% of the membership. There would be no voting at the actual meeting, except for any floor motions made by members, which would require a quorum of Members in attendance.
These are my goals as a member of the SHOA. Anyone who says I have any other agenda is either lying or doesn’t have the intelligence to read what I have written.
Deb has no specific agenda, beyond the dire need to establish a Board that recognizes the community's responsibility to ALL owners, and to limit our enforcement efforts to issues that have significant value to the community. I have the same focus.
The essence of an HOA is really the transparency requirement, and keeping the members informed by publishing accurate records that outline ALL of the BOT's actions, and decisions to act. We have seen the Williams Board take unnecessary liberties in their actions, and embrace secrecy as a tenant of conducting HOA business. That is a violation of State RCWs and Surfside Bylaws.
As we have seen no efforts by the BOT in the last few months to inform the community of what is actually going on, it makes no sense to continue with the same cast of characters, none willing to hold one another accountable. This really leaves the community no choice but to recall many if not all of the seated Board.
We need to make great efforts to try to draw in much more participation from owners, and it seems very likely that the complicated morass of legal issues the Board has lead us into is enough of a concern that we should be able to draw more interest in voting in the next election.
So sending a detailed but concise letter to the membership as we see the final outcome of the Federal Investigation disclosed, should be an eye opener for many of the owners who have ignored Surfside politics.
In my opinion, we need to clean house on the BOT, and owners demand honesty, fairness, and full disclosure of HOA business as is required by State Law. That is our first priority. Establishing effective review of Water Dept. procedures on a regular basis is second, a detailed system of oversight for legal spending, third. Mandating following proper protocol in BOT decision-making is essential.
Beyond these critical corrections, we can begin to discuss how some enforcement issues can be better suited to our circumstances, as well as discussions of redesigning a few covenants to serve the entire community and not special interest groups. By voting to approve member participation in covenant changes/approvals, we can openly discuss the merits of any changes we propose, and a member vote will make the final decision.
No "rebel" groups will be forcing anyone to do things their way. That is a scare tactic that holds no truth. We have to retool the basics, and bring together greater participation, even if it is mainly focused on our Annual Elections. It's a good community in a cool spot, with a lot to value and improve upon. (I'm 12:01)
If we can ever get to the place where members have control over the rules we live by, there are Covenant changes I would propose or support. These may also be referred by some as the “Blagg Agenda”, but unlike the Board, I am powerless to change them without a change in the governing documents and the support of a majority of the members. There is ample room for debate on these issues, which I welcome and encourage. However, I alone am NOT the evil threat some would have you believe.
I do support the following changes to the Restrictive Covenants and hope the members get the chance to vote on them:
1) Replace the existing “tree height” covenant with a “danger tree” covenant which would apply to all trees in Surfside. Tree trimming or removal would required only for trees which are diseased, damaged or otherwise present a threat to the safety of people and structures. Members would report trees an adjacent properties which they believe pose a threat to their personal property or safety. Tree owners would be responsible for the cost of trimming or removing the tree, or for obtaining the services of a certified arborist to dispute the heath or danger of the tree. No tree trimming or removal would be required for aesthetics or obstructed views; members would be encouraged to work with their neighbors who are willing to pay for trimming, but would not be required to trim or remove a healthy tree.
2) Remove all architectural and structural requirements or approvals that duplicate or are in conflict with the Pacific County building code ordinance and remove Surfside from all inspection and oversight of building activity overseen by qualified, licensed county inspectors. Surfside Members would only be required to meet the county requirements for building construction or alterations. (Note: I am not opposed to amcommittee developing reasonable rules pertaining to building materials or other aesthetic requirements to present an attractive image. Such rules would be subject to a Member vote).
3) Remove all language pertaining to sheds, other than that sheds must comply with the current Pacific County Ordinance (including minimum square footage). Members would be required to submit Pacific County-approved permits to the SHOA as proof of compliance. Complaints of violations would be filed with and subject to enforcement by the County. Surfside would have no jurisdiction or enforcement authority over County ordinances.
4) Revise language pertaining to RVs to require: RVs must have a current registration, must be in operating condition, must be in good repair, must comply with the Pacific County RV Ordinance, must be covered with a secured commercial cover manufactured for all-weather storage purposes when left unattended on the property for 30 more days and RVs, must be removed from the lot for at least one hour annually to demonstrate that they are operational. Complaints pertaining to Pacific County Ordinance violations would be filed with and subject to enforcement by the County. Complaints pertaining to other covenant violations would be filed with the SHOA office. Members must provide the SHOA office with proof of current registration. The SHOA will provide annual decals to be placed on the RV in a location visible from the street, as evidence that a valid registration is on file. Temporary visitor permits are required for guest RVs parked on a lot for more than seven calendar days.
Agree and support, Steve Cox! Your ideas are sound ones.
At least Blagg has this time posted her agenda that she thinks is not an agenda. Hmmmm? I wonder what part of the word agenda she doesn't understand. Funny how all her issues are directly related to her personal dreams of how she wants things in Surfside. She had to trim her too tall trees last year because they were taller than the adjacent two story houses. She is an ardent RVer going so far as to forming a closed RV ONLY group on Facebook to further her agenda. Golly gee whiz, she also has a storage shed with as I have been led to understand dreams of adding a covered porch.
The days of Surfside being mostly RVs and unimproved/unmaintained lots is gone. The houses are being built and the retirees and full time residents are moving in. Paradise for RV usage is not available in Surfside for some sensible and reasonable reasons.
6:43 you are either very forgetful or you are a really slow learner. I have not shared anything today that I have not shared many times before on this blog and on my public Surfside SHOA Member Facebook page. It’s none of your damn business what we discuss in our private FB group. Feel free to go form your own private group.
As a Board Member my Agenda (look at my motions and voting record) was to study ways to improve our technology and implement changes. This clashed with the agenda of the rest of the Board so the Tech Committee, which was established in spite of repeated obstacles and delays, so the committee was abruptly terminated. This was a vindictive action by the Board to punish me for motions made at the Annual Meeting to remove some Trustees. There was no conspiracy - this was a decision I made at the meeting in response to the Board burying my floor motions which were well publicized (including on this blog) prior to the meeting. The Tech Committee bore the brunt of my punishment for me exercising my rights as a Member.
My Agenda as a member includes advocating changes to voting and the way we establish and amend Covenants. I also have goals (ideas I would like to put before members to consider in the future) if my Agenda is passed. There is a difference between an Agenda and goals.
6:34, it looks like you also have an Agenda to rid Surfside of RVers entirely.
“The days of Surfside being mostly RVs and unimproved/ unmaintained lots is gone. The houses are being built and the retirees and full time residents are moving in. Paradise for RV usage is not available in Surfside for some sensible and reasonable reasons.”
You are again so wrong Blagg. We have been reading everything that you have posted as well as observing and listening to others. We saw through your BS long ago. There is no agenda by anyone that I know to rid Surfside of RVers entirely. There is an expectation that RV usage will be limited as the covenants promise us. We didn't move here to make changes to suit ourselves. We moved here to be good neighbors with the hopes that others would be the same.
The divisive and self serving crap from Blagg and her few followers is not good for our association.
I 100% agree with Deb on all 4 points!! The days of Surfside micromanaging county codes needs to go away.
Pacific County needs to oversee what goes on in the entire county, Surfside included. Nobody on that board is certified to regulate codes of any sort. This is all a power trip.
I need to join your group Deb!
No, it is about a homeowner's association. The county enforces nothing without prodding, pleading and threats. We always hear the excuse that they have no money to hire people for enforcement. The people who want to turn things over to the county want to undermine the covenants and ignore the will of the majority of members in the association. The concept of being good neighbors who follow the rules doesn't fit with their agenda or goals or whatever in the hell you want to call it.
03/13 6:34 and 7:50
You must be really proud and sincere with your posts hiding behind anonymity. Thanks for discriminating against me and other RVers. Sarcasm. I hope you understand that or should I say don't ignore and divert. But, I know of course you will.
Your true discrimination shows through every day on here and by the action and inaction of the current BOT.
Mike Riley
Here come the Blagg beaters once again. "She has a secret agenda because she trimmed her trees last year and she even has a shed ! Bet she plans to put a big'ol porch on it !!" Lame ! Trying to rally any kind of action to fix our very broken HOA takes some determination, and quite frankly, a desire to make the community better in its' service to everyone.
It's worth noting that the State required Surfside to improve water quality, and it took 5 years for the community to finally build the CTP. The HOA failed to properly permit the Storage Bldg., Plant, and Holding Pond, all a part of satisfying that mandate, so the HOA is looking at having to shut down the Plant. Meanwhile the BOT has nothing to say, and has not made ANY decisions pertaining to corrections that need to be made.
It's pretty obvious that some motivated members are needed to set a course for our community. We are in a very uncertain limbo right now, and unless the meeting Saturday suddenly reveals a Board forthcoming with information and inspiration for needed changes, this malaise will continue to drag us down. Time is ticking, our investment in the CTP is being neglected, standing in the Winter weather, improperly maintained, and we have yet to fully satisfy the State mandate.
We have a community of over 2000 member households that need to rely on a source of clean water. What's the value of a $500,000 house in Surfside, and no clean water source ?
Re to the time posts identified by Mike Riley. It appears Kirby is back on the blog along with the usual husbands. May I suggest they take a walk on the beach and put their heads back in the sand where they have obviously been for years. Go Blagg. On another note, from the employees it appears we have a new water manager. As the Board advertised the position as a General/water Manager does this mean we have a new GM? So only one interview we are aware of and BOOM a new hire! Must be a friend of the Board, you can bet the individual would not ever be hired if he/she were seen as anything other than completely towing the line for the Board. Was Clancy part of the interview team? Well at least the name isn’t Neal.
We are in agreement that the water issues have been mismanaged. This is an issue that the majority of members would gladly rally around. The tree covenant, the RV covenants and overhang/porches/covered decks/etc. on sheds are entirely different issues. Perhaps rallying around a common cause makes more sense than aggravating your neighbors with self serving BS.
Just received this message from Pacific County:
“Msg from Pacific County, WA: This is the Pacific County Emergency Management Agency calling with a boil water notice for Surfside Water system. Surfside water may be contaminated due to loss of pressure. Until further notice, boil your tap water before drinking.”
How much worse can things get before the members realize we need some major changes in leadership and operations?
Nice of Pacific County to use their emergency system to notify Surfside of water contamination. Horrifying that we cannot count on our water to be safe. As stated previously, safe and clean water is an issue that we rally around that has a significant impact on all of us.
One more time, Blagg is not the person we want representing what is best for Surfside. As noted in above posts, her agenda and goals don't fit what most of us want.
She has no concerns about the water today because she is not currently in Surfside or using our water.
Two points: low pressure happened bout midnight. Why did it take so long to notify. Second point, our new meters have a backflow mech, so i was told. So why the contamination.
No notices about the water contamination on the Surfside website or the Surfside Facebook page. SHAME ON THE OFFICE EMPLOYEES FOR FAILING AGAIN.
Would you have expected office personnel to see the light and change their ways? If so, don't hold your breath. Not gonna happen until we clean house with the entire board and office staff. And now, once again, water is not safe. What a complete failure of this HOA. Keeping my fingers crossed that the movement by concerned members can get the job done! I'm willing to pay my share to clean up the swamp.
Make a PDF copy of the SHOA home page today capturing evidence of SHOA failure to notify of the water boil announcement.
There is no statement on the Pacific County site and nothing on the Surfside site notifying owners of the "boil water" directive. Nice. Had I not been reading this Blog thread this morning, I'd have no clue.
9:35. How can you say I have no concerns about the water? I am a property owner who wants and deserves safe drinking water at all times so that I can use my property or so that I can rent or sell it to someone else. I pay the the same dues & assessments of you, whether I’m in Surfside or not. We will be in Surfside when school is out and my husband is not working.
I am not a threat to you or anyone else, so please relax. I have no desire to represent Surfside, you or anyone else. I’ve been there, done that and have the scars on my back to prove it.
I represent my husband and me - we are but one member out of 2,300. I know there are other members who agree with us on some issues and others, like you, who don’t. I am not demanding anything. I’m just stating publicly some changes we would like, without hiding behind anonymity. I don’t expect us to win on every issue - but we all deserve a chance to put important issues like these to a vote by all 2,300 members and let the majority decide which changes, if any, to make.
What’s important is that we get maximum participation in voting by all members. We need to make it easier to vote because, for whatever reasons, less than a fourth of the members are voting in person or by proxy. These people are getting their bills for dues & assessments, so why do so many claim they don’t get voting info? We need to eliminate the complicated proxy process which only serves to stack the votes in favor of the wishes of the Board and lends itself to being manipulated. A simple change in Articles & Bylaws would allow everyone to mail-in their ballots to the DECC or vote online for Trustees, the budgets and other matters.
Why do you object to the Members having a stronger voice in our HOA?
We have accepted and complied with the rules since we purchased our property four years ago. We have never received a complaint. We have no desire to do anything to our shed and we have always kept our trees trimmed and our property in good order. If we change our voting process so that all members are given a fair opportunity to vote on the changes, we will accept the outcome and continue to comply accordingly. If changes are made, I assume you would do the same.
What we need more than anything is a fair election with maximum participation by making it easy for all members to vote. The Board should be ashamed of the poor member participation which is a reflection of failed leadership. This is an HOA community - every member should want to participate - but too many are disillusioned with the leadership. We should mail out simple, clear ballots, identifying the candidates and issues. These should be mailed to members at verified addresses, by requesting corrected addresses from the USPS. Ballots should be mailed out by the DECC - without any prejudicial opinions of the Board - as was done in Nov with the electronic voting initiative. Ballots should be returned to the DECC, due at least a week before the Annual Meeting and kept secret from everyone until the results are tallied announced by he DECC at the beginning of the Annual meeting. The only reason for a proxy would be to vote on “other matters” that come up at the meeting - you know, floor motions from he members.
However, since our Board and it’s attorney have declared there can be no motions or votes at the Annual Meeting on matters that are not already on the Agenda, there would never be any “other matters” to vote on anyway. So just do away with the proxies altogether.
You don’t like me - I get it because I may not like you either, if I knew you. You don’t like the fact that I continue to bring up the truth about the manipulative actions of our unethical Board. We may not agree on the merits of Covenant changes, but we should be able to agree on the need to replace our Board.
Our association does not need to move from one kind of crazy to another kind of crazy for those serving on the board. The crass assumptions that Blagg and her followers make about my comments are ridiculous. I am not Kirby or some other individual board members that have been alleged on this blog. I chose to remain anonymous because I do not want the attention of nutty people in my quiet retirement years. It is not a matter of liking or disliking individuals, particularly Blagg. It is a matter of finding sensible solutions to real problems and throwing out the uninformed and trashy proposals for changes being brought forward by those who are seeking to fulfill their personal dreams about how Surfside should be. By all means let us do things to increase the amount of ACCURATE AND TIMELY INFORMATION available to our members. We don't need or want venues to post propaganda and warped opinions. Just the facts with clear documentation to ascertain that it is the truth. Members do not vote often because they feel clueless, confused or uninvolved.
For the record, I did check out Surfside’s Facebook page and it wa posted there, too.
Just checked Surfside Facebook page and website again and there is no information on either regarding the current warning regarding contaminated water. Go take a nap Blagg.
Please help me understand why you think changing our voting procedure and allowing Members to vote on the rules they must abide by are “trashy and uninformed”? Do you have more informed and less trashy recommendations for improvements or do you think our current process is acceptable?
I agree we need more accurate and timely information. The Tech Committee identified several affordable web hosting sites that would have done just that and would have included a moderated discussion board for members to interact without anonymity.
I’m not sure what basis you have for why Members don’t vote. I spent a lot of time talking to Members when I ran for the Board and when I was preparing my floor motions for last year. I have chatted one-on-one with well over 200 members who have homes and/or RV properties in Surfside. Many people told me they never received their ballots, others didn’t understand the purpose of the proxy ballot, others didn’t trust anyone enough to give them a proxy and others feel so disillusioned they don’t even bother to vote. I’m sure I heard other reasons, but those were repeated most often.
It was posted three hours ago and is still there. Perhaps you are technologically challenged https://www.facebook.com/1454914234751648/posts/2273125409597189?sfns=mo
Reread this post of yours and look in the mirror while you're at it.
There is a small comment on the Surfside Facebook page if you scroll way past several other useless bits about the water problem. It was posted 3 hours ago per the Facebook website. It is no help nor a decent notification to have to have a pot luck and trivia take precedence over this matter on the Facebook page. Why wasn't this notice sent out to all members with an email address or at least those who get the Weekender via email?
Regarding the Pacific County announcement to boil water.
I reached out to Pacific County and understand the following:
Pacific County does not post these types of notifications on their website.
Surfside made the request to Pacific County to send out the notice due to water main break.
Pacific County utilizes a reverse 911 system to directly contact all residents with a landline (VOIP does not apply) located within the Surfside boundary.
If you do not have a landline you can sign up to receive notices here: hyper-reach.com/wapacificsignup.html
Anticipate the boiling requirement to be lifted within 48-72 hours likely via another notice.
More easily understood ballots and an easier voted process is a good idea. However, uninformed and misinformed voting won't help. It will only facilitate putting people on the board who have a big mouth and an axe to grind. You know, people like Blagg. You know, Blagg who wants to change things to benefit herself with little or no regard for her neighbors. Most of us seriously want a quiet, safe, attractive, friendly neighborhood with as little fuss as possible.
My comment at 12:44 is addressed to 12:29.
It is interesting to read the righteousness in the Blagg-beater comments, Stating "she has an ax to grind and a big mouth", and 12:29 claiming to want to "find sensible solutions, throwing out the uninformed and trashy proposals of (Deb and friends) who seek to fulfill their personal dreams of how Surfside should be".
You are unwilling to identify yourselves and take ownership of opinions that spark with anger and disdain. You are not well suited to a rational discussion of community issues, as patience and compromise are the only route to finding solutions. People must work shoulder to shoulder to actually govern. You can't hold a position on the BOT and remain anonymous for instance. Mr. Flood comes close.
It takes the involvement of a lot of people to redirect a sinking ship. Nothing happens in situations like ours without a group of people with similar concerns uniting to try and find solutions. There has to be a source of inspiration and leadership, and getting personally involved has become a distant memory for many who expect governance to look out for them, without their participation.
We know that hasn't happened, so I think we can assume it won't be happening. As owners we should recognize how much is at stake and that our HOA is in serious decline. There's a need for all of us to take some interest and find solutions. I hope we can.
George:
We need to have a new blog rule.
The only anonymous posts that are allowed are those that don't mention someone else's name.
If an anonymous post mentions someone else's name, delete it.
I'm sick and tired of this hatred of others on this blog!
I admit to being outspoken (seems like a nicer description than big mouth) but I have no axe to grind. Perhaps you think my wanting to hold our Board accountable to complying with the RCWs that govern HOAs and non-profit corporations. Am I frustrated that the Board obstructed my floor motions at the last Annual Meeting? Yes. What’s if the vote had been held and my motions failed? I would have lost fair & square. What if they had passed? The Members would have been heard and their wishes would have been implemented.
Instead, Williams promised to put my three motions on the ballot in Nov (I provided them to the Board in writing). However, when Nov rolled around, only one of the three motions was put on the ballot - and then Williams included a statement “on behalf of the Board” recommending that members vote against electronic voting. The stunts they pulled have only caused me to double down on finding a way to expand Member participation and voting. The axe grinding was Williams unilaterally terminating the Tech Committee.
I do not want to change things to benefit myself without regard for my neighbors. I don’t expect to have my way on every issue. I know that some of these matters are opposed by some friends. In truth, I just want to stop the bickering. I want us to bring some divisive issues to the entire membership for a vote. The members might vote to reject the changes and put the debate to an end. The Members might vote to implement some or all of the changes, making some people happy and others unhappy. Regardless of the outcome, everyone would have a vote in the decision and - pass or fail - the majority of members would decide.
I’m pretty certain most, of not all, Members want a quiet, safe, attractive, friendly neighborhood to live or vacation in with as little fuss as possible. If you want to bring an end to the fussing and fighting, then quit ignoring the elephant in the neighborhood and let the members decide if they want to continue business as usual - or implement new ideas that make it easier for Members to engage, give them more confidence in the outcome and drive more willingness to accept the rules the majority of members implement.
Whether those who vote are uninformed or misinformed is beside the point. They have the right to vote and decide on the rules they must follow. The Board could facilitate informing members by allowing both sides of the issue to be presented to the Members without Board editing, interference or improper influence. All Members should have access to and be allowed to publish articles in official Surfside publications, the website and Facebook page. The death grip the Board, committees and staff have on these is mind-boggling.
Mike, contrary to popular belief, I do not spend all my time reading and monitoring comments. This is my first visit to the site today. I like to keep the restrictions few and simple. I guess if people don't like what they are reading in the comments, skip some, that's what I do. I find it boring to read the back and forth arguments. I guess I should once again consider removing all comments that don't directly relate to the posted topic. I guess it is what it is, just a blog. So far it seems worth the information and thoughtful comments from a few and putting up with the trash talk by others.
816 & 818 - act your ages. You've been after Deb all along, and she has handled herself with logic and a helluva lot more class than you clowns show. Get a life!
I noticed one of our board members is requesting the Board grant him a variance. Several years ago I requested a variance as well because my structure, although over an existing structure, was 3 inches short of being 25 feet from a feature. I was required to give the HOA $500 and the county $1500 to grant the variance. I would like someone to confirm this Trustee has also paid his fees for a variance. I still have both cancelled checks. No special favors.
Very interesting 9:30. We must be talking about their house they want to build on J pl. I agree with you, if you paid, so must they.
I also want to know how can we get things on the ballot for the member meeting to vote on? I too want to see the tree height to away, replace it with a disease tree code. Would also like to see Surfside do away with needing site plans, and or building plans for sheds, fences and building of homes. Surfside has no one with the qualifications to review any such papers.
Were you at the last annual meeting 7:39? If you call that performance being classy then you have a different definition than most.
Post a Comment