This is a forum to share and discuss information and issues about our homeowners association.
The blog host is not responsible for the content of comments.
As with all blogs, you have to use your own judgement as to the accuracy of the postings and comments.
Saturday, May 4, 2019
Board Candidates
7 declared candidates
James Flood James Clancy Kurt Olds Ric Minich Steve Cox Shawn O'Neil Michael Riley
107 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Surfide... the top three in this list are or were the problem... Don't repeat, hoping that it will get better
Actually it makes perfect sense 6:23. Do you think it is just a coincidence that the comment came shortly after George posted the topic? No. It is him making an anonymous comment again and the reason for the Olds inclusion is all due to his personal bias towards the Olds family that has been going on since he quit the board.
Flood has been on the BOT for 12 years, lives in Surfside but never attends meetings in person. He has been the primary champion of the waterline replacement project, has long been on the Water Dept. Committee, yet allowed years of mishandling of asbestos pipe to go on without oversight. That is what the committee is supposed to be doing in the first place.
Clancy has been said to be the person who handled the permitting on the Water Dept. Construction projects that were improperly permitted. This led to a stop-work order and has put the future of the Waterworks in jeopardy, now about 8 months in limbo, and apparently will not be resolved for months to come. It is possible that the CTP may need to be removed from the site, as it is on unstable ground, and is sitting in a Wetland.
Plenty of members are aware that these two are not worthy of re-election, so no reason to assume George made the first comment Sherlock.
hmm, wondering if it could have been an old employee with experience with some of these fools?
Surfside's voting for board members reminds of an on again, off again relationship in people... "it'll be different this time mindset" and the you get all all upset all over again, when you learn that you have been duped again.
Remember, All it takes is three board members, so if you can't fill all 9 seats so be it.
8:51 sez... I had the same impression, but was told otherwise recently. That would make at least a little sense, considering he never shows up for meetings. It's certainly his business where he chooses to live most of the time, but pretending to be a Trustee and living too far away to make frequent trips to Surfside shows a lack of honesty or commitment. He should not be running for re-election. Thanks for the input !
Only comment I have made is this one. Refreshing to see new faces running for the Board. Out with the old and in with the new, I say. They can't do any worse than the present Board, which is the worst I have seen in the 15 years I have been here and yes that includes when I was on the Board. For sure, there are 3 that I will definitely not vote for. The good news is that 2 will not be able to vote proxy votes that allow them to vote for themselves.
Mr. Clancy writes tree complaints against members trees that do not block his J Place views. He likes to spend and spend member funds. He will not represent all members, only those who support his twisted agenda.
Mike and Steve have our vote. LETS DRAIN THE SHOA SWAMP! Any new board member not affiliated with old is an improvement. Spread the word members:no to Clancy and Flood.
George please stop with your proxy voting falsehoods ! Board members OR just us normal members cannot fill out a proxy ballot unless the person assigning it is too ignorant on how to properly submit it. Fill the damn thing out and assign it to someone who will merely sign it to make it official.
This blatant repeating of a sinister plot is irresponsible and very misleading.
May 4 @ 10:34 he owns a home in Surfside so he is eligible to run for any office as anyone else. I certainly won't vote for him but that is not the point. Get out the vote and increase the 15% pathetic numbers and get rid of him.
Just a reminder. When Riley first showed up on here one of the first statements he made was he couldn't wait for us old folks who live here full time to die off.
So why should I give him my vote? Just because he's new? I don't think so.
8:56... No one is disputing that he is a member, and as such CAN run for office. Yuma Arizona is not within commuting distance to Ocean Park, so if he understands the role of a Trustee, as he should after his 12th year in a row on the BOT, he should recognize how worthless his role is, attending meetings only by phone.
But here again, the BOT allows "phoning in" to be considered "attending" a meeting, when there are only 10 meetings a year, and a requirement to "attend" 60% or more of the meetings. I don't think he has attended more than a couple of meetings in person in the last 2 years. This is obviously the case with the committees he is on as well.
Consider the fact that the total lack of oversight by the Water Dept. Comm. which he has long been a "member", has failed the community so miserably that the State and Feds have fined the community thousands of dollars for mishandling asbestos, and are still investigating why, 8 months after they began. The BOT has yet to detail ANY of this to the membership, and Mr. Flood is nowhere to be found. Oh, there is someone squeaking on the speaker-phone - must be Flood.
Those are not the words I spoke. We all say things out of frustration at times. I've met a lot of very nice older and younger people since purchasing my property here. I believe transparency is very important. I've decided not to complain and be a frustrated member, but to take a role of responsibility and work for the members to improve our hoa. It would be great if we could start an activity or two that seniors in particular would enjoy participation, such as a Bingo night or something.
Cox and Riley, they should run on the Crazed Weasel platform. This will be a fun one to watch. Careful all what you wish for. I don't know if I should laugh or cry?
For those of you who think a board member can better server the community if he/she lives here full time, ask Steve, Mike, and others if they live here full time before you vote.
May 6 @ 8:46 AM you are wrong abut misuse of proxies IF people using this method simply fill out their proxy properly. I select my candidates and submit it. It cannot be altered or filled in by others if I do this. A ruling junta is laughable comment merely shows your paranoia has risen to new heights. What exactly was your personal experience? While much is wrong here this continual bashing of a simple process is another example of misinformation on the blog.
Last year Mr. Olds was nominated from the floor, and received sixty-some votes. He was a preferred candidate well known to seated Trustees, and was clearly elected largely through blank proxies submitted to Board members to fill out. The contention is that this enables Trustees to cast more than their due, one vote per household. This is obviously so.
A proposal has been made that makes big sense, putting electronic voting in place to better enable members to easily vote on-line, and retaining the mail-in option - eliminating proxies altogether. If you are not motivated to vote, and make the choices yourself, then you cannot vote with a blank proxy, which perpetuates election of friends of the seated Trustees.
However you want to state it, allowing owners to submit blank proxies gives the seated BOT undo influence over who is elected, and what measures can move forward. In fact, the Annual Meeting is a "member meeting" and as such, owners can make motions for discussion and move to hold votes of approval.
If you are in fact a religious person, then shouldn't you save your prayers for situations more dire than an HOA election ? You do realize that you have been lied to and stonewalled by the current president and Board, but that's okay ?
What is most important at this point in our HOA's history, is to demand honesty and total transparency from our Board. Our Waterworks is in dire straits, and improper permitting on construction there is a major failure of management. It has cost the community a great deal of money in fines, and it is unclear if our Carbon Treatment Plant can remain at the current site.
A total lack of oversight by our BOT has resulted in fines for mishandling of asbestos, and costs of $45,000 for asbestos abatement. Workers were not trained in proper handling and protection from airborne fibers as required by law. The Board has been unwilling to disclose the many issues that remain to be resolved with County, State and Federal regulators, 8 months after this began. Working through this needs to be our main priority.
There has been runaway spending on legal counsel in the last 2 years, and a preoccupation with trees inches too high and eaves inches too long, resulting in 2 withdrawn Superior Court lawsuits brought by the BOT, at a total loss of about $125,000. Add that to the on-going legal issues mentioned, and we are talking about a great deal of money squandered on minor enforcement issues that should have been resolved by mediation, and incompetence/deception at the Water Dept.
I would aspire to contribute to finding solutions to these issues, and making a commitment to better manage our member funds and community holdings. Bear in mind, no one gets voted on to a 9 member Board thinking they will set the agenda. It doesn't happen. New ideas have to be talked about and evolve to gain traction.
So Mr. Cox points out that a candidate was largely elected thru the use of BLANK PROXIES. Whoever turns in a blank proxy is the problem and not the proxy program itself. And even if you do turn in a blank proxy send it to a neighbor/friend who will be at the meeting and not just to the board. This topic is as tired as the tree policy. If one cannot figure out this simple process perhaps they shouldn't vote at all.
11:08.... How's your reading retention ? If elected as a Trustee, I would serve a three year term. I just stated what our priorities should be as I see it, and governing is a group process. Progress is entirely dependent on new ideas and approaches to problems. No need to fret. If among 9 people there is only consensus to avoid change or implement new approaches, we can expect the same failed management and policies to continue, and with it a pervasive hopelessness among the members.
If I remember right, the Olds thing came about because he had the highest amount of write in votes, not because of the proxies. In fact I believe at first the board tried not to recognize the write in totals when Patrick left and not have a replacement so saying he was a preferred candidate "clearly elected" because of it isn't true.
To the proxy issue. If a member wants to give a blank one to a trustee of their choice it is up to them to do so and is their right. Same if they give it to a member. Most fill them out anyways and the whole proxy thing has been blown out of proportion. Patrick use to travel the community to get people to sign their proxies over to him and would show up with a stack yet the people complaining now didn't have a problem with that then.
Since the online voting was brought up I would like to point out that when the Tech Committee did their survey the idea did not have strong support from the membership. In fact since people could comment more than once more than likely it had even less.
Speaking of the Tech Committee and to Cox and others bring up Olds named in less than flattering terms just a reminder. He served on that committee and attended more meetings than the Trustee who wanted it. He also did stuff outside of regular meetings. This is in addition to other services he does for the Community. What has Cox or Riley done? Have they volunteered for any committees or any of the community events since buying here? Will they do so if elected or just show up for board meetings then back to their home addresses.
A blank proxy IS a write-in ballot. Allowing Trustees to tender more votes than is allowed per household - one - is to violate the covenants. A vote cast needs to be cast in full by the member voting. It is unlikely that many owners in attendance at the last Annual Meeting had any knowledge of who Mr. Olds was, which is why write-ins rarely get but a small amount of votes.
None of this has anything to do with Patrick. He is gone now. We should end the use of blank proxies, making each vote cast fully legitimate, and preventing the BOT from hand-picking candidates to favor. One vote, one household, no exceptions. Vote for enabling on-line voting, a very common method used by HOAs, allowing mail-in ballots for those who prefer it. No proxies, honest elections.
I would be extremely happy if they demanded, pressured, influenced, and persuaded all BOT members to lead by example, enforce safety programs, including the accident prevention program, follow all applicable external laws, follow our own hoa rules, including Robert's Rules of Order, be transparent, and enforce conflict of interest elimination.
May 6, 2019 at 4:17 PM Why do you keep asking for new ideas as though you're trying to reveal something? I don't think Steve ever said he's going to come in "guns a blazin" making all kinds of new changes. I see it that he's intending to try to influence a better direction in this HOA - and it's much welcomed.
I see 8:30's comment as sarcasm. It's the total opposite of what our current HOA is like. Can even be extended to a jab at the "no changers" who demand you blindly follow the rules without question!
Unfortunately I think it's a generational thing where in the past you may have seen more honesty in simple government like this HOA so it's natural to have more trust and faith in the rules and those who govern it, but in later generations we've seen a lot of malicious leadership and selfish acts, so we tend to second guess things, or wonder if our best interest is in the leadership's mind...
4:01....The intent in putting electronic voting in place as an option, retaining mail-in voting, is to increase participation in our elections. Many HOAs use these voting sites, and there isn't really anything controversial about it. We have to accept that our HOA is different from most, in that only about 20% of the membership are fulltime residents.
With only about 15% of our membership voting annually, and at least half by mail, we cannot say at any point what the membership needs or supports policy-wise in Surfside. The survey conducted was just a trial run, and the project new, so few owners were likely aware of it. I think we were on the right track, but we had to hear from the hostile opposition trashing the idea, as if there is some risk, or it's a trick.
In order to properly set policy and fine-tune some aspects of our governance, we need to make a sustained effort to draw more voters and participants into our elections and enable broader communications. In most HOA communities, candidates can canvas their neighbors, signatures can be gathered door to door for covenant change, surveys of opinion can be taken, because people live fulltime in their communities.
Such efforts to make it easier to vote, and potentially send other useful data and events information, would help us increase participation in elections, and better understand member views in setting policy. That really isn't controversial, just a community seeking better means of pulling its' members together in purpose.
The BOT should just set it up, and expect it to take a couple of years or more to show if it catches on. The cost is minimal, and there is no gamble, just an honest effort to get more members involved in our elections and policy making decisions. But Williams dissolved the Tech Comm., never wanting it in the first place, and wanting to throw it in the face of Deb Blagg. Kid stuff really.
David - If members fill out their proxy votes properly " they " will not be able to fill out proxy votes. The whole proxy paranoia is getting really tiresome. I have voted for 18 years and never left a gap where someone, board member or neighbor, to finagle my ballot.
5:03 PM, Prove it that no members only write who they want voting for them. Read your governing documents. It's possible and I believe it happens both properly and improperly.
I'm 5:03 PM. It's not a matter of proving anything as to how members submit their proxies. It's up to each of us to submit a completed ballot for signature of an on site member to turn in. It's so simple even a caveman could do it. If you do leave it partially or totally blank you can still check the box stating no further action. How do you people get thru each day?
5:03 PM. You are incredibly arrogant, egotistical, ignorant, rude, petulant, and condescending. You clearly don't care about proof or truth. The governing documents don't require a completely filled out ballot. READ YOUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS!!! Per our stupid caveman rules, the proxies are required to be mailed in to the office the day before. You don't even know what you are mouthing off about. How do you look in the mirror every day? I'm willing to mail you a mirror.
"Proxy paranoia" has little to do with the reasons the electronic voting option makes sense. The covenants have not been changed significantly in years, yet were recently changed to limit SHED EAVES !! No one can explain why this was SOOOO important, and what we know for certain is, that the proposal was made by 2 Trustees who were determined to screw with Patrick Johannsen, who had put a modest porch on an 8x10 shed on an out of the way loop.
We can say for a fact that blank proxies resulted in Mr. Olds getting an unprecedented number of votes as a "write-in " candidate, and he is now on the BOT. We cannot state a single way in which inches on shed eaves has had ANY effect on other owners in the community.
There simply is no rational reason to have put this covenant change on the books, knowing that many owners had porches and broad eaves on beautifully built sheds. This was done by the Board simply as intimidation should anyone think they can individualize their property and enhance their use and enjoyment in so doing.
How does it compute that allowing owners some latitude of design on their sheds is a threat to the community, or if soundly built, anyone's concern ? If we look at the mess our HOA is in as a result of HOA arrogance and disrespect of County, State and Federal guidelines, building in a wetland without a permit and mishandling asbestos is very serious stuff, and a huge legal misstep.
But they would rather focus on forcing owners with nice sheds to comply to their ridiculous random restrictions. Enforcement busywork is all this is, and a form of intimidation of owners, particularly RV owners, who can have only one outbuilding. Nothing is accomplished by this restriction, but the compliance officer keeps busy poking around where they are not needed.
The purpose of establishing Electronic voting is primarily to draw in more participation from members who do not vote or volunteer. By allowing this simple method mailing deadlines are not a concern, and blank ballots need not be involved.
A big deal ? Only when the system is "played" as it was last July. This merits a Bylaws change which can easily be done on the spot at the Annual Meeting, and Electronic voting can be approved by the membership to augment mail-in ballots, avoiding misuse of blank ballots. It makes sense to assure that voters make their own choices of candidates and measures, issues more significant than shed eaves - much more significant.
Agree 100% that was my first thought in the backlash to electronic voting was that it eliminates the ability to "play" / manipulate it.
There is absolutely no other argument - to think only paper is more elite you are fooling yourself. Both options will reveal a more honest vote and increase in participation. What's wrong with that? Nervous the scale will tip the other way?
May 8th at 8:55. The point was that you should submit a completed proxy and not that you have to. Submitting it partially completed or blank is a recipe for manipulation. The local college probably has a remedial reading comprehension class for you.
May 9, 7:30 AM Why not state what you really mean? Why did you have to accuse people of proxy paranoia? What was positive about that? Maybe positive dialogue is not your goal, I guess. Why so mean and nasty? How many books have you read in your life for personal pleasure? I've read about 100. What is the last book you read? The last book I read was "A Colony In A Nation" by Chris Hayes.
May 9, 7:30 AM If you really think people should completely fill out a proxy ballot, then submit a resolution for a vote at the annual member meeting. I wonder how you will attack me next. I wonder what insult you will send me this time.
I guess so. You really got me didn't you. You're right. I'm a total idiot. That must make you happy knowing that I need reading comprehension classes and you're smarter than me.
For several years in grade school I had to take extra reading comprehension classes. By the time I was in my senior year in high school and in my first year in university, I figured out I have dyslexia. I've worked hard in my life and especially my reading to get where I am. I guess some people enjoy making fun of others.
How about attending the board vote meeting and filling out your ballot there ? No chance of sinister forces manipulating your proxy? You know about the meeting a year in advance so scheduling for most should not be a problem. Corporations request our proxies if we're a stockholder all the time as well. I throw mine away but the option is there.
There is a certain percentage of members that do not want to sit in an overheated gym and be lied to by the Board. I speak from direct experience 2 years ago.
May 9, 9:51 AM and Others. I'm asking for consideration of others and constructive positive dialogue. There are some people who have that kind of character. Then there are those that clearly don't.
I just showed them all these posts. They said I'm sorry you have to deal with such childish mean-spirited adults. People that ridicule and be little those with a learning disability are despicable.
1:57: Making the statement "blank proxies resulted in Mr. Olds getting an unprecedented number of votes as a ""write-in" candidate" is irresponsible and disingenuous at best. Same with the system is "played" remark. How would you know how many proxies were blank? Were you a member of the group who did the counting? Were you at the annual meeting and went through and counted all of the proxies that were blank? No. So this is all a bunch of crap that you are putting out there to serve your own purpose.
As a reminder, George was on here before that meeting making a suggestion that given the few candidates people should do a write in candidate on their ballots. He even gave his suggestions on who to choose. Well, people did. Just because some, including you, don't care for who got the most doesn't make it a conspiracy.
Anything this Board does should be under scrutiny. They have acted irresponsibly and possibly illegally. There hasn't even been lip service to the requirements as a non profit corporation.
The fact you continue to shill for the means that you are a Board member or a supporter. Be proud, guarding your special interests!
BTW - I've had personal experience with the proxy system, and its crooked as a snake and stacked tight for the current Board.
The voting process for electing Board members is overseen by an outside party (Janet somebody) and her staff. The budget vote is overseen internally with audience members do the counting. Since the budget will always pass due to current state regulations (look it up) it's a totally different process. I have received proxies from non attending members and if I really wanted to screw with them I would throw away any that don't match my prefences.
why is it so often true that the people who would do a great job do not volunteer while those who are biased or have an ax to grind step right up? we need better people than those who are running.
Dear 7:54 We don't need little blue pills to get it on as you certainly do. . . speaking of dried up. Creepy old men are not the solution to the HOA problems. Never was, never will be.
I've been bullied into withdrawing. People have ruthlessly attacked me repeatedly, tell me I'm crying when I'm not because I want consideration of others and positive productive dialogue, ridicule and be little me while being anonymous and tell me I'm weak and taking pills. I bet they're the ones taking the pills they're talking about. I'm a professional with honest and caring character and integrity. Some of our members are mean, nasty, arrogant, elitist juveniles. I regret buying into this hoa. It's time to get together and sue our hoa. It's time for the lawyers. I have a lot of evidence of malfeasance as many others do as well.
May 12, 1:38 PM You make no sense. But then again, you don't mean to. All you want to do is attack good fair people so you maintain the status quo that makes people shut up and go away. You bullied me from having any relevance. I've never had any relevance to lose you mean nasty, agitator. Let's settle this. I'm not afraid of you.
138 - I respond in the way I am communicated with. I have no interest in status quo with an association I am compelled to belong to that operates in an illegal and morally questionable fashion.
Bullies will not prevail on this blog. It provides a valuable public service, and will be defended.
OK George. Enough is enough. First you let your little fanboy Riley come on here making the statement that he looks forward to us old folks dying off and now you keep his little ramblings on here and elsewhere while deleting others. I realize you like to protect your friends but this really is getting to a ridiculous level.
Wait a minute, Riley has changed his mind AGAIN and is a candidate? Let's review some history.
He shows up at late and disrupts the budget board meeting because he can't follow simple instructions. Hasn't been to a board meeting since. He comes on here and makes the statement that he can't wait for us old full timers to die off. He makes other comments that most would consider questionable and somewhat troubling. He decides to run then changes his mind and withdraws then changes his mind again.
I understand he is a friend of the blog and is George and Steve's number one cheerleader, but come on, how can you seriously consider voting for this guy? Please, help me understand why.
Saying this is common behavior of the board, or even common behavior in general is just flat out false. To be also willing to accept this just to get someone new to the board can be easily considered asinine. He didn't even bother to show up at the last board meeting to state his case for the motions he put before him. How can anyone defend putting someone, anyone in a position that has shown a lack of actual interest and questionable behavior? How does that solve anything. Just because they may be new blood doesn't make it right blood.
Meanwhile you have someone like Mr. Minich. He has volunteered his free time to be on committees. He actually attends board meeting to witness first hand what goes on, not relying on others interpretations. How can you compare the two?
107 comments:
Surfide... the top three in this list are or were the problem... Don't repeat, hoping that it will get better
Well, Cox and Riley sure have the perfect temperament to serve.
And for the person above to include Olds with Flood and Clancy when he has only been on the board a couple months just doesn't make sense.
Actually it makes perfect sense 6:23. Do you think it is just a coincidence that the comment came shortly after George posted the topic? No. It is him making an anonymous comment again and the reason for the Olds inclusion is all due to his personal bias towards the Olds family that has been going on since he quit the board.
You don't have to be Sherlock to figure that out.
Flood has been on the BOT for 12 years, lives in Surfside but never attends meetings in person. He has been the primary champion of the waterline replacement project, has long been on the Water Dept. Committee, yet allowed years of mishandling of asbestos pipe to go on without oversight. That is what the committee is supposed to be doing in the first place.
Clancy has been said to be the person who handled the permitting on the Water Dept. Construction projects that were improperly permitted. This led to a stop-work order and has put the future of the Waterworks in jeopardy, now about 8 months in limbo, and apparently will not be resolved for months to come. It is possible that the CTP may need to be removed from the site, as it is on unstable ground, and is sitting in a Wetland.
Plenty of members are aware that these two are not worthy of re-election, so no reason to assume George made the first comment Sherlock.
hmm, wondering if it could have been an old employee with experience with some of these fools?
Surfside's voting for board members reminds of an on again, off again relationship in people... "it'll be different this time mindset" and the you get all all upset all over again, when you learn that you have been duped again.
Remember, All it takes is three board members, so if you can't fill all 9 seats so be it.
flood's mailing address per the tax sifter is in Yuma, AZ. don't think he resides in surfside.
8:51 sez... I had the same impression, but was told otherwise recently. That would make at least a little sense, considering he never shows up for meetings. It's certainly his business where he chooses to live most of the time, but pretending to be a Trustee and living too far away to make frequent trips to Surfside shows a lack of honesty or commitment. He should not be running for re-election. Thanks for the input !
Only comment I have made is this one. Refreshing to see new faces running for the Board. Out with the old and in with the new, I say. They can't do any worse than the present Board, which is the worst I have seen in the 15 years I have been here and yes that includes when I was on the Board. For sure, there are 3 that I will definitely not vote for. The good news is that 2 will not be able to vote proxy votes that allow them to vote for themselves.
Mr. Clancy writes tree complaints against members trees that do not block his J Place views. He likes to spend and spend member funds. He will not represent all members, only those who support his twisted agenda.
Mike and Steve have our vote. LETS DRAIN THE SHOA SWAMP! Any new board member not affiliated with old is an improvement. Spread the word members:no to Clancy and Flood.
Put a sign up in your yards no to Clancy and Flood for BOT
Agreed - NO to Clancy and Flood. Olds was hand picked by this group as well.
George please stop with your proxy voting falsehoods ! Board members OR just us normal members cannot fill out a proxy ballot unless the person assigning it is too ignorant on how to properly submit it. Fill the damn thing out and assign it to someone who will merely sign it to make it official.
This blatant repeating of a sinister plot is irresponsible and very misleading.
May 4 @ 10:34 he owns a home in Surfside so he is eligible to run for any office as anyone else. I certainly won't vote for him but that is not the point. Get out the vote and increase the 15% pathetic numbers and get rid of him.
Just a reminder. When Riley first showed up on here one of the first statements he made was he couldn't wait for us old folks who live here full time to die off.
So why should I give him my vote? Just because he's new? I don't think so.
8:56... No one is disputing that he is a member, and as such CAN run for office. Yuma Arizona is not within commuting distance to Ocean Park, so if he understands the role of a Trustee, as he should after his 12th year in a row on the BOT, he should recognize how worthless his role is, attending meetings only by phone.
But here again, the BOT allows "phoning in" to be considered "attending" a meeting, when there are only 10 meetings a year, and a requirement to "attend" 60% or more of the meetings. I don't think he has attended more than a couple of meetings in person in the last 2 years. This is obviously the case with the committees he is on as well.
Consider the fact that the total lack of oversight by the Water Dept. Comm. which he has long been a "member", has failed the community so miserably that the State and Feds have fined the community thousands of dollars for mishandling asbestos, and are still investigating why, 8 months after they began. The BOT has yet to detail ANY of this to the membership, and Mr. Flood is nowhere to be found. Oh, there is someone squeaking on the speaker-phone - must be Flood.
I would add "impeach Williams" to the NOvote for Flood, Clancy and Olds.
Those are not the words I spoke.
We all say things out of frustration at times. I've met a lot of very nice older and younger people since purchasing my property here.
I believe transparency is very important.
I've decided not to complain and be a frustrated member, but to take a role of responsibility and work for the members to improve our hoa.
It would be great if we could start an activity or two that seniors in particular would enjoy participation, such as a Bingo night or something.
Cox and Riley, they should run on the Crazed Weasel platform. This will be a fun one to watch. Careful all what you wish for. I don't know if I should laugh or cry?
For those of you who think a board member can better server the community if he/she lives here full time, ask Steve, Mike, and others if they live here full time before you vote.
Anybody ever proposed term limits? It's time to move the dead wood out.
No, it is not.
Proxies were used last year to promote the ruling junta, and I had personal experience of their misuse 2 years ago.
What is irresponsible and misleading is to allow these people to stay in office! Go ahead, keep shilling for people of questionable moral character.
May 6 @ 8:46 AM you are wrong abut misuse of proxies IF people using this method simply fill out their proxy properly. I select my candidates and submit it. It cannot be altered or filled in by others if I do this. A ruling junta is laughable comment merely shows your paranoia has risen to new heights. What exactly was your personal experience? While much is wrong here this continual bashing of a simple process is another example of misinformation on the blog.
Last year Mr. Olds was nominated from the floor, and received sixty-some votes. He was a preferred candidate well known to seated Trustees, and was clearly elected largely through blank proxies submitted to Board members to fill out. The contention is that this enables Trustees to cast more than their due, one vote per household. This is obviously so.
A proposal has been made that makes big sense, putting electronic voting in place to better enable members to easily vote on-line, and retaining the mail-in option - eliminating proxies altogether. If you are not motivated to vote, and make the choices yourself, then you cannot vote with a blank proxy, which perpetuates election of friends of the seated Trustees.
However you want to state it, allowing owners to submit blank proxies gives the seated BOT undo influence over who is elected, and what measures can move forward. In fact, the Annual Meeting is a "member meeting" and as such, owners can make motions for discussion and move to hold votes of approval.
Cox, on the board? Heaven help us...😵😵😵
If you are in fact a religious person, then shouldn't you save your prayers for situations more dire than an HOA election ? You do realize that you have been lied to and stonewalled by the current president and Board, but that's okay ?
What is most important at this point in our HOA's history, is to demand honesty and total transparency from our Board. Our Waterworks is in dire straits, and improper permitting on construction there is a major failure of management. It has cost the community a great deal of money in fines, and it is unclear if our Carbon Treatment Plant can remain at the current site.
A total lack of oversight by our BOT has resulted in fines for mishandling of asbestos, and costs of $45,000 for asbestos abatement. Workers were not trained in proper handling and protection from airborne fibers as required by law. The Board has been unwilling to disclose the many issues that remain to be resolved with County, State and Federal regulators, 8 months after this began. Working through this needs to be our main priority.
There has been runaway spending on legal counsel in the last 2 years, and a preoccupation with trees inches too high and eaves inches too long, resulting in 2 withdrawn Superior Court lawsuits brought by the BOT, at a total loss of about $125,000. Add that to the on-going legal issues mentioned, and we are talking about a great deal of money squandered on minor enforcement issues that should have been resolved by mediation, and incompetence/deception at the Water Dept.
I would aspire to contribute to finding solutions to these issues, and making a commitment to better manage our member funds and community holdings. Bear in mind, no one gets voted on to a 9 member Board thinking they will set the agenda. It doesn't happen. New ideas have to be talked about and evolve to gain traction.
And what new ideas do you have Mr Cox?
You would know if you read what he's posted, rather than demean him and post your own agenda.
That's OK, but people rarely learn anything with their mouths open.
Steve has stood by his name. Anyone else?
So Mr. Cox points out that a candidate was largely elected thru the use of BLANK PROXIES. Whoever turns in a blank proxy is the problem and not the proxy program itself. And even if you do turn in a blank proxy send it to a neighbor/friend who will be at the meeting and not just to the board. This topic is as tired as the tree policy. If one cannot figure out this simple process perhaps they shouldn't vote at all.
11:08.... How's your reading retention ? If elected as a Trustee, I would serve a three year term. I just stated what our priorities should be as I see it, and governing is a group process. Progress is entirely dependent on new ideas and approaches to problems. No need to fret. If among 9 people there is only consensus to avoid change or implement new approaches, we can expect the same failed management and policies to continue, and with it a pervasive hopelessness among the members.
As well as the growing anger at having to support an unfair, quasi illegal enterprise that dotes on themselves, ignoring the rest of the members.
If I remember right, the Olds thing came about because he had the highest amount of write in votes, not because of the proxies. In fact I believe at first the board tried not to recognize the write in totals when Patrick left and not have a replacement so saying he was a preferred candidate "clearly elected" because of it isn't true.
To the proxy issue. If a member wants to give a blank one to a trustee of their choice it is up to them to do so and is their right. Same if they give it to a member. Most fill them out anyways and the whole proxy thing has been blown out of proportion. Patrick use to travel the community to get people to sign their proxies over to him and would show up with a stack yet the people complaining now didn't have a problem with that then.
Since the online voting was brought up I would like to point out that when the Tech Committee did their survey the idea did not have strong support from the membership. In fact since people could comment more than once more than likely it had even less.
Speaking of the Tech Committee and to Cox and others bring up Olds named in less than flattering terms just a reminder. He served on that committee and attended more meetings than the Trustee who wanted it. He also did stuff outside of regular meetings. This is in addition to other services he does for the Community. What has Cox or Riley done? Have they volunteered for any committees or any of the community events since buying here? Will they do so if elected or just show up for board meetings then back to their home addresses.
Lot of grasping at straws going on. Existing and and the last couple boards have been a ethical and financial disaster. Enough reason for change.
I ask again Mr Cox, what new ideas? Just the same tiresome campaign speech with nothing new. We have heard this stuff for years.
A blank proxy IS a write-in ballot. Allowing Trustees to tender more votes than is allowed per household - one - is to violate the covenants. A vote cast needs to be cast in full by the member voting. It is unlikely that many owners in attendance at the last Annual Meeting had any knowledge of who Mr. Olds was, which is why write-ins rarely get but a small amount of votes.
None of this has anything to do with Patrick. He is gone now. We should end the use of blank proxies, making each vote cast fully legitimate, and preventing the BOT from hand-picking candidates to favor. One vote, one household, no exceptions. Vote for enabling on-line voting, a very common method used by HOAs, allowing mail-in ballots for those who prefer it. No proxies, honest elections.
I would be extremely happy if they demanded, pressured, influenced, and persuaded all BOT members to lead by example, enforce safety programs, including the accident prevention program, follow all applicable external laws, follow our own hoa rules, including Robert's Rules of Order, be transparent, and enforce conflict of interest elimination.
Thats just crazy talk,lol
May 6, 2019 at 4:17 PM
Why do you keep asking for new ideas as though you're trying to reveal something? I don't think Steve ever said he's going to come in "guns a blazin" making all kinds of new changes. I see it that he's intending to try to influence a better direction in this HOA - and it's much welcomed.
What do people think is so funny to May 6 8:30 PM? Or is the person just agitating to get a reaction like a little child?
Trolls..
Yes, a troll indeed.
I see 8:30's comment as sarcasm. It's the total opposite of what our current HOA is like. Can even be extended to a jab at the "no changers" who demand you blindly follow the rules without question!
Unfortunately I think it's a generational thing where in the past you may have seen more honesty in simple government like this HOA so it's natural to have more trust and faith in the rules and those who govern it, but in later generations we've seen a lot of malicious leadership and selfish acts, so we tend to second guess things, or wonder if our best interest is in the leadership's mind...
I see. It's sometimes difficult to know what people mean by their posts, myself included at times.
4:01....The intent in putting electronic voting in place as an option, retaining mail-in voting, is to increase participation in our elections. Many HOAs use these voting sites, and there isn't really anything controversial about it. We have to accept that our HOA is different from most, in that only about 20% of the membership are fulltime residents.
With only about 15% of our membership voting annually, and at least half by mail, we cannot say at any point what the membership needs or supports policy-wise in Surfside. The survey conducted was just a trial run, and the project new, so few owners were likely aware of it. I think we were on the right track, but we had to hear from the hostile opposition trashing the idea, as if there is some risk, or it's a trick.
In order to properly set policy and fine-tune some aspects of our governance, we need to make a sustained effort to draw more voters and participants into our elections and enable broader communications. In most HOA communities, candidates can canvas their neighbors, signatures can be gathered door to door for covenant change, surveys of opinion can be taken, because people live fulltime in their communities.
Such efforts to make it easier to vote, and potentially send other useful data and events information, would help us increase participation in elections, and better understand member views in setting policy. That really isn't controversial, just a community seeking better means of pulling its' members together in purpose.
The BOT should just set it up, and expect it to take a couple of years or more to show if it catches on. The cost is minimal, and there is no gamble, just an honest effort to get more members involved in our elections and policy making decisions. But Williams dissolved the Tech Comm., never wanting it in the first place, and wanting to throw it in the face of Deb Blagg. Kid stuff really.
Are you sure "they" will not be vote proxy votes as part of the current board? I am not so sure.
David - If members fill out their proxy votes properly " they " will not be able to fill out proxy votes. The whole proxy paranoia is getting really tiresome. I have voted for 18 years and never left a gap where someone, board member or neighbor, to finagle my ballot.
Not so fast. There's a whole lot more to it than that 5:03 PM.
5:03 PM, Prove it that no members only write who they want voting for them. Read your governing documents. It's possible and I believe it happens both properly and improperly.
I'm 5:03 PM. It's not a matter of proving anything as to how members submit their proxies. It's up to each of us to submit a completed ballot for signature of an on site member to turn in. It's so simple even a caveman could do it. If you do leave it partially or totally blank you can still check the box stating no further action. How do you people get thru each day?
good luck getting the by laws and articles of incorporation changed to allow for online or any other type of voting.
Gods forbid we try to enter the 21st Century and do things intelligently and competently
5:03 PM. You are incredibly arrogant, egotistical, ignorant, rude, petulant, and condescending.
You clearly don't care about proof or truth. The governing documents don't require a completely filled out ballot. READ YOUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS!!!
Per our stupid caveman rules, the proxies are required to be mailed in to the office the day before. You don't even know what you are mouthing off about.
How do you look in the mirror every day? I'm willing to mail you a mirror.
I'll take a mirror, can you send me one that is 24" x 60" with a beveled edge please?
Give me your name and address. I'll include a copy of the governing documents too.
No thanks "el presidente Maduro"
"Proxy paranoia" has little to do with the reasons the electronic voting option makes sense. The covenants have not been changed significantly in years, yet were recently changed to limit SHED EAVES !! No one can explain why this was SOOOO important, and what we know for certain is, that the proposal was made by 2 Trustees who were determined to screw with Patrick Johannsen, who had put a modest porch on an 8x10 shed on an out of the way loop.
We can say for a fact that blank proxies resulted in Mr. Olds getting an unprecedented number of votes as a "write-in " candidate, and he is now on the BOT. We cannot state a single way in which inches on shed eaves has had ANY effect on other owners in the community.
There simply is no rational reason to have put this covenant change on the books, knowing that many owners had porches and broad eaves on beautifully built sheds. This was done by the Board simply as intimidation should anyone think they can individualize their property and enhance their use and enjoyment in so doing.
How does it compute that allowing owners some latitude of design on their sheds is a threat to the community, or if soundly built, anyone's concern ? If we look at the mess our HOA is in as a result of HOA arrogance and disrespect of County, State and Federal guidelines, building in a wetland without a permit and mishandling asbestos is very serious stuff, and a huge legal misstep.
But they would rather focus on forcing owners with nice sheds to comply to their ridiculous random restrictions. Enforcement busywork is all this is, and a form of intimidation of owners, particularly RV owners, who can have only one outbuilding. Nothing is accomplished by this restriction, but the compliance officer keeps busy poking around where they are not needed.
The purpose of establishing Electronic voting is primarily to draw in more participation from members who do not vote or volunteer. By allowing this simple method mailing deadlines are not a concern, and blank ballots need not be involved.
A big deal ? Only when the system is "played" as it was last July. This merits a Bylaws change which can easily be done on the spot at the Annual Meeting, and Electronic voting can be approved by the membership to augment mail-in ballots, avoiding misuse of blank ballots. It makes sense to assure that voters make their own choices of candidates and measures, issues more significant than shed eaves - much more significant.
Great points Steve! Good work.
Agree 100% that was my first thought in the backlash to electronic voting was that it eliminates the ability to "play" / manipulate it.
There is absolutely no other argument - to think only paper is more elite you are fooling yourself. Both options will reveal a more honest vote and increase in participation. What's wrong with that? Nervous the scale will tip the other way?
May 8th at 8:55. The point was that you should submit a completed proxy and not that you have to. Submitting it partially completed or blank is a recipe for manipulation. The local college probably has a remedial reading comprehension class for you.
May 9, 7:30 AM
Why not state what you really mean?
Why did you have to accuse people of proxy paranoia? What was positive about that? Maybe positive dialogue is not your goal, I guess.
Why so mean and nasty?
How many books have you read in your life for personal pleasure? I've read about 100. What is the last book you read? The last book I read was "A Colony In A Nation" by Chris Hayes.
May 9, 7:30 AM
If you really think people should completely fill out a proxy ballot, then submit a resolution for a vote at the annual member meeting.
I wonder how you will attack me next. I wonder what insult you will send me this time.
Many of us read more than 100 books per year for both pleasure and entertainment. Does that mean that we are smarter than you are?
I guess so. You really got me didn't you. You're right. I'm a total idiot.
That must make you happy knowing that I need reading comprehension classes and you're smarter than me.
For several years in grade school I had to take extra reading comprehension classes. By the time I was in my senior year in high school and in my first year in university, I figured out I have dyslexia. I've worked hard in my life and especially my reading to get where I am.
I guess some people enjoy making fun of others.
may 9 - 730 - another leftist get his jollies.
906 u r on the worng blogg if yu r look& for simpathy
How about attending the board vote meeting and filling out your ballot there ? No chance of sinister forces manipulating your proxy? You know about the meeting a year in advance so scheduling for most should not be a problem. Corporations request our proxies if we're a stockholder all the time as well. I throw mine away but the option is there.
And another rightist shows his ignorance in print. Priceless!
There is a certain percentage of members that do not want to sit in an overheated gym and be lied to by the Board. I speak from direct experience 2 years ago.
May 9, 9:51 AM and Others.
I'm asking for consideration of others and constructive positive dialogue. There are some people who have that kind of character. Then there are those that clearly don't.
Oh boo hoo 11:49
Yes, you're making me cry. My coworkers are asking me why I'm crying. What should I tell them.
Tell them that you are weak and the medication you are taking is not agreeing with you
I just showed them all these posts. They said I'm sorry you have to deal with such childish mean-spirited adults. People that ridicule and be little those with a learning disability are despicable.
Don't feed the troll, or should I say Riley.
Time to end this one George🤦🏼♂️
1:57:
Making the statement "blank proxies resulted in Mr. Olds getting an unprecedented number of votes as a ""write-in" candidate" is irresponsible and disingenuous at best. Same with the system is "played" remark. How would you know how many proxies were blank? Were you a member of the group who did the counting? Were you at the annual meeting and went through and counted all of the proxies that were blank? No. So this is all a bunch of crap that you are putting out there to serve your own purpose.
As a reminder, George was on here before that meeting making a suggestion that given the few candidates people should do a write in candidate on their ballots. He even gave his suggestions on who to choose. Well, people did. Just because some, including you, don't care for who got the most doesn't make it a conspiracy.
Where is that great Surfside expose that the Chinook was going to print?
Apparently laura and the board made a visit to the paper. Draw your own conclusions.
Anything this Board does should be under scrutiny. They have acted irresponsibly and possibly illegally. There hasn't even been lip service to the requirements as a non profit corporation.
The fact you continue to shill for the means that you are a Board member or a supporter. Be proud, guarding your special interests!
BTW - I've had personal experience with the proxy system, and its crooked as a snake and stacked tight for the current Board.
The voting process for electing Board members is overseen by an outside party (Janet somebody) and her staff. The budget vote is overseen internally with audience members do the counting. Since the budget will always pass due to current state regulations (look it up) it's a totally different process. I have received proxies from non attending members and if I really wanted to screw with them I would throw away any that don't match my prefences.
Great, we can expect more of the same, which has been good for me!
Think we're ready for a new topic George.
SW
why is it so often true that the people who would do a great job do not volunteer while those who are biased or have an ax to grind step right up? we need better people than those who are running.
There is so many men & women on surf side hoa suffering from vaginitus. Old & dried up. Can't think straight
Dear 7:54
We don't need little blue pills to get it on as you certainly do. . . speaking of dried up. Creepy old men are not the solution to the HOA problems. Never was, never will be.
Considering the membership of the board, are you really sure that? Creepy old men who do what they feel like seems to be the core of this issue.
I've been bullied into withdrawing. People have ruthlessly attacked me repeatedly, tell me I'm crying when I'm not because I want consideration of others and positive productive dialogue, ridicule and be little me while being anonymous and tell me I'm weak and taking pills. I bet they're the ones taking the pills they're talking about. I'm a professional with honest and caring character and integrity. Some of our members are mean, nasty, arrogant, elitist juveniles. I regret buying into this hoa.
It's time to get together and sue our hoa. It's time for the lawyers. I have a lot of evidence of malfeasance as many others do as well.
What a load of blustering bull crap 5/11 @ 9:17 PM. List it here and now or go away.
Its all been listed and proven before many times. Denial is a river in Africa.
May 11, 9:55 PM.
The truth hurts bullies the most. Now you're telling me to go away. Bully on bully. I'm far from weak. I WILL NEVER GO AWAY.
It's not the truth, it's losing relevance that really hurts, doesn't it?
Since you have already admitted to being a bully, try this - we have no fear of you. You are an anachronism, shortly to go the way of the dinosaur.
Don't be surprised when you are called out for your bullying - expect it.
May 12, 1:38 PM
You make no sense. But then again, you don't mean to. All you want to do is attack good fair people so you maintain the status quo that makes people shut up and go away.
You bullied me from having any relevance. I've never had any relevance to lose you mean nasty, agitator. Let's settle this. I'm not afraid of you.
138 - I respond in the way I am communicated with. I have no interest in status quo with an association I am compelled to belong to that operates in an illegal and morally questionable fashion.
Bullies will not prevail on this blog. It provides a valuable public service, and will be defended.
OK George. Enough is enough. First you let your little fanboy Riley come on here making the statement that he looks forward to us old folks dying off and now you keep his little ramblings on here and elsewhere while deleting others. I realize you like to protect your friends but this really is getting to a ridiculous level.
Perhaps the previous comment was too complicated for you to comprehend.
You are not the judge here, George is. If that isn't to your pleasure, consider moving on. You won't be missed.
To 4:21:
What do you mean by let's settle this? Do you want to meet to talk? If so, then bring a step ladder so we can do so face to face.
that's funny 548! now that guy is running around looking for a ladder
Wait a minute, Riley has changed his mind AGAIN and is a candidate? Let's review some history.
He shows up at late and disrupts the budget board meeting because he can't follow simple instructions. Hasn't been to a board meeting since. He comes on here and makes the statement that he can't wait for us old full timers to die off. He makes other comments that most would consider questionable and somewhat troubling. He decides to run then changes his mind and withdraws then changes his mind again.
I understand he is a friend of the blog and is George and Steve's number one cheerleader, but come on, how can you seriously consider voting for this guy? Please, help me understand why.
Sounds like common behavior for a board member.
How about because the current Board has repeatedly shown their incompetence in every facet of Association operations?
We need new blood! The risk is minimal considering where we're at.
Saying this is common behavior of the board, or even common behavior in general is just flat out false. To be also willing to accept this just to get someone new to the board can be easily considered asinine. He didn't even bother to show up at the last board meeting to state his case for the motions he put before him. How can anyone defend putting someone, anyone in a position that has shown a lack of actual interest and questionable behavior? How does that solve anything. Just because they may be new blood doesn't make it right blood.
Meanwhile you have someone like Mr. Minich. He has volunteered his free time to be on committees. He actually attends board meeting to witness first hand what goes on, not relying on others interpretations. How can you compare the two?
I'm note voting for Reilly
I'm not voting for Riley or Cox. Both have shown themselves on this blog to be narrow minded, self serving, thin skinned bullies. We don't need that.
Utter crap.
You're simply afraid of people who do not give in to your bullying.
Nice try on the flip though.
Your continued bully crap 5:54 is getting old. What are you, an adolescent or a small man? Which is it?
Post a Comment