Probably illegal as written....
In my opinion, I don't believe that the Surfside proxy vote would stand up in court.
Our Articles Of Incorporation clearly state that each member regardless of parcels owned, shall have no more than one vote per member. Period, end of discussion. (or, it should be) The proxy is for the members that can not attend, to be able to cast their vote. The proxy verifies that they are a member in good standing, the same way you sign in at the Annual Meeting.
The Board members are entitled to one vote each, their own. You can not give away your vote. It is yours alone. If you choose to not vote for any or only some of the candidates, that is your choice. The proxy form helps to meet the requirements of a quorum present. We are required to have 10% of the members present in person or by proxy. Without the proxy forms we would not have a quorum. There have been years when it has been very close. That is why the requirement was reduced from 20% to 10%.
Write in votes are allowed, but they should have to be first approved with the same process that other declared candidates have done. They should be subject to questions from the members.
Nominations from the floor are also legal and allowed. That candidate should be present and subject to the same process.
The Olds mess:
There were approximately 30 write in ballots for him at the Annual Meeting, cast by actual in person and submitted proxy ballots. 30 more we added that could only have come only from Board members who had proxies that they were allowed to vote. This is where they have more votes than entitled. Remember, one vote per member. Olds ended up with 60 votes.
This mess was not about him being elected to the Board at this time, it was about him being appointed to the Board when Patrick Johansen resigned. Everyone knew his (Johansen) property was for sale and there would be a Board vacancy. For the past several years, a vacancy was filled by appointing the next highest vote count in the previous election. While not required to do this, it was their plan that he would be appointed.
When the vacancy did in fact happen, it is rumored that the sitting Board, or those in control, did not want him selected, for variance reasons. This is why they decided to just keep the number at a reduced 8 members. Pressure from the same elite group on the controlling Board members caved in on their previous decision. Now he is a candidate for a full 3 year term.
All the above is my opinion based on facts and information from others. I think it is true, but can I prove it? Some. You have the opportunity and right to state more than your opinion, You can vote.
48 comments:
So if you are to be believed 30 people submitted blank or partially blank proxies and did not check the box to not allow further voting of their submittal. The Board member's could not have been aware of their good fortune at this development.
Yes this is true about blank or partially blank proxies and did not check the box to not allow further voting of their submittal.
No, the Board members are aware that there are always a number of ballots they can vote. When the candidate votes from the members are close, the proxy votes by the Board can make all the difference in who gets elected. 30 votes can swing an election. This practice has to end.
The4 Board is aware of their good fortune.
Without getting windy with all the details of the election process, I served as the elections committee chairman and followed all the rules. Janet Cory, the DECC (designated elections committee chairman) is an independent hired outside firm to count the ballots. I requested, got and shared additional voting statistics. This included actual number of votes cast at the meeting, number of proxies voted by the Board, partial ballots, etc. The figures are all there.
In a conversation with Janet Cory, she said that we should be doing electronic voting. She said she knew this would put her out of a job, but it was needed. The many comments favoring electronic voting expressed on this blog, are accurate. The opposition comes from those who favor the status quo. They really don't favor increased information or voting.
I don't know any members who want to reduce or limit voting. The problem has always been a lack of accurate information on which to reasonably vote. Increased voting without access to accurate and timely information is counter productive. The biased information from the board's publications and this biased blog do not contribute to informed and rational voting. The issue that keeps getting ignored is the abysmal LACK OF ACCURATE INFORMATION on which to base a vote.
You may think host's opinion are biased. Of course they are, all opinions are biased lacking honest and accurate info, and even then. I look on all official shoa sites, and see basically nothing. What i have seen is a joke, including bot minutes. Released whenever convenient, and basically redacted per closed door sessions.
Always entrust your proxy to a friend or neighbor whether you fill it out completely or partially and the real or imagined misuse of your proxy is eliminated. Take responsibility for your proxy and the problem is solved. So much hand wringing over a simple issue that has such a simple solution.
Since you have brought up the Patrick thing, let me point out the obvious. Since he knew he was selling and was going to leave he should have done the honorable thing and resigned from the board before the election.
I feel that any Trustee that plans to sell and leave should be required to resign. If they don't want to live here anymore why should they still have a say/vote on anything that affects the community.
So just out of the blue, sixty family/members decided to vote for Olds who was not even a candidate? Not!
Since this proxy issue now has become a topic on its own and more than likely it will receive some of the same comments as the topic below, I would like to point out something that is overlooked.
Before I do so I would like to first state that I feel that in a perfect world there should be no proxies and people should make the effort to vote in person. But I do understand the need for those that can't make it given the amount of part time people who live here. One major drawback to giving your proxy to someone however is you run the risk of that person not showing up and your vote not being counted. This happens every year and at this past July even a couple of Trustees didn't show and their proxies weren't counted. I feel as Trustees this was inexcusable.
Now to my point. After last years meeting I have changed my view on the use of proxies and in fact I find them now more beneficial than electronic voting. Here's why.
In years pass the meeting was primarily for electing new members to the board. That changed last year when a group got together and showed up in mass to take advantage of the usual low turnout to push their agenda by trying to circumvent the votes of members and have Trustees removed. They thought they would have enough people present along with their proxies to get it done. Thankfully it failed. If you were not in attendance and instead you voted electronically from home just for board members you wouldn't have had a say in this matter. At least with a proxy you can give it to someone you trust who has the same views as you so they can vote for you when these type of motions come up.
Something to think about for this years meeting. If you can't make it and instead plan on going with a proxy I encourage you to give it to someone you trust to show up and also give them the option to vote for any surprise motions.
Conveniently forgetting that these proxies are being used by the Board for nefarious purposes.
Did that 2 years ago. Proxy was not recorded, and was simply used by the Board for their own empire building purposes.
Patrick was not treated with the respect a fellow Board member should expect. He was demeaned, marginalized and forced out.
But he should have done the honorable thing? Priceless!
He had no obligation to do so, as he was dealing with individuals and Board members that have no honor. And 2 years later, you still bang on him. That's on you, honorless one.
May 11, 6:33
Last year SHOA rejected the proxies that were submitted by the proxy voter the day of the vote. The proxy form stated they had to be received by the office 4:00 PM the day before. And we can't implement mail-in voting? Talk about juvenile, deceitful, vindictive, and secretive. This is an embarrassment. I've been attacked ruthlessly because I tried to proxy vote for one person and submit it the day of the vote. SHOA could have accepted them regardless of what the form stated, but they have no interest in improving SHOA for everyone and increasing member participation.
Furthermore, I've changed my mind. I have no interest in being a part of this SHOA BOT, particularly with Gary Williams on the SHOA BOT. He has told me the SHOA Board writes the End of Year Newsletter in May and that's why he stated that we were in great relations with regulatory entities last year. I won't bother to dig up the actual quote right now. You all know what I'm talking about. A blatant lie and deception. Apparently, some of you really like this type of behavior.
Hey Gary, how's the 2019 End of Year Newsletter writing going right now. Are you almost finished with our 2019 summary? It's already May 11th. You only have about three weeks left to finish it.
The attempt to recall Trustees at last year's Annual Meeting was appropriate use of this once a year MEMBER meeting. Deb had tried to get her proposals on the ballot, unsuccessfully. They were not intending to circumvent anything, just do the business of a member meeting. Motions can be made, discussed and voted on by the members, all according to our Bylaws.
For anyone reading the Blog at that time, it was known by Williams and the Board, as well as many members, that an attempted recall would take place. You may not have favored these motions, but they were none-the-less allowable in this venue.
As for this nonsense about Patrick, everyone knew he was trying to sell his property, and he resigned immediately after selling. I don't recall when the sale was, but recall this same stupid comment appearing here on the Blog, that Patrick should have resigned BEFORE he sold his lot, because of the election. Until his property was officially sold, he was entitled to continue as a Trustee, and had no obligation to bend to pressure to resign prematurely.
A small minority of members deciding to change things to suit themselves is not an appropriate use of the annual meeting. That is more akin to being a revolt or a coup. We need to get enough people voting so that we have a clear idea of what the majority wants for Surfside. Blagg and her followers are not the be all, end all for Surfside. They are a small group that is against tree covenants and for zero covenants affecting any use of an RV or shed in Surfside. Most of us and especially the full time residents are not interested in the changes proposed by the Blagg followers. The cheapening of the community to unregulated RVs, sheds and trees is not our majority goal as I talk with the people who actually have made a large investment in their homes and properties. The amount paid in property taxes paid by a lot with a house on it is considerably more than any RV lot. It seems to be those who have a small investment who believe that they should have things their way to ignore the rules that were in place when they bought their property. Please think carefully about who you vote to be on the board. Most appear to bring their self serving interests to the table with little regard for anything else.
The elite has spoken. This same old garbage telling us what the "minority" think and do. The higher investments have no more legal rights than the lower investments. All have the same rights and pay the same. The ones who really want things their way are those like 12:57. What you are seeing here is the ugly face of Surfside. They want nothing changed, and why should they? They are holding the power and they are the minority.
Change is happening, and we should be thankful that a small growing group are seeking to make Surfside a better more fair community where all get the respect they deserve. As the truth about Surfside is known to all members, change will happen. The majority of members are good law abiding citizens that believe in being fair to all, regardless of their investment. Their investment is in a way of life, not money in the bank.
The higher investment members should have known that when they invested here, that this is a mixed use recreational community. If they thought otherwise, they made a poor investment choice. For the rest of us, we knew what it was when we bought here, and we will fight to keep it that way. For us it is a life style. Friendly neighbors helping and respecting one another. The elite like 12:57 will not win this moral fight.
George, will this person ever discover his moral high ground is underwater?
That small minority grows by the day, elitist. Get used to hearing it, because the days of having your own way are over.
How about you get off your crap 1st. You seem to think it does not smell.
You prove your hypocrisy in your own statement about referencing property taxes. As you are well aware, it's 1 owner, 1 vote. Property taxes had nothing to do with it. Rules should apply equally to all members, but once again as you are well aware, they do not.
I will eagerly look forward to your next post, to see which face we see that time.
Tax rates are based on appraised values, and have nothing to do with "views". The values of homes may be loosely based on mean-tide ownership or "view" property, but realtors need to grasp that a) there is no covenant protection of views, and b) no basis for tree height restrictions exists. Just micro-land units with pointless tree height restrictions the same as house heights.
Yet the deLeests, (Annette deLeest/B. Trustee) tell us that "everyone gets variances on the home heights on J Place". Will these same J place owners approve eliminating Tree heights, or give a nod to tree height variances ? We know the answer is NO. That is elitist and blatantly unfair, if you are someone who cares about stuff like that. Anyone care about fairness in Surfside ?
This policy is a disaster for ALL the properties it preys on, and cutting inches off trees does not enhance views on J Place. You are addicted to pushing other owners around to suit yourself. Unless your home stands on a 30 foot high property, you do NOT have a view property, no matter what the realtors tell you. G St. homes can be 24 feet high on the land they are built on, as much as another 10 feet above sea level, and dunes as high as 28 feet are in the distance. Trees in between are not interfering with your view, and your fellow members on I St are being forced to maintain 14ft. "Umbrella Trees" to satisfy this ugly policy.
It's a huge disincentive for buyers in Surfside, unless they want a plot as bleak and barren as a desert, or want to pour money down the surfside tree money hole.
53 owners were sent compliance notices demanding tree topping this month. Does this indicate owners love this policy to death, or HATE IT ? Each will spend several hundred dollars to thousands every 2 or 3 years at the demands of the Tree Committee who measure in INCHES above the random limits.
Think about revising the tree covenants instead of eliminating it. A little negotiation might result in neighbors feeling better about each other and healthy trees. The knee jerk reaction to eliminate the covenants is reactive and divisive.
With 53 compliance notices going out, the odds are extremely high that 1 or more of these people are going to sue the h*** out of the association.
Brilliant, Tree Committee. How much will it cost this time to prove how tough you are?
Clancy wrote most of the complaints. A vote for him will be a vote for a self appointed compliance officer. Such a nice guy.
May 11, 7:42 PM
What are you sick and tired of? Do you know why some people in Pacific County, WA pay nothing or almost nothing for their property taxes? I've learned some about it from a member I know. I haven't looked into it in detail because I don't mind helping those in need. Clearly some in our community hate helping those in need.
I'm not really sure what your intent or point is with your post. Go ahead and tell me I need a reading comprehension class, anonymously.
Complaints are submitted with a signature but the complainant is afforded anonymity other than the committee and I suppose the covenant official. How do you at May 11 @ 9:26 PM know who the writer of the complaints is? I guess since it's on the internet it must be true.
Why all the worry of property values, almost all are retired n die before realize a profit. They def moved here for the wrong reasons.
Ah May 12, 8:05 AM, in your case ignorance is definitely bliss.
Look at ignoramus relate County property taxes to RV lot "privileges".
This is a mixed-use hoa and none of us have privileges, we are all owners.
Let's be honest here. This so called issue is less about proxies and has more to do with Olds getting on the board. If I remember right didn't Blagg end up with the second most write ins and in fact was one of the hosts recommendations? Do you think there would have been as much outrage here if she did get the most? No. People would have been on here making claims that it would have been evidence that the majority of members were making a statement against the "elitist status quo".
To 6:33's point, which I didn't think of before but do agree with now. I'm willing to lay major odds that both Blagg's and Patrick's stack of proxies gave them the right to vote for the posse's coup attempt since they were aware of it beforehand. While I can't say for sure I suspect that was the reason Patrick didn't resign before the meeting. I will also give the same odds that those arguing against proxies now wouldn't have had a problem with that either.
I also can understand Ms. Cory not wanting to do the job again this year. After that circus side show event at last years meeting I wouldn't want to go through it again either.
7:37....There's nothing "knee-jerk" about proposing elimination of this destructive policy. Enough damage has been done, and few trees in the community have not been topped at least once. What is generally considered to be obstructive to views is a neighboring tree that has grown a few to a hundred feet from a view window, and not this nonsense of cutting trees blocks away. The basic concept is ridiculous.
An undeveloped lot across the street from us just had the beautiful trees on it - about 10 to 12 trees - topped. They were measured to be 6 inches above the restricted limit of 24 feet. The owner trimmed branches from the bases and mowed a couple of years ago. It is by a trail and looked like a little park. No views are being affected as there is a 26 foot high ridge half a block away, and the highest part of the ridge is to the east.
Thank you Tree Committee for your blind commitment to continue the useless destruction.
Without the Tree Policy, the HOA is still obligated to address owner concerns relating to verifiable views being obstructed by owner/neighbor trees within close proximity - like a couple of hundred feet. The HOA would establish a procedure to try and mediate the conflict, and if and only if there is obvious need, require the owner of the tree to alter it.
That is a rational way of approaching this subject, and the way most any HOA or municipality would deal with such an owner complaint. But there would be no guarantee of ANY tree cutting. As with any other complaint, a determination needs to be made that verifies the complaint is valid, and this Policy has abandoned making ANY judgement of views, in favor of their $2000 Laser Measuring Device, measuring INCHES over prescribed "limits".
This is a violation of private property and totally unnecessary.
VOTE HIM OUT!
We need new blood, as well as breaking up this conspiracy that holds our association hostage!
This is the 1st thing I would challenge in court.
American justice grants you the basic right to confront your accuser. How does this regulation follows the US constitution?
You keep bringing this up 12:59. How about for a change you tell us what would it accomplish knowing who made the complaint against. While you are at it, why not also tells us what you would do if you knew who made a complaint against you.
Bottom line, as in most hoa's, all that matters is if the complaint is valid, not who made it.
Wrong. Way too many personal vendettas around here.
If we knew who made the complaints, it would reveal that most are made by a few. We would find that most are not concerned enough to make a complaint. With identity, the number of complaints would be greatly reduced. We would not have to be paying Laura for part time work. A real issue might be discussed and resolved among neighbors. Watch the shed complaints go away. We could see if the person making the complaint was compliant with their own property. This could also expose "personal vendettas". Knowing who makes excessive complaints, like clancy, would reveal character that we might not want on a committee or on the board.
Using complaints as the only means to enforce covenants is not good for any community. It makes neighbors suspicious, distrustful and mean. Covenants should be enforced fairly and in a timely way without need of one member filing a complaint against another. If a covenant needs revision to better serve the community, it would be a matter of a majority of the members agreeing that a change is wanted and needed. Imagine Surfside without a hateful environment of complaints.
The soul purpose of the Tree Policy at this point is to continually remind members of the great amount of power the HOA possesses, and primarily because of the amount of member dues it collects annually. The shed Roof Policy, newly put in place, serves the same purpose. Create an absurd premiss and demand people comply or else. This is a guarantee you're going to piss off most everyone.
Neither of these policies serve any other purpose. This is really the source of most of the conflict and animosity in the community, but the BOT have their formula for keeping the people subservient, and show no self-awareness of the negativity that these policies create.
53 non-compliance notices sent out this month to tree owners, demanding trees be topped. So we can assume this represents about 25 to $30,000 that these owners are being FORCED to pay out every 3 or 4 years. Intrusive do you think ? A terrible waste of money and for many, just a huge bummer all way 'round.
It's the gift of Surfside ! It just keeps on "giving".
Can Steve get it through his thick head that the real problem is the complaint method to enforce covenants. Fair enforcement would result in identifying and rooting out (so to speak) where covenants might need revisions or changes so that the general membership can make informed decisions and vote on if they want changes.
Changing covenants should never be a matter of a fringe or revolting (tongue in cheek) group within an HOA pushing for a change that is wanted by only a minority. Covenant changes or revisions should always be considered as a community decision based on accurate information and the will of the majority. The current board has failed to respect the general membership in regard to how the covenants and their enforcement is managed.
I am 100% in favor of the SHOA CC&R's and challenge everyone to consider what SHOA would look like if we had no control over member properties. Agree with them or not, the CC&R's are what allows the association to enforce members to conform to agreed upon standards. Remember the house around 297 I street? While outside SHOA, it's a prime example of what could happen if we didn't have and enforce our CC&R's.
Since every topic no matter what it is turns into a tree topic from you know who I have a question concerning a compromise. Do away with the tree covenants but put a limit on how many you can have per lot. Would that be possible or will it be all or nothing from both sides?
Currently the CC&R's are controlled by the Board, which has been blatent in managing the Association as a special interest group.
How do you propose to remove this roadblock?
10:57.... I appreciate the vision you have depicted of an imaginary land, where there is rational dialogue, and EVERYONE comes to an agreement. And ALL of the members participate, expressing their views, coming to a compromise, and voting in large numbers to settle all of this random discussion.
What you describe however is not Surfside. In Surfside only about 300 people vote, and the Tech Committee which was working on trying to establish a baseline communication system with the community as a whole, was dissolved by Gary Williams and friends.
Any group of concerned owners who try to move an idea forward is going to be a "fringe" group. There IS no other way that change will be set in motion in this community.
And what is with the crazies that suggest that because a rational change is proposed, that it is an endorsement for total social chaos ? 11:13 ? You are imagining things. No one has suggested that there not be covenants that well suited to the community's needs, but that has not been even slightly addressed. THAT is the point.
There is this madness prevalent in our community, that uttering the word "change" brings on these responses of total paranoia.
Mr. wiseguy 11:19.... I have made the very same suggestion on the blog a couple of years ago. Not a bad idea, but it would require a total survey of trees in the community, and frankly, at this point, the Laser Crew are making such a mess of the community, this needs to stop NOW. This is insane and serves no purpose at all in Surfside.
It's bizarre that there is also a contingent seems to think pointless rules and restrictions make the community neat and tidy, and people need to be shoved around for no reason to recognize whose in charge. Retired military ? Where does this bizarre willingness to conform to useless and even despicable standards come from ? This weak and mindless !!
Bravo, Steve. Best of luck with your candidacy!
May 11 9:52. We know because he brags to others about how many complaints he files every month.
The house (hovel) around 297th is getting our services even though not officially within our boundaries. That makes them legally obligated to adhere to our regulations.
yes, the 297 hovel is getting water and to my understanding is being fined for various reasons. The current owners don't have the funds and are trying to unload the property for next to nothing, when I spoke to them they would sell it for property value only, as if the house was not there. There are various other factors contributing to the lack of their clean up, but really, That's what you get renting to crack heads!
If you were using your name (9:06 AM)) you could be in danger of a lawsuit for libel unless you can back up your comment. And why is our blog host allowing your comment in the first place? It goes way beyond what is acceptable.
Only thing untrue is they arent on crack, its meth.
Once again, with feeling. You are not in charge here. Get over your self.
Post a Comment