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.
Sunday, June 23, 2019
2019 Board Candidates
As published in the Surf-in-Sider.....
This is a good place to ask questions of the candidates. They probably won't answer, but the questions may be interesting and we will see just how open and transparent they will be. Click on the page once or twice for a larger read:
22 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Mr. Riley. Why did you remove your statement? Are you a candidate or not?
If there was any proof of transperancy among candidates, then three of the candidates would make it known that they have been canvassing the area (mostly their home turf of J Place) collecting proxy votes thus with the minimal number needed, they can make sure of being elected. Why hide the fact?
7:45, I'm not sure what you are trying to say, are you trying to shame persons for getting out there and talking to the voting populous? If I was running for the board and really wanted to win, I would do what I could to make sure I did. That means canvassing the neighborhood, especially the areas that I feel will support me, putting up signs, sending letters, posting my info for all to read.
I would encourage all candidates to get out, walk and talk. Regardless, in the end they will help get the vote out. Or, you can sit here on your hind end, gripe and whine on this blob; "why didn't I get elected?, it's an elitist conspiracy!"
I agree with you. If I were a candidate, I would be one door behind them explaining my position and because they are not, the other candidates will probably lose. It is just that the "silent" campaign waged by Olds left a bad taste in the mouths of many. It is felt that was illegitimate, particularly when he was subsequently appointed to the Board when the By-Laws clearly state it was not a requirement to have that many members. If he wanted so badly to be on the Board, he (or the folks that wanted him on the Board) could have waited until this year. Nothing against the rules, just on the shady side, fits right ink as it is the way the Board currently operates.
The Board has knowledge of who the fulltime owners are and where they live. It isn't practical to go canvasing without that knowledge. Sure it is a good idea to have some kind of strategy, and I tip my hat to any candidate who takes it upon themselves to canvas in the community, but the rumor is that various seated Trustees were canvasing for their preferred candidates, and if true, that stretches the bounds of propriety.
There are no restrictions in our covenants, but it is an unfair advantage to have Board members canvasing for you and to have inside information as to who is likely to be home in Surfside. This is where the potential of voting electronically could expand the voting base, alter the habits of past elections, and open the possibility of electing new candidates with new ideas and optimism.
Anyone can recommend anyone. It is not unusual or wrong for any publication to make an endorsement. We see that every day on a local and national level. They have more facts and information than the readers.
1153 & 1155 - hypocrisy is continuing to support an organization that blatently disregards State RCW's, rules for operating a not for profit entity, and their own covenants to pursue their own self interests.
Keep trying to accuse others of the behavior you so proudly support, and keep tryin to put lipstick on that pig.
Sorry, obviously you are not aware of the definition of hypocrisy and how it relates to the comment along with the fact it has nothing to do with what you just wrote. The subject was about canvassing the neighborhoods Einstein.
Thanks for posting these pictures so we can recognize the candidates at the annual meeting. Looking forward to finding Mr. Riley and discussing some of his comments with him.
11:53....Why should I be aware that Patrick canvased for candidates as a Trustee ? I don't consider that to be okay for the reasons I stated. Deb canvased for herself, but wasn't a Trustee at the time. She served as a Trustee for a year, appointed to fill a Board vacancy because she received the next most votes.
The Board decided to charge $100 for a Surfside mailing list which I am told is not even complete. They did this immediately after Patrick was elected. Coincidence ? It is also not okay for Surfside publications to endorse specific candidates. This is not the national stage, and candidates do not have vast sums of campaign money to finance mailings.
If the BOT members want to canvas for candidates, provide a mailing list to every candidate, and a list of the fulltime residents. I'm no hypocrite, just saying an even playing field does not exist in Surfside elections.
why would you waste a vote on Mr Riley, he's come on this blob spouting his rhetoric, then decides, in an apparent pouting way, to withdraw his statement, not show up at the resent candidate meet and great, and thankfully, has recently gone silent on this blog? I think the position of a board member is way over his head.
Sure, sure, like it takes anything to be a board member. Take a close look or not even close, to see what we have now. I will vote for Riley just to take votes away from the four clowns who are running. That probably includes you. Everything Riley has said and proposed was right on. He sure seems to be an issue with you. Could it be that a vote for him is one vote less for you and your clown friends? What have you proposed about anything?, other than shooting off your big mouth. Riley is more of a man than you will ever be.
I will not vote for anyone who has a current position on this board.
What I have seen now smacks of collusion and conspiracy. Rotating Flood back into the mix cinched that. These are criminal charges that the lawyers will not be able to wave away. The time is coming.....
Here is another vote for Flood, Cox and go, Michael, go...Riley!!! Screw the crew that wants to look out at a sea of roofs instead of trees: 'Le Jerks off on J'.
22 comments:
Mr. Riley. Why did you remove your statement? Are you a candidate or not?
Which candidates claiming “transparency” will actually answer every question truthfully without promptings?
Well, not the ones who don't bother showing up or posting their information, that's for sure.
The comment was to all, not just to a few, and I believe you know who those few are.
If there was any proof of transperancy among candidates, then three of the candidates would make it known that they have been canvassing the area (mostly their home turf of J Place) collecting proxy votes thus with the minimal number needed, they can make sure of being elected. Why hide the fact?
7:45, I'm not sure what you are trying to say, are you trying to shame persons for getting out there and talking to the voting populous? If I was running for the board and really wanted to win, I would do what I could to make sure I did. That means canvassing the neighborhood, especially the areas that I feel will support me, putting up signs, sending letters, posting my info for all to read.
I would encourage all candidates to get out, walk and talk. Regardless, in the end they will help get the vote out. Or, you can sit here on your hind end, gripe and whine on this blob; "why didn't I get elected?, it's an elitist conspiracy!"
I agree with you. If I were a candidate, I would be one door behind them explaining my position and because they are not, the other candidates will probably lose. It is just that the "silent" campaign waged by Olds left a bad taste in the mouths of many. It is felt that was illegitimate, particularly when he was subsequently appointed to the Board when the By-Laws clearly state it was not a requirement to have that many members. If he wanted so badly to be on the Board, he (or the folks that wanted him on the Board) could have waited until this year. Nothing against the rules, just on the shady side, fits right ink as it is the way the Board currently operates.
The Board has knowledge of who the fulltime owners are and where they live. It isn't practical to go canvasing without that knowledge. Sure it is a good idea to have some kind of strategy, and I tip my hat to any candidate who takes it upon themselves to canvas in the community, but the rumor is that various seated Trustees were canvasing for their preferred candidates, and if true, that stretches the bounds of propriety.
There are no restrictions in our covenants, but it is an unfair advantage to have Board members canvasing for you and to have inside information as to who is likely to be home in Surfside. This is where the potential of voting electronically could expand the voting base, alter the habits of past elections, and open the possibility of electing new candidates with new ideas and optimism.
And yet nobody here complained when Patrick canvassed for people running for the board, even with mock ballots, and when Deb canvassed for herself.
Typical hypocrisy.
And another point. Nobody here faulted the host when he recommended people to do write ins on the ballot.
Again, more hypocrisy.
Anyone can recommend anyone. It is not unusual or wrong for any publication to make an endorsement. We see that every day on a local and national level. They have more facts and information than the readers.
1153 & 1155 - hypocrisy is continuing to support an organization that blatently disregards State RCW's, rules for operating a not for profit entity, and their own covenants to pursue their own self interests.
Keep trying to accuse others of the behavior you so proudly support, and keep tryin to put lipstick on that pig.
Sorry, obviously you are not aware of the definition of hypocrisy and how it relates to the comment along with the fact it has nothing to do with what you just wrote. The subject was about canvassing the neighborhoods Einstein.
Thanks for posting these pictures so we can recognize the candidates at the annual meeting. Looking forward to finding Mr. Riley and discussing some of his comments with him.
11:53....Why should I be aware that Patrick canvased for candidates as a Trustee ? I don't consider that to be okay for the reasons I stated. Deb canvased for herself, but wasn't a Trustee at the time. She served as a Trustee for a year, appointed to fill a Board vacancy because she received the next most votes.
The Board decided to charge $100 for a Surfside mailing list which I am told is not even complete. They did this immediately after Patrick was elected. Coincidence ? It is also not okay for Surfside publications to endorse specific candidates. This is not the national stage, and candidates do not have vast sums of campaign money to finance mailings.
If the BOT members want to canvas for candidates, provide a mailing list to every candidate, and a list of the fulltime residents. I'm no hypocrite, just saying an even playing field does not exist in Surfside elections.
I am voting for Flood, Cox and Riley. Anyone to take votes away from the three clowns.
Write in Peggy Olds and Fred deLeest. That should shake them all up.
why would you waste a vote on Mr Riley, he's come on this blob spouting his rhetoric, then decides, in an apparent pouting way, to withdraw his statement, not show up at the resent candidate meet and great, and thankfully, has recently gone silent on this blog? I think the position of a board member is way over his head.
Sure, sure, like it takes anything to be a board member. Take a close look or not even close, to see what we have now. I will vote for Riley just to take votes away from the four clowns who are running. That probably includes you. Everything Riley has said and proposed was right on. He sure seems to be an issue with you. Could it be that a vote for him is one vote less for you and your clown friends? What have you proposed about anything?, other than shooting off your big mouth. Riley is more of a man than you will ever be.
I think you are blowing smoke. His competence scares you.
I will not vote for anyone who has a current position on this board.
What I have seen now smacks of collusion and conspiracy. Rotating Flood back into the mix cinched that. These are criminal charges that the lawyers will not be able to wave away. The time is coming.....
Here is another vote for Flood, Cox and go, Michael, go...Riley!!! Screw the crew that wants to look out at a sea of roofs instead of trees: 'Le Jerks off on J'.
Post a Comment