Saturday, June 29, 2019

After The Election

The Executive Committee Choices....

Following the Annual Meeting, then new Board will elect their officers for the 2019-2020 year.
This is a decision made by the nine Board members.

With the new hire of a General Manager, there will be less demand on the Board in day to day activities and functions. Most business can be done very well with the present staff. There will be no need or desire for the Trustees to any longer micro manage as in the present and past.

The new Board can return to their primary function of setting policy.

Below is a list of suggested officer positions.  I think all would perform well and finally be free of selfish personal agendas that have been demonstrated by the other Board members.  This could finally be the turn around that is so badly needed.

These four may be our last hope if we are to save this association and move forward with the trust of the membership.

President:   Steve Cox
Vice President:  Mark Scott
Secretary:  Scott Winegar
Treasurer:  Rudd Turner 

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good lineup - has my vote, as I see none of the current Board, which has failed us so magnificently.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget that the blog host recommended the current board members who have been major screw ups in the past. His recommendations have not proven to be good ones. Do some research yourself and vote for those members who have truly demonstrated skills, integrity and a willingness to represent the best interests of the majority of the membership.

Anonymous said...

Like the present Board members? Not likely. They proven they have no integrity, and their only skills are collusion and conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

No matter who wins, it can not be Flood or Clancy. Next year we get rid of Williams and de Leest.

Anonymous said...

I'll vote for whoever is responsible for the fewest fines, criminal investigations and lawyer fees.

Anonymous said...

Given the obvious animosity anonymous 7:16 one has to wonder. Are you George or Raymer. I guess either way the same.

Anonymous said...

Cox as president, big surprise there.

I realize the obvious bias, but how can you recommend someone that you can't count on showing up? Just as a reminder, the host is on record for wanting full timers on the board, but of course in this instant exceptions are tolerated.

george said...

Yes, 9:23 I was on the record saying that. It has now been proven that it does not make a difference if full time or part time. They can all seem to screw up. This is my new "on record". By the way, what did you say your name was? Oh yes, Anonymous. Sure puts you on the record. There are exceptions for everything, even your dim witted comment. You should at least sign it "Blob"

Anonymous said...

Come on now folks, you don’t believe that Clancy has had his minions out there stumping for the three musketeers so he could be a mere Board member do you? Their aim is not only to get themselves elected and maintain a J Place predominant Board, but to make Clancy the BOT President. If that happens, he will continue the policy of mismanagement and Katie bar the door, he will spend every penny the HOA has, on failed projects, fines, etc. and raise assessments to cover what he wastes.

Anonymous said...

Your right 10:09, He is doing that right now and he isn't even on the board. He is the worst choice for the board of all. Dues and assessments will go up and continue for years after he is gone. With the wasted spending he has done, our dues keep going up and our reserves have been raided. With proper fiscal management, our dues should be going down and reserves building up. This clown is a clear threat to our association. And his cronies and their deal making.

Steve Cox said...

I'm flattered that George has such confidence in me, and I thank you George. I try to be realistic about my strengths and weaknesses, and our community has a lot of fronts to address. There are undoubtedly things I need to learn about before I would feel adequately prepared to be president, if called on to do so.

It has not been uncommon to have Trustee absences at times, though I agree that "attending" by phone is not effective participation. Mr. Flood missed many meetings as president, and has continued to do so as vice-president. I recall a hilarious moment in a meeting I attended, where a Small Court subpoena was delivered during the meeting. Thomas Rogers was running the meeting in Flood's absence, and refused Flood's demands that he open the subpoena, Flood screaming into the phone. Rogers said "goodbye Jim" and disconnected him.

If elected, I pledge to do my best to attend all meetings, and be an engaged Trustee, working for the members, seeking to serve their best interests.

While I make it clear that I think ending the Tree restrictions is essential to the future of our community, it is a major piece in my goal to see legal spending dialed way back, emphasizing mediation of conflicts, and eliminating restrictions that do not benefit the community as a whole. The Tree Policy generates multiple legal issues annually, as does the "new" shed roof covenant. These are primarily adversarial power trips that bring no community-wide benefits, while creating conflict, anger, and wasteful legal spending.

I'm very concerned that enough is not being done to negotiate with the County and State on the permitting of the Water Plant and Warehouse. The demand made of Surfside is not a feasible solution, and it is obviously extreme so as to be largely punitive in nature. It ignores the fact that one Trustee made a big mistake, misrepresenting the matter to be permitted, putting the entire community in jeopardy of needing to relocate our Water System. Over 2000 households depend on this Water System, and a volunteer Trustee's mistake should not result in holding the entire community hostage to an absurd mandate to turn 12 lots into wetlands.

It seems that there should be potential to go to the appropriate entity humbly, ready to offer an exchange allowing the County to proceed with one of the Storm water plans they have wanted to act on, or some other trade-off that may appease them in exchange. But I know little about the process that has taken place so far. This is a very urgent matter.

I also question the wisdom of making further pacts with North Beach Water, while the Surfside membership has yet to be informed by the HOA as to the management failures that have led to the manifold legal issues at the Waterworks. North Beach partnership has been key to these major mistakes and lack of oversight.

So there are many fronts that need attention, none being insurmountable, but none to be swept under the rug. Still, any new Trustee has some issues to catch-up on, and it helps to get into the swing of holding meetings, conducting business properly, and trying to work as a group. One man can't fix anything without rallying support for new approaches and solutions.

Anonymous said...

Very well stated, you got my vote Steve.

Anonymous said...

Not my vote.

Anonymous said...

You have our vote Steve!