As reported in the Weakender 6/21/2019
The Association provides no way for members to make a response to what they publish. This blog site does. Two candidates, Steve Cox and Shawn O'Neil, have both supplied additional information that can be found on the left page, titled candidates. They deserve more attention and respect because they display an openness and transparency that is really needed.
James Clancy is a full-time resident and past board member serving as our treasurer. He is very active in the Surfside utilizing his extensive background in development and execution of large municipal and government contracts. His education includes M.S Construction, M.S. Teleprocessing Science and a B.A Physics. He has volunteered with the Ocean Park Food Bank and the Ocean Park Humane Society.
James would like to see residents get more involved, serving on committees. There is a lot of planning for the future that needs to be done. Hiring a new General Manager and Compliance Inspector are a good step in this direction. He supports our governing documents but believes they need a review and update so members have clear understanding of what they encompass and how they protect member’s property values and way of life. He believes compliance should be done by the compliance inspec-tor and the board. Not by members filing complaints. He does not support “an attempt by some groups to maximize their influence by reducing the number of board members.”
Kurt Olds is a current board member overseeing the Firewise committee. He has been a member of Surfside for 25 years - living here full-time for the past 7. He has a BA with combined major in both Computer Science and Accounting. He has performed a variety of computer and business support roles.
Kurt supports Financial Responsibility, Covenant Compliance and Transparency. He would like to keep dues low and increase member participation. Kurt has no trouble with the governing documents. They protect the surfside entity. Change isn’t wrong but should be appropriate. Dissolving surfside isn’t the answer. He does not support reducing the number of Board members. Nine trustees allow more opinions and a more diverse board that has a better chance of representing all the members.
Ric Minich is a full-time resident of Surfside and active member as Chairman of Lands and Buildings Committee. He has a BA in Economics and Business Administration and completed US Army OCS School of Engineering. He was an officer for the Army Corps of Engineers. He has studied Contract Law. He has “been a contractor all his life.”
Rick supports our governing documents. He believes as we grow and things change there are small changes that can be made to update them. In general, he agrees with them as they exist but believes they haven’t been equally enforced. He would like to see this changed. He doesn’t have a problem allowing members to file complaints. Rick also supports the current number of board members. He believes reducing this number could result in an erratic board.
Steve Cox statement for the Surf –in-Sider—Surfside has run afoul of county, state and federal agencies, costing thousands of dollars in fines and legal fees. Failure of management has out the future of our water department in jeopardy as months of negotiations seek to find a resolution, having built in wetlands without permitting. Key trustees who facilitated these failures, are running for reelection. I have HOA experience, am honest and feel that the community deserves a choice of candidates.
James A. Flood, Jr. statement for the Surf-in-Sider –Surfside is a municipal water utility disguised as a homeowners association. The board needs someone with utility engineering experience and a capital project management experience in both areas. Run-ning on a platform of fiscal responsibility 9 years ago, facilitated with the board dues reductions in each of my three full terms as your President. I look forward to your continued support.
Shawn O’Neil statement for the Surf-in-Sider—I would like to join you as a member of the BOT, eager to engage with our mem-bers, take a proactive tole within our community, provide a fiduciary oversight and assist with making Surfside HOA a shining and supportive entity. I have a deep desire to work collaboratively, positively and productively with other board members and the membership; a belief in the importance of working together across divergent perspectives; and extensive experience in project management and volunteer service.
Mikael J. Riley statement for the Surf-in-Sider—Candidate statement was removed at the candidates request.
12 comments:
I don't agree with the statement that the Association doesn't provide a way for members to make a response. They provided time at a board meeting that the candidates could have shown up for. If members wanted to question them they too could have shown up also or call in. Most members just don't care and/or the candidates statements are enough for them.
Interesting that Riley pulled his statement. What about that lack of "openness and transparency"?
Guess he gets a pass here.
We live in a new electronic communication age. Most members are active with information from the internet. They are busy with active work and life and many live distant from here. About ten members were present for the question the candidate Board Meeting. There is no reason that the meeting could not have been streamed live or a recorded video made available to all members on line. Technology is available and at affordable prices. It is apparent that there is no Board intent to widely expose their incompetence to the members.
Most members would care if they new all the facts about what is happening in Surfside. If they knew, most of the candidate statements would be questioned. Riley is a small issue compared to what the other candidates have actually done to create, cover up and fail to resolve.
Your statement about what I said is nothing more than diversion from the topic of what the candidates say. That is what needs the attention so that they can be held accountable.
Your comment 9:39 indicates you are nothing more than an advocate for the status quo.
There it is, the usual status quo insult. Surprised you didn't include elitist also. I'm allowed to have an opinion just like you. It just happens to be different than yours.
You and your pals always come to the conclusion that all of the members who don't vote or get involved with the HOA agree with your point of view, yet you don't have one bit of evidence to substantiate that belief. There is however some to the contrary. Remember the survey the Tech Committee put out? Plenty of notices were published about it. You were even allowed to do your electronically communicating online, which took all of what, 5 minutes max if you are slow at typing. The percentage of responses was far less than that who vote. And that's including the fact that there was more than likely people submitted multiple surveys. If people didn't take that short of time to do that, what makes you think they will be sitting at a PC at homw watching a screen. While I agree with your statement about people being busy, living far away, etc, I don't agree that participation would change significantly as you do.
I stand by my comment that most members either don't care or are happy enough to let others do the work who do want to volunteer their time. While there was a low turnout for the candidate meeting, the budget vote meeting is always standing room only. So people do get involved with the stuff that matters to them.
Not surprised you consider Riley a small issue. You had no problem with him saying he couldn't wait for us old full timers to die off along with other troubling comments made on here. Besides your personal issues with some on the board and wanting anyone else on it no matter who, your judgement is clouded by the fact that he kisses your a$$.
You make a slough of assumptions for which there is no real evidence. After the past year of collosal management failures by the BOT, Federal Criminal Investigation that is yet to be concluded, Asbestos Abatement, Stop-work order on the CTP, Improper permitting & building in designated wetlands, huge fines and legal expenses, failed lawsuits brought against owners....you want to complain about the Tech Comm. Survey.
The Tech Survey was weak I agree, but it was only a trial run. With so many owners entirely disengaged from Surfside matters, trying out something new as the Tech Comm. was doing, requires some patience and persistence. This was not even a serious effort, when making Electronic Voting available was really the objective. Williams wanted to get rid of the Committee, and did. A lot of work by the committee was for nothing.
Did you notice Steve Coxes' candidate statement ? There is more information about the HOA cover-up than most members know, and nowhere in the Newsletter is there a word about the on-going issues that brought in the EPA, huge fines and legal costs, and failed permitting. Now who doesn't care about Surfside ?
The status quo is an insult to the members. It is an indication of protecting special interests in an association at the expense of many if not most members. Turn out is not an indication that members don't care. A Board Meeting agenda posted a day before a meeting is not ample notice to those who would attend. The agenda is poorly written without an explanation of the meeting agenda item.
The status quo is stuck in old thinking and in old ways. A good organization is constantly looking for improvements that benefit all members in a fair way. That does not include throwing out the good for sake of change.
6:31 would like to make this about me. It is not about me, as I am only one member and not personally restricted by the present covenants. I don't have a dog in this fight for change or fairness. I have no view, trees to top, Rv to move in or out or a storage shed or fence. Many others do and are not treated fair or have to deal with outdated set of rules and restrictions.
I urge the members to carefully read the candidate statements and other information available about them. Are they progressive in their thinking for needed changes? It is obvious even to the casual observer, that Surfside is in a real mess that needs correction if it is to continue in any form.
631 obviously had his own a** to cover, and cares about no one else. It is a systemic disease, brought on by years of mismanagement in this area.
He is a prime example of why dissolution may be the only answer to an Association running wild.
Only 15% of the membership votes, and that electorate is predominantly supportive of whatever the BOT does, so long as there is no change. How would dissolution take place without voters approving ? This electorate has taken no interest in having a voice in covenant change, or enabling an on-line option in voting, neither are controversial. Both would give a smidgeon more influence to owners and are very common in all HOAs.
Makes me wonder what can get through the fog.
Increased dues only thing get their attention.
If it is true that only 15% of the members vote in elections, what does that reveal? Could it be that 85% of the members are so unaffected by the actions of the board that they see no need to get involved? That would be a reasonable conclusion. What do people living in an HOA get upset about? High dues and assessments for one. Surfside dues and assessments are pretty low and as a bonus, we have a well funded reserve savings that will help reduce the need for periodic assessment shock to pay for foreseeable and predictable maintenance expenses. People get really excited when trustees are steeling Association money. Of course, Surfside keeps getting clean audits year after year. Nothing to get excited about here. Lastly, people really hate covenant crazies. If Surfside was going overboard, or being to lax, on covenant enforcement or, if the board was playing favorites regarding covenant enforcement, people would be coming out of the woodwork to complain, to vote, to run for the board, to join a committee, to basically do all the things they are not dong. Most members are just plain satisfied, and that is reel hard for some with axes to grind to stomach.
What is "reel hard" is to get the truth to the members on how a few elite J placers control everything and keep the truth hidden from them. Most members are just uninformed, and that's just the way they (elite) want to keep it. For the most part, it is working. That is why they are against electronic voting and communication. The informed members are not fooled by the deception and claims about how good things are going, when it is just the opposite.
We know for a fact that the community has been severely fined for multiple L&I violations to the tune of $27,000 this year.
We know that mishandling of Asbestos, and failing to follow Federal protocol in handling, training, and protection of workers has led to a year-long Federal criminal investigation, and Asbestos abatement at a cost of $45,000.
We know that the community has also been fined for building in wetlands without proper permits, and a required study of the site was called to an end by one Trustee more than a year ago.
We know that legal costs have been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars this year, some deferred by insurance.
We know that the Surfside Board of Directors have been unwilling to publicly address these management failures, explain why they occurred, what will be done to prevent it in the future, and we will never know exactly how much member funds have been spent on legal counsel and assistance, at $500/hr.
We know that the State requires that S.S. convert 12 times the area currently occupied by a warehouse and water plant to wetlands, in order to not have to relocate them at great cost and impact.
11:39 - Your imaginary scenario is not based on the real information that we DO know, and seeks to make still more excuses for what is totally inexcusable - a Board that feels entitled to ignore State mandates to be totally transparent in all HOA business, as Trustees are volunteers who are to represent owner's interests, and serve the membership, not a secret agenda.
Owners deserve to know the truth, yet the Board appears to plan to pretend it hasn't happened, and continue the cover-up. Member funds continue to be spent by this Board without any concern for accountability, and that is illegal.
Don't come back at me as the victim George. My original comment was just a different point of view. And even you and others have pointed out the lack of membership participation. I just don't agree with all the reasons you give for it.
What was weak about the Tech survey was the response it got. There was ample time and easy opportunity to fill it out if people were interested. People weren't. So how can you say that people would automatically get more involved if there was electronic voting or live streaming of meetings?
4:08:
Your comment about me covering my a** makes no sense, so I must assume you pulled it out of yours. To your continued request for dissolution, ok what happens after that?
Post a Comment