Board Candidates....updated 7/9/2019
Updates below are in red print.
I will be at the Annual Member Meeting and available to be your proxy and cast your vote as you indicate.
I am sure that a majority of members have now cast their ballots by proxy. The remaining votes will be cast at the Saturday Annual Meeting.
The Candidates:
James Flood:
He has been on the Board way to long and rarely attends in person. He views the association as nothing more than a "water municipality" He is a part of our problem, not a solution.
If all you care about is keeping dues and assessments down, James Flood should be your choice. However, that being said, he does not mind wasting funds on replacing water lines without any proof of the need.
Steve Cox:
A strong member voice who will question everything. He is not a "go along to get along" guy.
If your looking for a Board member who will do more than just second a motion and will question everything, Steve Cox should have your vote.
James Clancy:
Blustery big spender best describes him. A big part of the mess we are in today.
If your looking for a Board member who will be involved in everything and willing to spend member funds on everything, James Clancy should get your vote.
Ric Minich:
Current Chairman on the Land's and Buildings Committee. Doing a reasonable job on there. Tends to over spend and support costly projects like the RV storage lot.
If you want to elect a Board member who presently does volunteer on a committee and willing to spend his volunteer time, more than others, then, he should get your vote.
Kurt Olds:
His main agenda is to cut the trees for a view. He is serving an appointed position on the Board. He is a "go along to get along" guy.
If you think that the Board control should be in the hands of a J Place minority group, then, you should vote for Kurt Olds.
Shawn O'Neil:
No experience or participation in the association, but that might be a good thing. A quiet thoughtful person.
If your tired of the same old and willing to give a new person a chance, and think, What have we got to lose? Shawn O'Neil should get your vote.
Michael Riley:
He is fed up with Surfside and does not think it is worth the effort. He may get a few votes from members who feel the same way.
If your like many members who are sick and tired and disgusted with the whole mess, you may want to show a protest by voting for Michael Riley.
Note:
There are three who I will definitely not vote for...
Flood
Clancy
Olds
These three are part of our problems, not the solutions.
20 comments:
You don't have to vote for three and you do not have to give your votes to a proxy representative. Read the ballot and make sure that you are voting in the way that you want to or not voting in the way you want to.
Perfect, by not voting for someone new, you can't cancel out a vote for one of the current cronies. Go back to fixing the rotting wood on your house.
There are provisions to prevent proxy votes being put in the hands of a board member to do with as they choose. Read the damned ballot and follow the directions.
BTW I don't have any rotting wood.
DO too. Pants on fire.
Funny George should label Olds as a "go along to get along". At the meetings I have been to he has voted at times against the majority, including Cox's newest pet project the building burning.
I find it interesting the host is talking about Minich overspending. The main thing for me is he has shown he will dedicate his time for the community.
But let's get real, how can anyone place a vote for Riley and actually expect he would serve?
George, who are you voting for and why?
Riley is a wimp, all bark and no bite. He's already put his tail between his legs and run off.
To 2:58
You have a hopeless case of brain rot. You don't know who you are addressing and your futile guessing makes you look like a fool.
So what is your name? Coward?
At this point, the plan to burn down the pumphouse is decided upon and planned with the Fire Dept., so this is not my "pet project", I just expressed an opinion about it. After the building is burned and the community is unnecessarily polluted with smoke, the remaining mess still needs to be removed at a cost.
The BOT happily spends tens of thousands of dollars on lawsuits that they then withdraw from, so we can afford to pay a local company to tear the building down as it should be in a residential neighborhood. I assume the burning will take place, in spite of how foolish it is.
Steve, Don't you want to save money? First, the water crew was going to tear down the building. Second, they decided to get a quote from DPR to tear down and haul away. Third, they decided to have it burned down and save all that expense. Fourth, Now they will have to pay to have the burned material removed. What about the fence we paid to have installed there? Burn it and remove it? Hire someone to remove it. We sure don't want a fenced area to store gravel when we can rent a spot. This is how we save money. If your going to be on board with the board, you have to get with the program.
To 8:51
How dense are you? If I wanted to post with my name, I would have done so. Trust me, you have no clue who I am and I have no rotting wood.
Well, no more, saw the fat balding contractor in Bermuda shorts replacing it
To 6:24
Your mental health problem is out of control. You are delusional. See a doctor soon.
11:28.... I am well aware of the options and the DPR estimate. If the building is going to be removed, then the fence will need to go also, depending on the intentions behind removing it in the first place. There is no clear reason why this spot could not be adapted to a different purpose, and as I have outlined, no urgency to save money on such a small project.
I can assure you that should I be elected as a Trustee my first priority is NOT to "get on Board" with the majority's wishes. Nor do I intend to throw a monkey wrench in things just to be difficult. Apparently other Trustees did not agree that this was a good idea, and I don't either. I think it's false economy. The annual rent for the site at the Golf Course is $5000, and prepping the site cost over $3000.
Paying to have the structure taken down is a one step procedure, the property is Surfside's, and the location central for the gravel depot. Burning will create unnecessary pollution, annoy neighbors, leave a lasting stench, require further dismantling and dumping the material at a cost. I don't see the savings you speak of.
In my opinion, once the building is removed and if the lot is used for gravel storage I think a fence should be installed to block it from view and to ensure nobody decides to cart some of it off for themselves.
There is a fence there now that has screening. It was just put in a few years ago at a cost of thousands.
The fence was built so they could store broken asbestos pipe which is now gone.....silly.
Thousands could mean two or twenty. Care to be more specific?
Twenty....care to prove me wrong?
Post a Comment