For any Board, no matter the designation, Conflict of Interest is a very serious matter.
Surfside has a history of being in conflicts of interest, and that conflict continues today.
The Tree Issues:
The tree height covenant exists solely for the benefit of J Place property member owners.
They certainly have the right to file complaints, the same as any other member.
They do not have the right to be a part of the investigative or enforcement actions. That would be a conflict of interest. It is actual and "perceived as existing".
Any J Place member on the "Tree Committee" should not be on that committee or recuse them selves from any tree height issues. The J Place Board members should also recuse them selves from any Board business that involves trees. A Board member with a spouse as a Tree Committee member or chairperson, would be considered a conflict. The same would apply to any committee member who had a spouse on the Board.
Any J Place person who files a tree complaint, should have no further participation in any discussion or enforcement actions.
Note:
With the Board being mostly comprised of J Place members, issues with trees makes it almost impossible to avoid a conflict of interest. This would be a good reason to make selections to the Board, based on geographic area. It is past time to take a close look at all our covenants, policy and procedure.
Click on the Policy page below for a larger read.
77 comments:
And no one on the architecture committee can build, remodel or add a shed, cause that would be a conflict of interest.
And no one living on the canal should be on the waterways committee because that would be a conflict of interest.
Do you see where I'm going?
The world according to George.
10.57
To hell?
George has his grudges that seem to cloud his mind.
Your comments are very smug, but if you read the passage George has published (from operating manual ?) the HOA promises to take this issue very seriously, establishing a panel to review conflicts of interest, as well as have the HOA attorney review the matter.
It should be perfectly obvious that the Tree Committee having a J Place owner as chair, as it does currently, is a conflict of interest. Peg Olds has little appreciation of trees in general, and has been eagerly chopping the crap out of the community. They have stepped-up the use of fines, and the HOA attorney said this year has seen a big increase in legal action against owners over Tree issues.
Mr. Clancy (Trustee and J Pl. owner)files dozens of complaints annually, which is an obvious abuse of anonymity in filing, and amounts to filing false complaints, as there is no way dozens of properties have trees in his view. The Tree Comm. knows these are fake complaints, yet they process them all as legitimate, knowing he does this annually. He is not on the Tree Comm., and this practice needs to be stopped.
Tree complaints should have to be verified as valid, and the compliance officer invited into the homes of the "complainers" to do so. But this is a policy run off the rails so, that there is no defending it. THIS is what the J Place owners so covet, and why they are so involved in the HOA. Get rid of the policy, get rid of J Place dominance.
10:57 et al. That is pretty much what this Board Policy states. But wait weren't you on e of the ones that read all the documents before you moved here and agreed with them, no change? You reap what you sew. If you choose to go by the letter of the law and follow all the HOA rules, this is one policy you must follow.
"Letter of the law" ? Surely you jest. The county, state n feds tend to disagree, as do most members that actually pay attention. Many more soon will, as it effects their pocket books.
There would be a so called conflict of interest for anyone on a committee or the board who discussed or voted on a matter that in any way resulted in a benefit to the member. Think again. 10:57's examples are right on.
Sure, do away with the only members who care enough about the community to volunteer. Great plan (sarcasm).
George, like many members, opposes the Tree Policy. We all have opinions and do not base our opinions on what our friends and acquaintances think. We can differ with our friends in issues, and not take it personally. Ms. Rodgers lives on J Place so feels this policy protects her interests. That is really false, and the accumulation of acres of sand annually and dunes building in height, put the Ocean further and further away from J Place, and less and less of a factor that can be controlled by anyone or any means.
Trees 3 or more blocks away from J Place, do not effect views. Homes 8 ft. apart, 24 foot high dunes, and the water's edge ever further from the ridge make all of this tree topping an absurd exercise in futility. It is a battle to preserve J Place dominance politically, and has nothing to do with views.
This policy is the definition of discrimination, and unfair HOA practices. The Eaves covenant is another pointless intrusive power trip, with lighting now being fashioned into another HOA power trip. 60 watt bulbs are entirely adequate exterior lights, and frosted globes adequate to shield them. Curtains and blinds are adequate to buffer the light at night. How complicated is that ?
Most people here would simply wish for status quo, and be done with it. These people aren't watching the steady erosion of their rightps by a Board that cares for nothing but their own.
It would be better to dissolve than preserve this absurdity.
4:09 You are absurd.
540 - try for a coherent comment next time.
Anyone who believes that the HOA is going to dissolve is living in delusional absurdity. Is that clear enough for ya?
In response to the 11:57 comment that I removed.
The Rodgers are nice and good people. Unfortunately they have neighbors who are not. I suspect you are one of those neighbors.
Your threats of violence against me, and now Mr. Riley, are scary. For those who know you and are related to you, should get you the help you need. It might be as simple as a medication that will calm your mood. I feel you are a threat to others and perhaps yourself.
You should know that in this computer age, there is no anonymous comment that can not be traced to it's origin. I would hope that you can be persuaded to refrain from coming to this blog site. I wish you well in your recovery.
It's clear that you support an organization that doesn't even follow it's own rules, to say nothing about those of the County and State.
Why is that? Special interests, of course!
If we cannot have honesty, then put it out of our misery.
6 pm should find a new community to hate. the delusions and conspiracy theories do make him miserable and we are fed up with reading his misery on this blog. this is the kind of person who will hate wherever they are.
It is not a delusion that an annual effort by the Board majority rallies the usual J Placers and fulltime conservatives to vote for specific candidates that will promise to preserve the "status-quo", and in particular, the insipid Tree Policy.
It is not by chance that Mr. Olds received 182 votes cast by 277 voters, and Minich and Clancy not far behind. It is well known that Mr. Clancy files dozens of tree complaints annually, and personally fired the company that was doing the Wetland study required by the State, and commandeered the permitting process, ending in improper permitting, fines and retribution by the County and State. More than a year later, no progress has been made on this matter, the State requiring that Surfside convert 12 times the amount of land used for the Equipment Warehouse and Carbon-Filter Plant to wetlands, or relocate the structures elsewhere.
None of this is imaginary, nor is it clever enough to be a conspiracy, though we WISH it was merely a "conspiracy theory". The seated Board is responsible for these failed management issues, have been unwilling to publicly admit to them, though a Federal Criminal Investigation still is in progress. This is a clear violation of State requirements of transparent business practices by volunteer HOA trustees and representatives, and persists while member funds are spent on legal counsel on these issues.
Openly criticizing a community Board, sworn to abide by the State RCWs and in violation of our own covenants, cannot be construed to be inappropriate. An election and annual Meeting was just held, and not a WORD was spoken about these major departures from the Board's sworn promise to conduct the business of the community honestly and LEGALLY. Anyone who doesn't recognize that our HOA Board is failing to serve the members as required by law, is in denial of the obvious.
like I said, the conspiracy folks will find fault and hate wherever they are.
Steve sits on his butt and rants on this blog. When does he get off his butt and actually do anything like serve on a committee with a motive to improve the community instead of finding fault and whining?
No, the point is, these matters are FACTS, and you are an airhead, incapable of recognizing the potential for HOAs to fall into very catastrophic legal and financial circumstances when the membership turns a blind eye. This is incompetence that is wasting member money in large sums fool. You are unable to alter your own destiny living in your fantasy world.
It has nothing to do with "hate" or a "conspiracy". There's a pledge of secrecy, because they are unwilling to admit to what has occurred, but incompetence is not a "conspiracy", and members on the Blog telling owners the truth is not "hateful".
Plus who wants to serve on a board where you need to hire your own lawyer
so, bigshot with all the "FACTS", let us see some proof that the circumstances your allege are a matter of a conspiracy and not the result of volunteers running the hoa. your conjectures only guesses and opinions. not facts.
You moron, are the only one calling it a conspiracy. These facts should be common knowledge by now. Come out from under your rock once in a while.
11:03, your suggestion will do no good unless there is a complete change in the approach the board and committee members take and quit doing their own bidding and work for the good of the HOA, become transparent and move the operation of the HOA into the twenty first century.
Steve Cox is right in his observations, except about the wet lands issue with the carbon treatment plant and the equipment storage building. It is worse than you all know except the Board, myself and a few others.
A complaint or two were filed against the carbon plant. There was not a complaint filed against the equipment warehouse, also in violation of wet lands and permits. This is located in a known flood area. Guess whose name comes up in this issue. Mr. Clancy with shortcuts, false claims and compromise of the elevation. A complaint with the EPA on the new water warehouse will open the same can of worms as the carbon treatment plant. I am preparing to file a complaint on this.
The complaint with the EPA will open up the investigation. This is why there is talk on here of having to tear down the warehouse.
The Board is aware of this and hoping nothing will be said or reported. Sorry Board, you have once again be exposed.
This entire corrupt Board needs to be removed.
Clearly Surfside needs professional management. The ignorance and disregard demonstrated by the volunteer board members is unacceptable and damaging. Really folks, there is a better way to take care of the members and the assets of the association. As it is, the costs of volunteer errors is unacceptable.
Steve Cox said...
No, the point is, these matters are FACTS,
Since the SHOA lawyer has put a gag order on the BOT, how is it that you have the FACTS? I continue to see posts that say this happened or that happened, but from my view point it's all just gossip!
Not saying it didn't happen, but until the BOT comes clean and shares with the membership what is going on and what they are doing about it then I don't believe a word of what you post. It's like a giant rumor mill around here, the accusations continue to grow, the fines get bigger, more people going to jail, busted contracts...
I suspect we will have to sue the association to get any FACTS from the corrupt BOT/lawyer...
4:14....My information comes from a Board member. You claim I'm not correct about the plant and warehouse, but fail to offer any alternative explanation. I know that what I have stated is accurate, so your comments are not. No one has said the warehouse would need to be torn down, but so far there has been no progress in negotiating the wetlands permit failure into an agreement that is workable.
The State required that 12 times the area occupied by the plant and warehouse would need to be converted to wetlands to continue operation at the present site. That is a totally absurd requirement in a community that already has a great deal of unbuildable wetlands, was built out of a wetland long before the Shoreline Plan was put in place, has operated their Water Dept. at the current site for many years, as well as the entire County being about 2/3 wetlands in area.
The last BOT Meeting agenda indicated this stuff would be discussed, but no one has offered any information about the meeting. The HOA made a counter offer that was rejected about a year ago. But an agreement will be necessary to continue to operate our Water Dept. at the present site, and the only logical outcome without an agreement, is to MOVE the Water Dept.. That is all that I have said.
All but one Trustee lawyered-up and agreed to stay mum. Because he is the only honest Trustee, we can thank him for his honesty and courage to speak the truth. That's what I have shared on the Blog, and you're complaining about it.
Will someone please have a chat or send a memo to Steve to inform him that he shot himself in the foot regarding his credibility? We don't give a crap about what he has to say for good cause. He does nothing to improve Surfside.
He needs a hobby that has nothing to do with Surfside.
Yes, the J place Trustees and their pals hate hearing the truth continuously broadcast on the Blog, so must contrive abusive statements as we see here, trying to discredit me, though lacking any evidence to do so. I'm not asking for "your crap", so you're "not giving a crap" works for me. I have 2 homes and constant routine maintenance to see to.
I have a 3 year old grand-daughter who lives 3 blocks away and often comes to visit, both of my 29 year old sons live in the Olympia/ Lacey area. So I am as busy as I want to be, and have a beautiful life.
I am an artist and woodworker, and have a complete woodworking shop. I like to camp in the mountains, even though the beach house is a great substitute. I have served my Lacey HOA for a 3 year term as vice-president, and was very active for another 2 years, helping with annual maintenance projects.
Funny that you think I need your advice, sad disgruntled status-quo mongers. I ran as a Board candidate and got 92 votes, so lacking the canvasing army that got Olds, Minich, and Clancy elected, there are a lot of people appreciate my honesty and willingness to tell people like you to mind your own f***ing business - like running the community as is required by State Law.
Steve - you have no clue who are responding to. You again make a fool of yourself. Your defensive response only shows what a small minded person you are. Why don't you get off your butt and do some volunteer work for Surfside instead of working so hard at spreading discontent and faulty so called information.
I like Steve's words. That in fact does matter. Your words backup up by name calling and derogatory suggestions I don't like, and can tell you support the current board, so I don't like all that is related... See how that works?
1153 - yet another stupid, self serving post. You wouldn't know an original thought if it hit you on the face.
Who wants to volunteer for an organization that pursues self interest to the exclusion of 90% of the membership? Only shills like you.
The only response to facts on this blog is abuse. No factual rebuttal at all. Just juvenile name calling. Sure glad the adults are in charge. Not.
11:53.... You're unwilling to identify yourself, so duh.... I don't "know who I'm responding to", and don't really care, self-important anonymouse. I don't owe you OR Surfside anything at all. But I do know that the community is run by special interests, and that the Board of Trustees are not fulfilling their written responsibilities. There really is no argument to make that any of this is okay, or that the community at large is well served. Thank you "Stick" ! I appreciate your kind words.
4:14 responds to Steve.
I did not mean my comment as a criticism to you, in fact I support all your efforts and voted for you. I am just pointing out to you and others that the carbon plant issues with the wet lands is a single issue. The reason there has been no action on the new warehouse in a flood zone and encroached into the wet land in that area is because there has been no complaint filed. The investigated complaints are for specific locations. The warehouse is located on a different parcel. I intent to file a complaint on the new warehouse. It will then come under the same fate as the carbon treatment plant. I was trying to clear up that you thought both were under investigation, when it is only one. This situation is much worse than many think.
10:20, Seem like no-one else has either !!
2:25 Just exactly what is it that you support that Cox is doing? He does nothing but post on the blog, criticize and expound on what a great guy he is. He offers nothing to improve anything that he criticizes. He seems to take particular pleasure in believing that he is exposing the wrong doing of others while he sits on his butt and does nothing.
I support the fact that he puts information out to the readers. I support that he has common sense. I support that he took the time and effort to run for the board. I support that he uses his name and is willing to own what he says.
Now you Mr. 7:00. All you do is attack Mr. Cox but not what he says. What is your alternative truth that you can site? I have never seen him "expound on what a great guy he is" He did not do that in his candidate statement. This seems to be more of a personal issue with you and probably because he pointed out one of your anonymous as foolish. Just like this one.
Well Mr anonymous 7:00 PM, what have you done? Must not be much if anything, or you would surely use your name. You claim he sits on his butt, That's better than you, who talks out of your butt. One thing we know for sure about you, Your not "a great guy".
I have been around here for a while. I notice that full-time homes seem to be on G Street and J Place. So that explains where the folks who feel the biggest investment are located. They are the ones motivated to serve on committees and spend their energy. It does not surprise me that their interests are out-front.
As more folks like George decide to retire on the East side of Surfside, there will eventually be a critical mass up there that has a voice and some votes. In the meantime I just wish people would treat each other with some dignity-most particularly the HOA.
9:09 Thank you for the sane comment. The conspiracy theory crap is truly getting ridiculous on this blog.
Wrong 9:09. Full timers are pretty even throughout shoa. You forget areas like ocean woods? I think a majority of full timers just dont live in the "restricted zone" and stay away from the foolishness. Far as the water field probs, which is only prob involves us, county, state n feds will deal with that. This point its out of shoa control.
There IS no "conspiracy theory crap" on the Blog. There is factual information about serious problems the HOA has been addressing for over a year, relating to incompetent management at the Water Dept. that led to an EPA investigation and huge fines - $45,000 spent on "Asbestos Abatement" (proper disposal), and $27,000 in fines, the knowledge that numerous employees had been needlessly exposed to asbestos poisening, and fines for improper permitting, which could lead to the State requiring the CTP plant be relocated.
The Blog has also exposed the extreme efforts expended by J Place owners, in league with some Trustees and full-timers, to elect specific candidates annually. 3 J PL. owners were elected, each getting about 2/3 of the entire votes cast, amounting to 6 out of 9 seated Trustees being J Place owners. What does this mean ? It means that trees will continue to be topped at the insistence of J Place owners, probably into perpetuity.
The Blog has also made it clear that the HOA BOT has been engaged in a cover-up of all their mis-steps in the last year and a half, refusing to acknowledge or address the MANY issues that have cost the membership a great deal of money wasted on legal counsel and fines. The cover-up continues.
Is there a conspiracy here ? Maybe the cover-up might qualify. But the rest of this is incompetence and a lack of integrity to keep the membership informed. Member funds pay for all of the HOA's mistakes, and the BOT continues to spend OUR money, while refusing to outline what it is being spent on. But there is no "conspiracy crap" except in 7:32s mouth.
There definitely is a conspiracy, and there is more than one. The first is the conspiracy to get control of the board by the elite few J Placers. These are mainly Clancy, deleest's and Olds. They have taken control of the committee's also. They favor the status quo and support tree heights for their own selfish gain and views. They oppose the RV people and storage sheds.
The second conspiracy is the water issue. This is mostly a board conspiracy by Williams, Flood, Clancy and water manager, Bill Neal. This involves the wet lands issues as well as the pipe replacement. There is a cover up to keep the members in the dark to avoid being held responsible. A criminal investigation and pending further legal action against surfside is being hidden from the members.
In any honest corporation or homeowners associations, these conspirators would have been removed long ago. We have seen members try to deal with these disgusting illegal practices. Their efforts have failed time and again because of a corrupt board and corrupt committee members.
This mess is beyond fixing. Dissolution appears to be the only solution. .
I think you are right the conspiracy is what looks to be the cover up of the asbestos issue. The other shoe will drop at the conclusion of the EPA investigation. What the board members and water manager did was knowingly expose workers to asbestos without training or protection. That is a criminal act and is why board members are lawyered up. To date there is no public disclosure as to anyone being held accountable for these negligent acts. We have employees who may have to endure life long testing. The litigation that is sure to follow may bankrupt the association. The conflict of interest is that some of these responsible for these acts are still on the board or in positions to determine our future. We should ask that the district Attorney intercede and investigate weather these people involved have the homeowners association best interest at heart or just covering there own as_
The attempts to discredit the blog are all part of the conspiracy to keep information from the members. Most of the recent comment postings are true. There is much more going on that I can't report for various reasons. The truth will eventually come out. I agree with the poster who said that it is much worse than the members know.
A mass resignation or removal of the Board might help, but I don't expect that will happen. In any event, you and I are left paying the bill.
Some with our lives, at this point there has been no across the board testing for asbestos exposure for current or past employees exposed.
Some employees have been tested. I don't know if all. I have not been tested and I have a picture taken by me, standing in the middle of their illegal toxic waste dump in our well field.
I would expect that as part of a final judgement, they will be required to pay for testing of anyone and everyone exposed. Even those walking by the exposed pipe along the streets. This is documented.
Don't be surprised if the EPA orders Surfside to pay into the toxic asbestos clean up fund. It could be millions of dollars. Then watch our dues go up by hundreds or more, or even double. When that happens, I hope those responsible are sitting in jail. It could happen. That's why they have their own private lawyers.
Never been tested n they had me wrapping the pipe for disposal, was told harmless.
Surfside should be required to send a registered letter to every current and former employee advising them to have a test that is paid for by Surfside. There should be a public notice for any other persons who may have been exposed. I expect there will be a requirement for this in the final judgement. The insurance company we had at that time has cancelled us. That is why we have a new carrier at an additional 20,000.00 a year. Guess who is paying for all of this? You got it.
Sounds to me that the old insurance company knows whats coming.
The Surfside management had no right to endanger the life of its employees. At some point in the future some attorney is going to ask what did you do as a board member when you found out the employees had been endangered. Your answer better be we took corrective action. As you can see by the size of the fines from the state this is no minor infraction. Any manager in this day and age who knowingly put employees at risk should be fired and if board members were a party to it or had knowledge of it they should be dismissed as well. If your response is we got the employees a little training good luck with that. If I was just elected to this board no way I would get sucked into this deal.
Great comments regarding just how badly this Association has fallen. I agree with 1047 - the ruling junta will not go away quietly. Dissolution may be the only option.
Dissolution may sound like "an easy-button" - we'll just stop what we're doing all of a sudden, and all of our problems will vaporize. I don't know why anyone thinks this is an answer to our complex problems, or why anyone thinks this is even a remote possibility. The same members who have taken control of our elections will prevent any such thing happening.
It isn't remotely practical as has been outlined repeatedly here on the Blog. There has to be people running the community, running the Water Dept., maintaining community property, paying the bills, listening to member complaints, representatives who deal with government entities.... Everything would need to be re-tooled, and by whom ? This is a fantasy, a magical solution to the HOA's problems, and is in no way a possibility. Forget it.
As of the first of the year the largest number of posts I could find on any one topic was 97. Let us round that off to 100. Out of 2000+ members that is a small number of concerned members. Maybe the blog does not reach as many concerned members as hoped for. Tree issues for 100 members is a non issue.
Only thing that saves the current powers that be is ignorance by most members. Sure as heck no real info on any official shoa sites.
You'd like that, wouldn't you?
Sorry, but until this organization is gone, or starts operating in a fair, communicative fashion, it's not gonna happen.
10:50 - George receives information on the total visits, so doesn't need your fake data. It should be quite obvious that many people visit and do not comment on anything. The primary contribution that the Blog makes, is enabled by George's contacts in the community, his background serving on committees and several years as a Trustee and Secretary of the BOT. He is privy to information that most members are not, so often shares inside information such as the stuff relating to the various management failures of the past 18 months or so.
George was interviewed along with all Surfside Trustees and employees as part of the EPA criminal investigation, and was interviewed by The Chinook Observer as well. He and Larry Raymer are long time best friends, adding to the sources of information that George shares on the Blog.
Some of the comments on the Blog are useless emotional remarks and false claims, many are from George and other well informed members. As the Blog warns readers, you have to read with care and common sense, and know who researches their opinions and who does not. But the community chooses to ignore some of the most critical issues that are exposed on the Blog, consistent with the overall apathy that an 85% rate of non-participation in elections demonstrates.
The Board prefers to ignore addressing most anything controversial in public, though it IS required by State Law, and consistently discuss such matters in private, or "closed sessions" in violation of transparency requirements. Volunteer Trustees have no legal authority individually to withhold public information regarding expenditures or actions, nor to make HOA decisions without the entire Board's input.
Over the years I have had the pleasure and challenge of working with many Boards. These were Board of successful companies, foundations and the like. They were mostly comprised of successful, intelligent, creative and motivated men and women. It was a very workable environment. Although retired, I still have the occasion to communicate with those entities and they still function quite well. Looking at our Board reminds me very much of the book by Laurence J Peter. You may well remember it, very popular a few years ago. It espoused what is known as "The Peter Principle". That is, people may advance in their position through management until they reach a position that outpaces their intellectual capability to handle the responsibilities that accompany the position and failure follows. Unlike my experience with Company Boards, where there are consequences for being a non-performer, Boards, particularly in the world of HOA's seem to attract those type of people. Perhaps it is because folks who have lived the life in a pressured existence want to just not be bothered, or as here, they just want to relax, not get involved because of the repercussions that they may have to endure, even from within their own family. So what does that leave us with? The ones who have never experienced recognition and success in life's challenges suddenly see their opportunity to be something they were never able to accomplish in their normal lives. Look at the power one may exert over many just by being part of the "ruling class". They also relish the fact that they were elected, but discount the fact that it was by a very small minority because the majority didn't give a damn and never has. Finally they conceive the idea that they are omnipotent, above all the others. This results in poor decisions (when their authority is unchecked) and the business rapidly goes downhill. They want to keep their poor decisions to themselves, lest they be embarrassed and become the point of ridicule,to the point that they will place blame for poor decisions on others (the "it wasn't my decision" syndrome). This Board is not that much different than many others. They will never confess to their incompetence. The best way to overcome this particular issue is a "changing of the guard". Although uncommon in commerce, Board purges have occurred, as it should in this HOA. Don't hold your breath though as none of them will admit being in a situation that they can't handle. Ironically that is because they don't realize what problems they have created and failed to solve. Maybe one day they, (or us), will wake up and solve the many, many issues facing this group.
WOW! 1:51 You nailed it. That is exactly my view and the view of many volunteers that have offered their experience and thrown up their hands and walked away once they saw what you have described so accurately. Surfside has many members who have the experience and knowledge to make a difference, but have been discouraged and/or run off by the kind of people you describe. I feel I was one of those as well as many other trustees.
A contract with a management company could help very much as many other homeowners associations are doing. The only other option seems to be to dissolve. I do not favor that, but we may have no choice. We may have crossed that :red line"
Thanks for your comment, depressing as it is.
I also have to agree with 1:51. I thought about running for the board but after attending a few board meeting and seeing exactly what 1:51 was talking about, I would not have lasted long. My first objective would have been to treat all the owners fairly. For example the free garbage dump. I don't use it and don't understand why I am required to pay for it. It should be sustained by those who use it. Same with the free water. Read the meters and charge accordingly. As you can see I would be thrown out of the board meeting by now. Why do we charge rv people to use the rv lot and charge nothing for the garbage service. I get that lots have requirements on building heights. But how did tree heights get included in that. Why does the person making the compliant have no skin in the game. So enough said. By the way this asbestos issue has the potential to take the whole thing down. It is pretty simple if the liability is more than our insurance and reserves you go bankrupt. Most likely the associations assets would be sold to pay judgements and we would revert back to county rule. Our biggest asset the water bureau would most likely be bought at a bargain by North Beach. Hmm is that a conspiracy thought.
The person making the complaint does have skin in the game. If the complaint is deemed not valid they don't get what they want.
Right now in Seattle I pay for bike lanes I won't use, a tunnel I will never enter. HOA's work the same. Don't like it, don't buy into one.
ah 1:51 that was a great read! Well articulated. I encourage you to post more.
I agree in general, of course life does happen though, and there will be capable people who don't have the opportunity to shine in a corporate board, but may find their thirst un-quenched in a blue collar or lower white collar job and thus join a volunteer group. My dad was this classification and ended up as a respected mayor of our city growing up. The difference with him and these folks in SHOA is that he listened and worked for the people, not himself.
So, point of my comment is I hope there will be some folks like my dad who will come in and help guide SHOA to a place that is for all and not only some. I don't expect a seasoned ex CEO, they've already been spent. It'll be as you described, a person(s) who will discover their talents by accepting the challenge with honest intentions.
Well said Stickbuiltless, A good example. We need old fashioned "Honesty"...
10:56. You obviously do not understand why conflict of interest policies are created or how they are enforced. Conflicts - and the “appearance” of conflicts - must be prevented or mitigated in all Surfside HOA governance, whether that be within the Board of Trustees or any Committee.
There is no conflict of interest when a member of the Architecture Committee, or a family member, requests approval to build, remodel or add a shed on their property. There would be a conflict of interest if that committee member did not recuse him or herself from the review, discussion and approval of any ARC request or other business that could potentially have a negative or positive impact on that committee member, a family member, or their Surfside property.
There is no conflict of interest for anyone living on the canal or a lake to serve on the waterways committee. There would be a conflict of interest if that committee member did not recuse him or herself from any committee business involving the waterways that could potentially have a negative or positive impact on that committee member, a family member or their Surfside property.
There is an inherent conflict of interest for any Surfside member who owns property on the ridge “view” properties to serve on the Tree committee, because the sole purpose of that committee is to enforce covenants that were created and are enforced for the primary benefit of those members for whom no view protection is promised. There is also a conflict of interest if any Trustee who owns a ridge “view” property and does not recuse him or herself from any Board business involving the tree covenants and enforcement - or other matters that could potentially have a negative or positive impact on that Trustee, a family member or their Surfside property.
Do you see where you’re going? Straight into a brick wall while trying to use that flawed argument.
If someone like James Clancy, has one of his 50 complaints brought before the board as a member appeal, then he should recuse himself as it would be perceived as a conflict of interest. It will be up to the General Manager to make sure that does not happen.
If the tree committee rules that a tree height complaint is valid and the member appeals that, then Kurt Olds would have to recuse himself because he is the husband of that committee chair. Again, the General Manager must monitor this. If a board person fails to make a conflict of interest declaration, they should be removed from the board for dishonesty.
If an employee or family member files a complaint, their employment must be terminated.
Oh bull pucky 7:42. There's no reason to volunteer for a committee unless you have skin in the game. People don't volunteer their time for grand altruistic reasons. Get real!!
It should be quite clear that you can have grounds for recusal, but WHO is going to monitor Trustees and Committee member's conflict of interest ? The Board hasn't brought this up, and 6 of 9 Trustees are J Place owners, as is the Tree Comm. chair Peg Olds.
Gary Williams replaced Larry Raymer with Olds, in a BOT meeting Raymer had to miss. Larry wasn't aware it was planned by Williams, as there had been no discussion of it. This happened about 2 years ago, and we haven't heard any Trustees protesting the obvious twisted nature of this appointment. The covenants make it obvious this is a case of conflict of interest, yet nothing has happened to prevent it. That is the state of our HOA, controlled by J Place interests.
It obviously IS NOT a conspiracy "theory". But I question that it can be called a conspiracy, when it goes on in the faces of the entire membership without resistance or protest. Owners receiving Tree compliance demands need to band together in legal resistance and end this once and for all.
Take them to small claims court. They can not force you to kill your trees or devalue your property. If either has happened, you will win your case. Just one win will end this harassment of the members. There is no anonymous complaint in court. These people like Olds and Clancy will be exposed. Your right on Steve. Thanks for being a voice of the oppressed.
There have been members who have hired attorneys to fight the tree rules. If that was possible then an actual hired attorney would have accomplished what you're saying.
Oppressed?
Real change Cox, a voice of the oppressed.
Two of the biggest tree height complainers on J place are Ed and Pam Harris. They have nothing better to do.
8:02....Many who come on the Blog call criticism of HOA policy "troublemaking" Given the prevalence of that resentment toward honest dialogue, speaking out on some critical Surfside issues IS significant in itself. I hear your sarcasm, again it's that same resentment that people have the courage to express critical opinions in a public venue. That tells me the Blog is having some impact.
I don't claim to be a radical or opposition leader, far from it. I do see the need for dialogue about issues in Surfside, and I see some pretty obvious things that can easily be improved on by clearing the slate of special interest driven politics in Surfside.
It's unclear whether the 85% of owners who don't vote in annual elections will ever check in and help us create an equitable and happier HOA. The lack of participation has helped enable a typically dysfunctional HOA governance, accountable to no one.
But part of the process of change is discussion of problems and challenges, and possible solutions - the Blog offering SOME opportunities to do that, and share information. There's plenty of discord present here too. But some good things are said along with sharing information.
End of comments on this topic.
1:51 gets the last word, and stated very well. Thanks for all the comments.
Post a Comment