Chris Chandler Resigns:
His resignation is confirmed by the Surfside General Manager, Thomas Reber.
This was prior to the October Board Meeting, but no mention was publicly made . This is an open public issue and any discussion or action in regards to this requires that it be done in "Open Session" and be a part of the minutes.
If a decision was made in regards to filling this position in a closed session, it would be considered a violation of the RCW's concerning what can be discussed and acted upon in a "closed session" This is NOT a personnel, employee or legal issue.
Click on the Emails below for a larger read:
45 comments:
It would be interesting to see the resignation letter. It is a public record. Mr. Chandler is under no obligation to disclose why he resigned, or is it required. There should be a board vote to accept his resignation and that should be in open session. Serving on the board is like a revolving door. They just keep coming and going.
It's what happens here, usually when you express your own thoughts rather than following the J Place party line.
What a disgusting mess. How can these people even look at themselves in a mirror?
I'd like to point out that no one on the Board has ever had a conversation with me in the Surfside Boardroom, and the only conversations I have had with a Trustee outside of the Boardroom was when I was accosted by Annette deLeest at the Chipping Station.
I was cordial initially, but she launched into a gripe session about comments I had made on the Blog that mentioned her name. I made it clear that I wasn't interested in having a hostile conversation with her, just to dump my debris, but she wouldn't leave it alone, making ridiculous claims and having a fit.
To judge me through the lens of the Blog really ignores the fact that conducting business for the HOA as a group requires respectful dialogue and professional conduct, which I have shown myself capable of by serving on my Lacey HOA Board for 3 years, and always conducting myself appropriately at Board Meetings in Surfside.
I'm entitled to my opinions, but reading the Blog becomes a muddle of anonymous comments, many very rude and pointless, and my comments which are generally respectfully submitted, can easily blend in with things I do not support or believe appropriate. Board and Comm members have also made statements of opinion on the Blog, though they rarely identify themselves.
The Board is fearful of differing opinions and in particular, being honest and transparent, and this little cover-up is very typical.
The board is fearful? You just described a conversation with a female board member in her 60"s as being accosted. Who's the fearful one? What a joke!
You have come on here and have taken uncalled for shots at and made false statements against this women time and time again. You even went so far as to blamed her for orchestrating comments concerning pictures online of your place in Lacey. Funny how when things get turned on you, you come on here to cry about it.
What a Snowflake!
And how can anyone have a conversation with you in the boardroom when you don't bother to show up?
I have had conversations with board members in the Surfside Boardroom. Cox, I thought were a pro at leading change, dialogue, and organizing. What's up?
I wonder if the blog host will delete this comment since it questions Cox.
Borderline buttercup too.
3:37.... I've never claimed to be a leader organizing an effort for change in Surfside. As I said, people lump everyone together in in terms of Blog comments. I have attended B. Meetings off and on, just for the record. I don't claim to be a rebel or to have all of the answers by any means. I do have opinions that are carefully thought through, and have the courage of my convictions to speak my mind, and in particular to speak out against abuses of power and disrespect of the rights of owners in Surfside.
My point was, the Board is obviously afraid to announce the vacancy because they know the policy has been to consistently appoint the candidate who receives the next most votes. In this case that's ME. Some on the BOT do not want to see me on the Board. The process is not prescribed in the Bylaws, only that the appointment is to be made in a prompt and timely manner.
They really know nothing first hand about me. As for Annette, she was unable to accept that I had other things on my mind than listen to her tirade, and you have bought into that crap. Exchanging greetings was enough, given I said I didn't care to have a longwinded conversation, and listen to her hostile rant.
Her claims were NOT based on anything I had actually said, so she was wasting my time to placate her anger. She is not above criticism, as no one who helps drive the Tree Policy is. It victimizes tree owners and is a blatantly elitist discriminatory policy. I don't HATE people who disagree with me - what's the point ? Nor do I respect those who promote this policy as good for the community, when it obviously is not.
Cox: Then run again for the board in 2020. I'm sure you'll be able to get the tree CC&Rs eliminated once you get elected.
Cox: How do you know a majority of the members don't support the tree CC&Rs?
You may be right that a majority don't, but they aren't the ones that vote.
I recommend you start trying to convince people of some other kind of change.
At least I will now be able to sleep at night knowing the results of what board members are leaving. Whew !!!
More than one is leaving?
Hate to bruise your ego Cox but I'm pretty sure most on the board don't give a crap about you. Except maybe Winegar. Since becoming president he has been trying to shorten the meeting by keeping trustees remarks as brief as possible. With you on the board that would obviously go out the window.
Mr. Cox. Not for a minute do I believe your version of the conversation you had with Annette de Leest at the chipping site. She is a kind wonderful caring person who is trying her best to represent the HOA members in a tough male dominated board. You have done a great job to embellish your claims but not for a minute do I believe it. You have made your bed sir and you won’t be invited to join this board, no way! Let the hate begin!
That's a hateful thing to say. Looks like it begins with you.
Says everything when the term is "invited to join the board". Pretty much says it all.
It looks like some people really think or thought board members don't monitor this blog.
We all knew they did n commented on regular basis, but always anonymous like they just regular members. Rest of us are anonymous because we've seen how vindictive some can be.
10:21 and others - I never express hatred toward anyone, and you will not find any cases in which I have. So that paints a clear picture of your lack of honesty and grip on reality. You must HATE anyone with differing views, or you wouldn't be making such accusations of me.
You also are incapable of taking me/anyone seriously for their words. You must be a liar to be so quick to assume everyone else is. I never knowingly lie. Got it !! I always try to speak what I know to be true, or what a trail of known facts seem to lead to. I am occasionally inaccurate with details, just like everyone else. If I know I have made a statement that I find to be inaccurate, I have no problem admitting it.
So sorry Cox bashers - you aren't going to bring me down with your sad defensive bullshit.
And by the way, I never made any specific accusations of Annette deLeest, though she has stated hysterically otherwise. It can't be documented, as it never happened. She has a lot of animosity toward anyone who dares criticize her, the Tree Comm., or the BOT.
If you're going to be a public figure, your constituents will confront you with their opinions and criticisms. It comes with the territory. She is intolerant of criticism, and sees herself as entitled to special rights, and privileges as a J Place owner. Our covenants do not verify such a "view" as legitimate.
Cox:
Talk about arrogant and condescending.
I guarantee that I have never said to someone on this blog, "Got it !!"
So no Cox. I don't get it.
I don't ever knowingly lie about anything moron. If being emphatic is condescending, you're just a little too vulnerable to be visiting the Blog.
Steve, you need to stop now! Bashing a sitting board member when we all know the truth gets you nowhere, you have lost all credibility for everything you have commented on this blog by continuing to go down this path of denial for the untruths you continue to tell. Stop now , save face and move on to other subjects, you are only hurting your self and any chance that you will ever be elected to the board. We have long memories for someone who listens to the wrong folks, spouts out false information and continually bashes the board when you don’t even attend the meetings to get the actual information correctly! Some of your ideas and comments are good, and yes a few things need to change, but until you stop your bashing, we are not going to listen!
Cox forgets that one of his emails was posted on here where he went off on Annette and also started some B.S. conspiracy crap. He is quite the revisionist on certain things, isn't he?
I haven't "bashed" any Board members, but have stated facts about their behavior. I have not espoused any conspiracies, but revealed factual misconduct on the part of the Board and Committees.
Annette made erroneous claims that I had blamed her for something, and yes, I know exactly what I said on the Blog - I didn't blame her for anything. I've made it clear that I am an honest person and have found that works really well. You're never taken off-guard by a lie you've said. YOU can try and spin your nonsense how you will.
What I know for certain is, I wasn't appointed to the Board because I have been outspoken about the Board's unwillingness to be honest and transparent with the members as required by WA State HOA requirements. I have been honest about the year and a half cover-up of the management failures at the Waterworks, and I have been outspoken about who is directly responsible.
The Tree Policy is a disaster for this community, but we have a committee that tells us about their righteous work for the community, and they have dished out a great many angry claims about me and claimed it's my hateful attitude at fault, not the Policy.
I don't hate anyone but hateful people, and the bar is pretty high for such folks in my book. Murderers, Terrorists, Racial Supremecists qualify. I don't ever think of "hating" people in general, and no one I know ever speaks of such feelings.
I don't have any intentions of running for the Board in the future. The Board will continue to stonewall the members, while wasting vast sums of money on unnecessary legal costs and lawsuits against owners, when other means can be as effective or more so.
Where's the "hate" coming from in this community ? I'd say the Tree Policy sews a lot of anger in the community for no gain, and refusing to give owners up-to-date information on policies, policy changes, legal expenditures, and fines levied against the HOA, shows the lack of regard the BOT has for the members that fund the HOA.
There is a glimmer of an indication that Mr. Winegar may move things in a more positive direction. But all of this "pro-active" enforcement stuff is very suspect of further silly rules and more HOA intrusion to come. And we're still waiting for the admissions of mistakes made that have cost the community vast sums of money, and is yet to be finalized.
All of this defensiveness has nothing to do with me, but is a form of wishful denial of what is really going on. Personally, I think there are a lot of good things about the community to build on, and find the notion of dissolution ridiculous. But this focus on "compliance" is unnecessary when you consider that there will be about 150 tree violations cited this year, and maybe 40 other issues. I haven't seen the numbers recently, but Tree stuff always dominates the docket.
The Tree Comm. wants to put more pressure on, and the Office wants 2 Compliance Officers. What's that tell the average Surfside member ? While the HOA refuses to admit to their lack of compliance to regulatory agencies of the County, State and Fed., they are focusing on phantom non-compliance that cannot be proven to be widespread.
Thanks Steve for setting the record straight. I think most of us on here do believe that you are honest and just trying to get the facts out there, while others who deny the facts, can only reply with personal attacks against you and others. I do wish you would run for the board. It would be good if you would say on the record face to face to them, what you say here.
I don't write in paragraphs, but try to avoid too much text in a bunch. Yeah, when attacked by people without substance to their insults and false allegations, I have something to say. My objectives are always clear - to talk about community topics and not to insult or demean. Yeah, I get angry at times when people refuse to back-off of their negative attacks. But I talk about the issues, and take no pleasure in having to get hostile.
Look at this comment about George. Insults. And what does that accomplish ? Righteous and "anonymous" to boot.
Where is the substance in that post Cox? You think you're so much better than everyone else.
Annette making erroneous claims. Wow what a laugh, we are pretty sure that did not happen, she has the best and most compassionate way of doing business and would never accost anyone! Ever! Didn’t happen, no way! Someone above does not know her very well or her track record trying her best in a male dominated board with a few very difficult trustees. If you know who spent any time looking and listening at any board meeting they would find out all about her. If she approached him about previous documented incorrect information, I’m sure it was done in a fair and respectful manor. Too bad he got defensive and is trying to turn this around on her to make himself look good. Shame on him! Enough said!
.
Not running for the board again, eh? What a shock. Is anyone here surprised? Does anyone here really believe that if he was elected that he would have shown up at the board meetings and his assigned committee meetings too? I seriously doubt it. He has done nothing when it comes to volunteering for the community so why would anyone expect that to change. The only thing he volunteers is his opinions, over and over.
Compare that to other trustees. When Annette "accosted" him (what a joke) at the chipper site I'm sure she was working there like other trustees do. Compare that to Cox who after his loss at the annual meeting he couldn't even bother to stop by at the picnic to talk with members. Something even Flood did.
Poor, poor Annettee baby. She got put down at the board meeting about storage in the rv lot. She said I know I am right. Several of the "male dominated" board members proved her wrong. Something, she doesn't like, so now she is playing the part of the poor little woman on the board, dominated by those big bad mean. Pathetic.
10:03.... I like the righteous attitude coming from someone who can't even identify themselves and own their comments. Running for the BOT IS volunteering. and asking members to vote for you requires you come through for those members if elected. What you don't get is that I am a principled person. You don't know a damn thing about me but you sure have a stinky-butt attitude. And what have you done for your community ? Of course it can't be confirmed without your name.
Righteous attitude? Thanks for the laugh. ****insert pot-kettle idiom****
I know all I care to know about you from your manifesto's both printed and deleted. Principled? Yeah right. I've read some of your lies so you and I differ on its meaning. Of course you have to fall back on the anonymous thing. Surprised you didn't use your clever anonyMOUSE. Funny also since you don't always sign your name either.
Bottom line, other than coming on here you have done nothing for the community and haven't put out any effort to know the members, something others who got elected did. That's a fact.
Only ones they got to know were their J Place neighbors. I would rather they did nothing as they did before. We would all be better of if they returned to doing nothing. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something, which is the case now. And, that's a fact.
That's a fact.
12:48....Please offer proof that I have lied about anything. Keep in mind that a lie is a verifiably false statement, intentionally made to deceive. A misstated detail that is not exact does not qualify. A lie is a statement that is known to be false by the person making the statement. We all make statements that are recollections of costs or dates that are not accurate. I've made it clear that I never intentionally deceive, so PROVE your accusation.
It's easy make such an accusation behind the "anonymous" tag, and you want to dodge that FACT.
Well for one, you continue and repeatedly make the statement that the tree committee "enforces" the the height covenants which is false. The HOA/office does the enforcement. All the committee does is go out to measure trees and reports the finding back to whomever at the time is responsible for the next phase.
Now while this might have been at first, as you say a misstatement, made in the heat of the moment during one of your rants it is still factually wrong. People besides myself have come on here to point that out yet you continued to make the same false statement. By doing this you crossed over from a misstated detail to perpetrating a lie.
Same goes for you continually blaming the members who volunteer for that committee for the tree covenants who are only doing what the HOA has asked of them. If you want to blame the BOT because of the tree policy, fine. Want to blame members who make complaints, fine too even though it's their right. Of course you wont blame the members who let their trees get out of compliance but that would be fine also. But to put the onus of the tree policy on those volunteers is again factually wrong, ergo a lie.
To your last comment. It's easy to make accusations online sitting safely behind your keyboard be it with name or anonymous so that statement is moot.
At one time, the tree committee did confine their their activity to simply checking a tree complaint. Since the Olds takeover of that committee, they have themselves made tree complaints and encouraged others to do so, even when their views were not obstructed. The tree committee is now mostly J Place members with a personal bias and self interest. They are now involved in increased enforcement of fines and shortened compliance time. It is much more than just doing their volunteer time. They have divided the community with member against member. They trespass on private property and advise members to cut down their trees or hire un-licensed tree butchers. They have made the association liable to law suits by their actions. They provide false and misleading information. They have brought shame to surfside. They need to be abolished before they do disreputable further damage.
2:40....You are ridiculous. I have been very clear in my statements about the Tree Comm., yet a couple of Tree Comm. members keep whining about this silly definition nonsense. They want to be free of any blame for the enforcement of this policy which is an expression of guilt and not innocence.
They know that a Trustee files dozens and dozens of bogus complaints, and pretend not to have any knowledge of it. Rumors indicate that they also file complaints. They are part of the enforcement mechanism, with a J Place chair-woman, and a number of other J Place owners on the committee. Larry Raymer was chair for about 12 years or more, and I have great respect for Larry. I think he tried to be a kind arbitrator of the enforcement of this policy, realizing that only the BOT could change the mandatory topping of Surfside trees.
He was encouraged by some Trustees to run for the Board, which he did, and was elected. He was left as chairman for a year or so, and was replaced without warning, by Peggy Olds, appointed by Mr. Williams and the BOT. Folks on the ridge we're unhappy with Larry's willingness to work with owners who had trees west of the ridge, showing undue patience as they saw it. Since the change, the enforcement pressure has built considerably, and as we heard at the Annual Meeting, Tree restrictions are requiring a great deal of legal action.
By no stretch can you claim that the Tree Comm. does not participate in the enforcement of this policy. If folks on the Comm. don't want to be seen as promoting the Policy and part of the enforcement, they should not be on the committee. In the area of 150 complaints or more have been processed this year, and each so-called "violation" (trees grow constantly), requires an expenditure of $200 to $2000 approx., so at a random average of $500 each, that's over $75,000 in required maintenance demanded of owners annually, who would be free of ANY routine maintenance on their trees, but for this ridiculous policy.
I haven't lied about anything, and you have a warped sense of what this is all about. Buzz off.
A bit of good news has come down the pike. The HOA hired a South Bend attorney who specializes in Wetlands Mitigation to help the community settle with the State and County. It is best to take this matter very seriously, and this attorney probably has the respect of the officials who will be inevitably making the decisions. This attorney's familiarity with the expectations of the State and the individuals involved is a very positive development.
Kudos to the Board on this move.
Will they still keep the information secret?
Now they will claim attorney client privilege.
Yeah kudos to them!
Blah, blah, blah. You asked for lies and I provided only two. Of course you ignore and just repeat the same B.S. The fact you call a definition silly exposes your ignorance. Interesting also that you admit to being a rumor monger. Not surprising there.
Again, they don't know who files complaints. Again, Williams had nothing to do with the appointment it was Flood. Again, it had nothing to do with Larry's performance, it was because the board at that time decided to not have Trustees as chairpersons. I can easily claim that they don't enforce the policy because it's a fact.
Btw, I've noticed that with the new lighting thing going on in your rants you haven't said anything about the ARC committee. They deal with light complaints, so where are your accusations against them? They are also promoting change in covenants too yet no attacks on them from you. Why is that? Could it be because that they are predominantly male?
Yes, you are a liar with a mix of misogyny. Buzz off? Not likely. As long as you insist on repeating your lies I will come on here to call you out on them. Stick with your usual rants and quit making false accusations against people who actually volunteer for the community and I'll let you be.
Since you have been unable to provide proof that I have lied about anything, that makes you a big fat liar. I write, YOU rant. You offer no substance to your insults and ridiculous claims. And you're a chicken-sh*t who is incapable of OWNING your fictitious baloney, which you promise will continue in spite of the fact that you are incapable of speaking to the issues with REAL facts.
You are probably Peg Olds or ? to make the ridiculous projection that I'm picking on the Tree Comm. because they're women. (Larry Raymer is on the comm.)There's no basis for such a claim, and frankly, I tend to hold women in higher esteem than men overall. You are nothing but petty and anonymously to be ignored. Everyone can see that.
The Tree Comm. is part of the HOA enforcement apparatus and we all know that. We also know that you know that Clancy submits dozens and dozens of bogus tree complaints which obviously have no basis in fact, but are taken off a list or map. If we had an honest HOA, we would have a record of what legal expenses are incurred in the enforcement of this petty policy, and I'm certain it would be shocking to the members, and unacceptable.
I've had enough of your nonsense, and will leave you to your hostility and stinky-butt attitude. you aren't interested in facts or a better community. That is clear.
Steve get's the last word.
THIS TOPIC IS CLOSED TO FURTHER COMMENTS.
Post a Comment