I sent this simple question to Mr. Reber, Surfside General Manager, five days ago...
"Are Mark Scott and Chris Chandler still on the Board? Has one or both submitted a resignation?"
I have not received the courtesy of a reply. Mark Scott, the only honorable Board member, did reply to my inquiry from his vacation in Italy. Reber could not, from half a dozen blocks away.
Until Reber was hired, in the 14 years I have been here, I always have received a prompt reply from the office, be it Office Manager, General Manager or staff. This Board and General Manager have sunk to a new low in conduct. Truth, transparency and openness does not exist any longer.
I still can not confirm the validity of the comments below. It may be nothing more than an attempt to charge the blog with putting out false information, by a sick individual who is playing mind games. Below is what has been posted in comments. Until verified by a credible source, the answer remains un-answered.
- What is the status of Mr. Chandler?
- October 26, 2019 at 2:03 PM
- Anonymous said...
- mr chandler resigned a week or so ago. There is a vacancy on the board. They are going to have just eight trustees until the next election. Mr Cox has made his bed with many derogatory words and name calling of a few board members so he will never get on the board this year,
- October 26, 2019 at 5:00 PM
- Anonymous said...
- So let me get this straight-the Board thought it was OK to put Mr Olds on the Board because he was, at that particular time, the last highest vote getter, even though his connection with his wife’s Committee should have given cause to ponder his appointment. Yet this same group now refuses to carry out this same policy because Mr Cox exercises his First Amendment right to free speech? This is not a dictatorship, we live in a Democracy. You high and mighty Board members are not above the Constitution, you ARE guilty of blatant, now provable, discrimination. The law tells us that your action represents a prosecutable offense and I would strongly encourage Mr. Cox to take each of you to court and solicit funds tin order to sue not the HOA, but each individual Board member. He has an iron clad case of discrimination and you each are liable. There are many folks in our Country that I take umbrage with, but they have the Constitutional right to freedom of speech if not criminal, and Mr Cox’s are not in any way criminal, because this is a free country, not a totalitarian body. This is a basic tenet of our country, the one you choose to live in and abide by the laws. You are and all others are not above the law!
- October 26, 2019 at 5:43 PM
17 comments:
I have re-posted these comments from the Tree Committee posting as they are relevent to the developing board opening vacancy posting.Blog Host...
Anonymous Steve Cox said...
5:00.... The Board knows that I am unwilling to buy into their platform of "law and order", as their contention that the community is rife with non-compliance is a bunch of contrived nonsense. It's all about more control through intimidation. They also want to create a distraction for the members, to scare them away from asking too many questions.
They are pissing away vast sums of money on frivolous legal spending as part of their contrived "pro-active enforcement" plan, concentrating on increasing enforcement pressure primarily in their ridiculous Tree Height enforcement, stepping-up pressure by increasing fines and making threats of further legal actions over trivial "issues".
Meanwhile, Board mismanagement led to legal entanglements with the County, State and Federal regulatory agencies, huge fines on Asbestos mishandling, improper permitting on the Water Dept. CTP and Warehouse, and more fines and mandatory mitigation for building without permits in a wetland. It is thought that the HOA will have to agree to buy offsite land to be turned into wetlands, as a State required mitigation plan, at a cost of $90,000/acre, probably requiring 3 acres. So the membership is likely to have to finance the mitigation at a cost of $270,000.
All information indicates that Trustee Clancy is solely responsible for taking independent action in the permitting, resulting in over a year of limbo at the Water Dept., and an uncertain future.
The Board has never openly admitted to these very serious matters that developed a year ago last June/July, and the most recent conflict with the County/State was the result of a rogue action by Clancy to set up a meeting with the State without BOT approval. He failed to make the meeting, and a fine was levied on Surfside of $1000/day, intended to begin Oct. 1st. Bill Neil and Larry Raymer were able to delay the fines by meeting with the officials on Oct. 1st.. Further negotiations have been in the works.
The Board doesn't want to share this information with the members, though they are required to make it public, and they don't want to have the membership think they have any right to know what they're spending all of this member money on. State RCWs make it law that these matters are public domain, and that owners deserve to know what their money is being spent on.
That's why they don't want to let me on the BOT. They know I won't stand for their secretive operations, lack of honesty, or ongoing stonewalling. The matters that are not to be member knowledge are limited to private member or employee issues. It's quite simple really.
Fear of transparency and honesty is why they are keeping Mr. Chandler's resignation under wraps. It seems in these Trumpian days, anything goes, but the way they're supposed to as set by precedent.
October 26, 2019 at 6:31 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
By the way, Mr Cox was duly elected to the position due to the fact that the membership gave him enough votes that he was indeed the next in line. I believe there was another fairly recent time when the Board executed their “next in line” policy, but did so rapidly rather than waiting a year s they did with Mr. Olds. That yearlong wait was a sham as Mr. Olds was already an ex post facto a member of the Board , just not sitting at the table during meetings. I may be inaccurate but I believe that earlier “next I; line” appointed person is the current President of the Board. I
October 26, 2019 at 6:34 PM
BYLAWS
ARTICLE IV
Section 7
Any vacancy occurring in the board of trustees shall be filled by appointment by a majority of the remaining trustees. The person so appointed shall hold office until the next annual meeting of the members of the corporation, at which annual or adjourned annual meeting, the vacancies for the remainder of the original terms, if any, shall be filled by election by the members in the regular manner.
Note the wording "shall be filled by appointment by a majority of the remaining trustees." Shall be does not mean later or until the next election. The meaning is clear.
I believe that the last vacancy occurred about 2 months before the Annual Meeting. As I recall, there was significant vocal opposition to Olds being appointed, and that his wife Peggy had recently been swiftly and stealthily appointed as Tree Comm. chair, replacing Larry Raymer without giving him any prior notice.
Prior to that, Deb Blagg was appointed due to the election tally, and Winegar before her. Obviously, the Board has set a precedent and has tended to follow it, but the Bylaws leave the process open to the Board's discretion. It appears that a Trustee has expressed their view here, that Cox isn't even a consideration. But it is apparent that they will make every effort to prevent diverse views from reaching the Boardroom. Mr. Cox makes a lot of sense in his comments.
That is not correct 8:08. The vacancy occurred after the annual meeting. It was because a sitting board member sold his house and moved. He had his place for sale and planned on moving before the annual meeting and in my opinion and others should have done the right thing and resigned before it but didn't. At that annual meeting it became apparent why he didn't.
On the tree committee thing, it wasn't recent. And to the appointment the board had decided that chairman positions on committees should not be Trustees and instead given to volunteers. At that time there were 2 board members on that committee, Larry being one of them and was serving as a chair.
Now if this current happenings is true and Chandler is leaving I see a bit of hypocrisy going on here. With the Olds thing people were on here saying that Patrick's position shouldn't be replaced until the next vote. The blogs position was the same even saying that the number of board members should be reduced. So when they did appoint Olds there was a huge outcry that it wasn't right. Of course most of it was due to personal animosity, but still it went on and on. This happened before when the next in line was Hansen, people were doing the same here saying there should be no replacement. Well, if all this is true and they are not replacing Chandler then it appears the board heard you so you should be happy, right?
Let's be honest here. The same people who were upset about Olds being appointed and said there shouldn't have been any appointment to the opening are now going to say there should be strictly because it is Cox. If the next in line would have been someone else, say Hansen or God forbid Ms. Olds you all would be screaming to not have the position filled. This is a prime example of human tribalism which in itself is expected and OK. Just own it and spare me your indignation on this subject.
Well said
Until reading the current BYLAWS, I was under the mistaken impression that the sitting Board could change the number of Trustees serving on the Board. This is not true. It is the members who determine the number of Board members, not the Board its self. The Board shall fill the vacancy, but not the number. This would be a violation of the BYLAWS. Before the Board makes or takes any action on the number of Board members, they should consult legal council.
BYLAWS
ARTICLE IV
Trustees and Officers
Section 1. Corporate powers of the corporation shall be vested in a board of trustees. The number of trustees who shall manage the affairs of the corporation shall be six. At any meeting or special meeting called therefor the members may increase or decrease the number of trustees to any number not more than nine or less than three.
You should run for the board next year in 2020 Cox. I bet you could eliminate the tree height regulations. You have a lot of documentation showing that they are allegedly improper.
I'm not sure about it though. I think it is an issue up to the members via electing leadership that holds that view.
10:32....You give yourself away as having an unshakable bias against anyone who comments on the blog. Patrick moved in October I now remember. I didn't have any objections to appointing a trustee as it was the appropriate thing to do with 8 months left in the election cycle. An appointment is necessary now.
No one said the Tree comm. chair appointment was recent. And the only point that was being made was that Larry had served as chairman for about 12 years (I think). That service should have been shown the respect of notifying him or discussing a change in one of the many closed sessions the Board stages. Any less is very disrespectful. And oddly, I think it was meant to be. Williams at his "finest". You're kinda busy doin' a lot of correctin', but not correctly.
And your contention that Patrick should have resigned BEFORE he sold his property is ridiculous. He was 4 months into his 3rd year as a Trustee. The Bylaws do not require resignation until a member is no longer a property owner.
You make a lot of assumptions that are baseless. You make a number of references to "the Blog"s position" which is NOT a real thing. George has his opinions, and opens the dialogue to others. Those who agree with George aren't under his control you see, they just agree. Many have their own opinions.
The only connection between previous appointments to Board vacancies and the current one, is that it is assumed the first offer should be to the candidate with the most votes. Winegar was appointed in May of the year, at the May B. Meeting, attending only one B. meeting before the election. By doing so, it made it pretty certain he would be elected to a 3 yr. term - and he did.
Yeah, we get it - everyone's a whiner but you, and like sheep they are - but not you, not missin' a thing, sharp as a tack.
Anyone guess 1:11 PM is Cox?
And you are? Thought so. Pfffff
You set me straight 1:56 PM.
Sorry 1:11, the only one showing bias is you.
What did I say that was incorrect? I responded to a comment where the person didn't remember correctly, plain and simple. The vacancy WAS after the annual meeting which is a known fact.
To the Patrick issue, as I stated it was my opinion. Last I checked opinions are allowed here right or is it you only approve of ones you agree with? I and others feel that once you have decided to move the right thing to do is to resign and have the position given to someone who is going to live here and would be working for the interest of the community. And before you attack me again, even if those are interest I don't agree with. Please explain how it is beneficial to have someone on the board who plans to leave? How can you seriously trust them?
On the tree committee thing. In your zeal to attack me obviously you didn't read the comment I responded to, specifically their remark "Peggy had recently", which I stated wasn't the case and it wasn't.
Notice how I had come on here just to let 8:08 how things actually happened and I did it without doing so in a condescending manner. I just said the facts. So you're wrong, my "correctin'" IS actually correct.
And while I'm at it let me correct you Mr/Ms keyboard warrior. To the Larry thing, It was Flood who was president at the time who removed Larry not Williams. I was at that meeting. So apparently it is your correctin' that needs correctin'. Chew on that for awhile.
So don't worry, I won't accuse YOU of being sharp as a tack.
12:57....Again you ignore the main point regarding Larry's ouster. No one can pretend that replacing him without discussion or notice is adequately respectful of his many years of service, or that replacing him with a J place owner was "corrective". Who cares who the prez. was ? Who can pretend that there was such an urgency to put Peggy in the position that it had to be done without notifying Larry before hand ? No one. The trees will wait.
Larry rarely missed a meeting (unlike Mr. Flood), but they knew he would not be in attendance that day. That's just backstabbing b.s.
You rattled on about a bunch of nonsense. The Blog does not represent a point of view, nor are comments required to agree with George. I was not particularly condescending, considering what a bunch of silly crap you are espousing. A member is a member until their title changes hands, and in the same sense, the Bylaws do not require a Trustee to resign just because they have their property for sale. A sale can take months or years, yoyo.
Everything is a lie
To 2:10:
Wrong again. I didn't ignore anything. My original comment, that for some reason you want to attack, was merely stating the fact that the Larry removal wasn't recent as the comment I was responding to had said.
Please reread that again since you keep overlooking it.
Plus you also overlook that you made the statement that no one said it was recent, which was obviously false. You're the one that keeps coming back here turning it into a rant that I wasn't even addressing.
You do realize that calling someones opinion silly and nonsense IS condescending right? Not surprising you don't since it appears it's just your nature to do so.
Funny that now you are using Flood's name after I educated you on the fact that it was he who was the one doing the removal and not Williams as you had said. From your rants one can expect that you are incapable of admitting a mistake (oh, who could that be?) but I should have least got a thank you.
No thank you 12:57.
I wasn’t at the board meeting this morning, but I understand no appointment was made by the board to the vacant seat! Any ideas on why this was postponed??
Post a Comment