Thank you Steve Cox for providing the following information that has been confirmed as accurate.
His comment was made on the topic "Board Resignation"
Other than a select few, any information about the association and it's problems, have been kept from the members. A settlement or agreement with State and County agencies could and most probably will result in a significant expense. The budget for next year should have reflected this in a substantial allocation to the contingency budget line item. This can result in more decreasing of our reserve accounts. The non-existent Audit Committee should have been on top of this. Insurance will not pay for this. You and I will.
By past practice, Steve Cox is next in line to be appointed to fill out the remaining term of Chris Chandler. Steve has demonstrated with his experience and common sense discussions, that he would be a much needed voice on the Board. He would take that appointment seriously and work for all members. This is badly needed.
Comment by Steve Cox:
84 comments:
Write them a letter demanding you be seated on the board Steve Cox.
You say you like writing.
George: There are 2 typos on your published version. 's is supposed to read HIS. At the end you have "on Board Resignation" which I did not write.
As for 12:09's comment, the BOT has latitude to appoint who they choose. They are aware that I would take the position if offered to me, and they know what the precedent is. I have no authority to demand anything of them in this matter. I have chosen to speak about issues on the Blog, not having been elected, and many on the BOT have no tolerance of well-founded criticism.
92 members voted for me in the last election, and that's a significant number, compared to most elections in the past. If called on to serve on the BOT I would gladly serve, and feel a responsibility to those who voted for me. But I respect the seated Board's right to handle the appointment how they choose.
Steve, Although I don't agree with your stance on the tree heights, your presence would bring a fresh "view" and a degree of legitimacy to the board.
Steve would take his prejudices and biased attitudes with him if he served on the board. One blathering know it all, Clancy, is all that we can stand or afford on the board. Yes, this is a vote against appointing Cox to serve on the board.
Considering how much damage Clancy has done.
I'm wondering what is the threshold for BOT member removal considering all the legal problems and costs incurred?
Thanks Steve. I corrected as much as I could. The "On Board Resignation" on the bottom of your comment was due to my copy of what you commented. I have a page that shows me the comments, time and where they are posted.
1237 - I would rather listen to Steve's comments as opposed to YOUR blathering any day. At least he has constructive comments - as opposed to YOUR snarky garbage, troll!
I would like it very much if they appointed Steve Cox to the board. seems highly unlikely though because he does speak his sensible mind. I would be shocked if it happens which would be unfortunate if it didn't.
Any threshold should have been achieved by now.The Board either needs to be cleaned out in total, or the organization needs to be dissolved.
Answer to 12:47
There is no written threshold for removal by the Board or members at the Annual Meeting. They can be removed without cause. The honorable thing to do would be to resign.
The precedent has been set by the board for replacing resigning trustees. They must follow that precedent or explain why. The BOARD is really protecting their own. What else is new.
Board positions have been left unfilled in the past if you want to talk about precedence.
The last 4 vacancies have all been filled by appointment of the candidate with the next highest vote. Mr. Winegar was appointed at a May meeting, only attending one full board meeting before the election, where he was predictably elected.
While the means of filling the vacancy is not spelled out in the Bylaws, it IS clear that the position is to be filled in a timely way. Leaving the position vacant a month or so before the election is reasonable, while more than a couple of months does not qualify as "timely". I believe the wording may be that "the position SHALL be filled by appointment by the BOT".
I completely agree 12:37.
Tell us more about the trees and Annette Cox. Tell us more about how she accosted you. Who else do want to bash?
You forgot the "," after Annette. I know it's a small detail but in not doing so and the way it reads could give that poor women a heart attack.
Whoops, sorry about that Annette.
Cox says people shouldn't talk behind his back.
How many have read the new lighting covenants? In my opinion it’s alarming. It can be found in the surfside website , but why not publish in the weekly newsletter?
I read the new Light rules. My house has several lights that were approved when my house was built, but now will be out of compliance. This will be the same for many many many others in SS. If your lucky, you are able to replace them yourself without much cash outlay, but if you are physically unable, it will require a contractor at probably $100 plus parts each? This would be a good opportunity for someone who is bonded to step up with a area discount and get to do all of them. I'll bet one of our board members already has someone in mind for this, probably has for a long time? Anyone want to guess what the over/under number is for non compliance letters send? My guess in 500 letters
1:25....How about I bash you for apparently not knowing the meaning of the word "accost", and being unaware that without punctuation, you are referring to Annette Cox. It's anyone's guess what 6:09 is talking about. Odd that you're both on the Blog in the wee hours of the morning, making these inciteful comments. Funny.
To JoAnne...
As I understand it, the new lighting covenant in regard to light fixtures, is only applied to new fixtures AFTER the Board initiates the newly revised covenant. There is a term they hate "Grandfathered". To date, all structures in Surfside, that have been approved, include the total home including the fixtures. You can not make a covenant retroactive. This applies to any laws anywhere.
If you have used 100 watt bulbs, they can not make you change it to 60 watt. They can not make you replace a fixture.
However, that being said, they can continue to enforce continuing intrusive lighting. Your present lighting may be in violation for it's light exposure, but not the fixture. You may get a complaint about the light cast as being non compliant. If so, shield it, tape it or paint part of it. This is a good neighborly thing to do.
Anyway, I may be wrong, but that's the way I see it.
George, I didn't read it that way, it says something to the effect that includes all lights even if they existed before the new covenant?
You could be correct, that they can't make it retroactive, and that would be fine
8:36....Unless someone has issued a complaint on you, there's no need to worry about it. This "new" lighting policy doesn't really make much sense. Security lights on motion-detectors need to be floodlights, and floodlights do not shine down, nor are the bulbs invisible.
Light fixtures have been around a long time, and designers of these things offer various lights for various purposes. These things are studied as most products are, and most fixtures shield the bulb with a valance that is frosted to minimize the glare. Spot lights and "pot-lights" shield the bulb entirely on the sides, to focus downward (or forward).
I'm not sure there are good reasons why these changes were made. There have been some specific instances where owners are in conflict over lighting, some reasonable and some not. I think it's likely that just addressing the complaints would have been enough, without setting unrealistic restrictions that have multiple interpretations, or require owners to replace numerous fixtures.
For instance, string lights are nearly all LED low output lights, and many folks find them cheery to have any time of year. And 60 watts is plenty for exterior lighting, including security lights. Setting limits to exterior lighting in terms of hours allowed is reasonable, but for some folks, going without any lights on, on their exterior, is a concern.
Suggesting a guideline of limiting light that extends to neighboring properties, and in specific cases - shining on a bedroom window, may be an annoyance to a neighbor - seems reasonable. Preventing it all together is not practical. Shielding the bulb entirely to force the light down defeats the purpose in many situations, That's why there are "Floods" and "Spots".
This policy change seems to be mostly intrusive in nature, and seems to be addressing a few specific instances where there have been complaints, by over-stepping with a bunch of impractical limitations.
To 8:36..
The above answer is probably more for you. You make a good point. I will say further, that if you replace an existing fixture, it has to meet the new covenant requirements. In my opinion, it is not a bad idea to restrict intrusive lighting. The devil is in the details of enforcement. The proof will be up to the enforcer. Can he prove when the fixture was installed? Can he prove when your 100 watt bulb burned out and you should have replaced it with a 60 watt bulb?
Across the street from me is one of those old mercury vapor lights. I have been waiting 15 years for that sucker to burn out. No way. It bothers me, but not enough to file a complaint or say anything to the neighbor. For them, it is a security light and that opens a whole other issue. The enforcement of the new lighting covenant should not be a big problem, if common sense is applied. The worry is that, common sense seems to be in short supply.
How many board members does it take to change a lightbulb?
9, 4 to hold the ladder, 5 to figure out how to use a light meter.
Members might note that the now posted October Board Meeting minutes do not indicate that Mr. Chandler resigned. My understanding is, he submitted his resignation Oct. 18th, well before the meeting on the 19th.
Me wonders what's afoot, as these idiots on the Board would prefer to spin, as opposed to telling the truth once in awhile. Another setup? Probably so.
Hey Cox, when did you say the wetland fines are starting? Did Larry and Bill really stop them from starting on October 01? I'm going to ask the county.
Don't worry, you have bashed me many times.
Hey Stevie, remember me Mr. Liar and rumor monger? Since the other topic had to be closed I'll answer you here. I provided examples for you that you chose to ignore and instead had to resort to name calling and pivot to the anonymous label. Very Trumpian of you.
So thanks for the name that I will be using from now on when I counter your future lies, like that Williams was responsible for the Olds position for example. I for one hope you do make it to the board. Then you may actually show up at a meeting where I will be happy to introduce myself. It will be interesting to see if (here's where I lower myself to your name calling level) your mumbling fat a$$ POS name calling attitude is the same in person as it is behind a keyboard.
Due to his neck waddle, shouldn't "chickenshit" Clancy refer to himself as "Turkey-shit?". More fitting and it is almost Thanksgiving.
Amazing how many name calling posts on on this thread. Would like an explanation from the gatekeeper as to when they are appropriate and when they cross the line.
6:47....You are just an abusive idiot with nothing of value to share, nor do you care what happens in the community. It's all about you. I acknowledged that I was mistaken when I said Williams appointed Peg Olds. As I have pointed out, a lie is intentional, moron. Yes, introduce yourself, please do.
5:32....I've already offered an update on that stuff. I only bash abusive people, so I'm not "worried".
Thanks Steve!
Saves me the trouble of calling these two clowns out. Have a great weekend!
Based on what Cox has said, It sounds like Annette has had an opportunity to find out.
I'm going to ask the Washington State Department of Ecology too.
Thanks for your moral support 9:34. I appreciate it.
9:55 - The BOT knows about this stuff. Trustees have not been obligated to respond to member inquiries, and I believe that option may be written in our documents somewhere. I've heard that the BOT has supposedly discussed a different policy, and may have approved a revision. If so, there hasn't been a great effort to inform the members.
The information I have shared is the same info Annette would have been briefed on, so ask her if you're feeling lucky. The Board has chosen to cover-up whatever they want, whenever...such as the resignation, the Mitigation, the Asbestos Abatement, the mismanagement, the wasted legal expenses.
The HOA may have finalized a mitigation agreement, or should be close, having hired a South Bend attorney who specializes in Wetland Mitigation. I already brought this up on the Blog, and that's as much as I know at this point. Call whomever you like. I have nothing to gain by making this stuff up, and most likely, you won't learn anything more, if anything at all. Believe what you will. Truth is truth. I always seek to find out the truth.
I'm not calling anybody. I'm actually doing something. I'm taking action. I'm writing, submitting, and receiving public records requests.
A New Topic: Surfside Outfalls
Lately, I've obtained a Pacific County record itemizing and tallying the costs to maintain the Surfside surface water and lake and canal combination outfalls. Over the last 5.5 years, Pacific County has spent nearly $183,000 maintaining the outfalls.
Goody for you. Mike R. ? The outfall costs have been discussed before, and it's not a secret.
Pacific County needs to redesign them and improve them by extending them out further so their, and the people of Pacific County, costs are greatly reduced.
Now I bet allegedly that part is a secret.
We all must care about effectiveness, efficiency and reducing wasteful spending.
I'm still willing to take abuse, attacks, and vengeance. Speaking truth to power brings great abuse, attacks, and vengeance. I realize that.
Way back to 12:37. So you object to Mr. Cox being appointed to the Board because he will bring his prejudices and views with him. Did you also object when Mr. Winegar and Mr. Olds were appointed? Certainly they brought their thoughts with them, evidently to include a vow of silence about anything to do with Board activities and a promise to vote yes for anything that would extend the power of the Board. Are you concerned that Mr. Cox will bring transparency to the Board actions unlike thte last appointees? How's that 'Safe Surfside" working out for you?
11:10 - This stuff has been talked about on the blog, and I believe that there is no "secret" about any of this. Another outfall had been proposed near the G St. Buildings and Land Maintenance garage/warehouse. That plan has been shown to not be workable. I don't think this has been in the works lately, the HOA having said they would study it, but didn't follow through. That is my recollection.
Stormwater problems are apparently a concern that needs to be addressed at some point. George has mentioned this several times. Mr. Raymer is very knowledgeable on current matters of this nature, and is on a local Board - State or County.
3:56, you mean the outfall that would cause board member to lose his view?
Yes. This leadership will do anything to stop Pacific County and the greater community of the county to change the outfalls and save money.
I will be complaining about Surfside on this issue to Pacific County in writing.
Allegedly Surfside has used strong arm tactics to stop this redesign and improvement. I've asked the Trustees about this by email and get nothing but crickets.
We did the shedding thing and only gave 6 bulbs on our decorative lighting on now. 6 watts total! The board denied our appeal and we are still waiting on an answer as to what more we have to do
Our impression from the board us that the new covenants will be in effect and you will be expected to comply.
We have no neighbors so we feel the compliant cane from the compliance officer or a board member
No holiday lights except Christmas? July 4th USA pretty big deal here!
Everyone needs to understand that the busts can vote this new covenant in as it states in the convents and by-laws. No membership vote us needed. The gearing on January 18th better be well attended
A covenant change requires a Special Meeting of the members to review the change and offer member opinions on it. The BOT likes to pretend that they can approve something like this and make it retro-active, ignoring the member review. They can request that owners comply to new standards, but they technically cannot cite anyone beyond the previously existing standards.
Members should vote to require a member vote in order to approve covenants, as the BOT consistently tries to make these kinds of Board approved actions effective "immediately", when that is NOT what the covenants allow.
How can the members vote to hold an open vote about the new lighting? It’s entirely in their hands. When we presented our appeal with the changes we made, it was still denied. The “message” we got was , it’s immaterial because a new covenant is coming”. So I don’t think the grandfather thing is their intent. As we stated in the last meeting when we asked for clarification if we are still out of compliance or not, as this covenant has never really been enforced by any board through the years, it could legally be vacated and be null and void
Thank you for your response, I appreciate
Members can request that a Special MEMBER Meeting be scheduled, though I think there is a required number of signatures to do so. The Board can also schedule a MEMBER meeting, requiring adequate prior notice to all members. They can't demand that you comply to these new standards until this has been reviewed by the membership in an appropriate meeting. I have emphasized that the trivial issues being made into new restrictions are nothing less than a power trip to keep the dissenters intimidated and hushed. Sorry to hear of your situation.
Unnecessary restrictions predictably cause conflict in HOAs, and everyone knows it. The current BOT is on a "law and order" trip, when their focus should be on the compliance of the HOA to State and Federal regulations. This community has consistently failed to abide by regulatory requirements of all levels of government for a decade or more.
Our Water Dept. was determined to be out of compliance several years prior to the building of the CTP, and then failed to build it on permittable land.
There will be a member hearing on January 18th as approved at the last board meeting. As I read the board minutes they have already approved these changes and will hear member input at that January board meeting.
My concern is that the previous lighting covenants have not been upheld or enforced so why would you adopt an even stricter covenant? We’re setting ourselves up for failure! Who is going to do all this inspection and enforcement? A part time enforcement officer? I don’t think so. Let’s try and have some common sense here!
Jo Anne is correct about the January meeting that the board had said before and was published in the minutes. They are not ignoring the member review or pretending. Hopefully Cox will read her comment and stop repeating the same stuff. Doubt it but it would be nice.
That's what I tried to get on the Annual Meeting in July 2019. The Trustees never responded to me within 10 days, they essentially told me to go kick rocks via a memorandum written by our attorney telling me it's their decision to add something to the Annual Meeting and telling me to call a special meeting.
I submitted a proposal to amend the governing documents in this way a few weeks ago. They told me they discussed it in closed session last Regular BOT Meeting.
I sent them 4 homeowners associations that require a membership vote to amend governing documents. I sent them a copy of the Articles of Incorporation/Bylaws.
Kind of like our lawmakers in Olympia, " better to ask forgiveness, than permission"?
Very interesting! They met in closed meeting to discuss what? I thought closed sessions were for personnel matters or legal discussions!
I sent them two letters a few weeks ago.
One was for amending the Bylaws to add vote by mail and eliminate proxy voting. The Bylaws say they may be amended at any time.
One was for amending the governing documents to require membership voting for giverning document amendments.
I have sent others letters on different topics too recently.
10:28....When the Board approved the "Shed Eaves" covenant change the Arch. Comm. went after Johansen and others claiming it was "retroactive". Someone is pestering "JoAnne" about her lights, basing their expectations on the new standards. The "Minutes" may or may not clearly state that these changes are not retroactive, nor are they enforceable until the review by the members. Will the BOT really give the owner opinions any real consideration ? We will see.
Your comments are not based on facts but your bias is clear. Good for you ! One thing we can assume that was discussed in Closed Session, was the resignation they received from Chris Chandler before the meeting had started. They didn't announce the resignation, and haven't done so since. This is public information, and the last 4 vacancies were all based on the same criteria - who received the most votes in the previous election.
The Bylaws are not specific in how the vacancy is to be filled, but do specify that an appointment is necessary. They obviously voted on this, but did not follow proper procedure of announcing the result of their vote. This is called "a cover-up".
Nov 7th, 12:29.... I was remiss in thanking you for your comment. It is honest and fair. I appreciate it ! Hope you see this, as your comment is in a way, extraordinary.
If the members think the old lighting covenant will be grandfathered in, think again! Everyone will have to come up to compliance with the new one. And the board is able to vote this in, not the members
JoAnne. You sound like a person I'd like to meet and converse with. I don't use my name on this blog anymore because I get ruthlessly personally attacked. I have the membership list. May I write you a letter?
Yes please do! Very frustrated at this point. Are you able to send to my email in private?
They don't give email addresses on the list even though I spent $100 for it.
I have to write you a physical letter and send it to your physical address.
Joanne, I have to agree with your assessment of the new lights covenant change. The way I read it no one will be grandfathered in.
I as think I've mentioned before, this should affect a large % of the members who have a permanent structure.
Our Overlords maintain we're a bunch of idiots who don't deserve to vote on governing document amendments.
All: write our Overlords letters like I am. Please help me, please!!!
Again I say, why adopt such restrictive, unrealistic new covenants when the old ones cannot be enforced!
I sincerely hope everyone turns out for the January 18, 2020 meeting to express their opinions!
It's another revenue source for them. They like to fine and sue the members.
Remember, our Overlords know best for us.
One of the most ironic things that will happen if this new covenant is approved is the fact we won’t be able to decorate with red, white and blue lights for the 4th of July! A time when our tiny little part of the state is crowded with tourists (which we depend upon) Surfside will be dark 🇺🇸 I would think we should be able to celebrate this holiday as patriotic Americans!! Unreal to me! You’d think we live in a metropolis among multi million dollar homes! Get real, this is a recreational area folks!!
I couldn't agree more with you JoAnne.
A lot of people enjoy holiday lights during this time of year too.
Aaagh! Yikes! I hate to take on the class struggle, but I just read that lighting policy. It is just overkill on steroids, and I have to ask myself what purpose that fills. I have friends up on J Place, but I have to say, the specific goal of a dark nighttime sky between J Place and the Ocean places the nighttime views on J Place right out there with the tree heights. And decorative light strings in the yard - none of that? Who would complain about that?
Olds and deLeast, that's who.
Can't we all call it like it is? This is corruption. The clinker is that it is so petty.
Again with the J place hate which is wrong as usual
The lighting thing was put forth by the Arch committee, so Olds had nothing to do with it. My understanding is that the reason it was worded to be done west of J was that a couple east side people wanted their side excluded. I know of some others on the east side that are upset about this and want their area to be included. During the discussion there were J place Trustees and others that questioned why it was only for the west side too. So while 3:09 my be doing the typical comment to place blame it is wrong.
Before anyone comes on here to say I'm bashing the Arch Committee, I'm not. Talking with the one member who was there I was surprised to hear that lighting complaints are more numerous than you would think so to address it they came up with the plan.
To JoAnne. From what I heard Holiday lights were to be OK as long as they are taken down in a timely manner. Nothing was said at the meeting to exclude certain ones so I believe that the 4th would be fine. If what you say is true then it had been modified since then. There is a plan in the works to start addressing the old covenants and do away with the complaint system we have now.
Nothing is done yet so people should show up at the Jan meeting to voice their issues or at least send an email stating them. That's how its been done in the past.
So that's of course how it has to continue to be done.
We wouldn't want to change anything.
Oh wait, our Overlords are changing only what and when they want to change.
Praise to our Overlords!!!
to 11:58
"That's how it has been done in the past" is a problem and how they are doing it now is even worse. The Arch. committee wrote the new lighting covenant? BS We all know the J Place coalition actually wrote the new covenant and the Arch. Committee only approved it. This has Olds and deLeast all over it.
Do you really think we are so stupid that you can get on here and BS us? You and your "plans in the works"? God help us. Simple solution is to put it to a vote of the members. You actually creep me out.
I agree. Put it to a vote of the members.
The problem is according to the rules, the board has the power to amend and change covenants. So unless we are very vocal as a membership this could be simply voted in even after the hearing. One thing for sure is that the newly purposed lighting covenant needs to be gotten out to the members! It is supposed to be in the weekender this week, but most people just trust that the board is acting on their behalf in a sensible manner, which in my opinion is far from reality with this new covenant!
To anonymous
Holiday lighting is only allowed to be illuminated between Thanksgiving Day and January 10. 2.17b. #8
11:58. There are “a couple” of us to the west of J who don’t want this as well. Kept it off the east sliders due to a “couple of people” you should do the same for us, lest we see that this total thing is being run by some “influential” J Placers. By the way, the Arch Committee are the same ones that gave us the ever so important 18 inch shed overhang rule. Also, has anybody seen the Weekender? Usually comes out on Thursday but nothing last week or this week. Granted, it isn’t worth much, but are they trying to limit even this small source of data.
Good thing nyc doesnt have this covenant. Penthouse people would demand all lights off. But then again, how can u look down on those you cant see. Btw, Better stop breathing their salt air.
In addition to the compulsiveness of the proposed lighting rules, one wonders how that would be enforced by the "enforcer". Would he be stalking the neighborhood in the dark to catch evil-doers? Would that involve overtime? What if my dog gets upset at an intruder in the dark? Will I get a notice about the dog? Are These people on some kind of kool-aid.
You people are too much. All I did was reported what went on at the meeting, a meeting that obviously none of you attended. I repeated what I heard and what I was told. The attacks against me says a bunch about you.
To 5:08, which I assume by the time stamp is Riley. Your Olds and deLeest hate is ridiculous the same as your J place coalition B.S. You have no proof that they have anything to do with this and just pulled your comment out of your backside. As I said, there were J place Trustees that questioned the proposal so you are wrong. And if you are actually Riley, you creep everyone out.
7:57:
If you live on the west side and you don't want this go to the meeting to say so are send an email as I advised. That's all I can do for you.
But please, you wrong complainers keep your tin foiled hats on and continue doing what you do. If it makes you that happy, enjoy yourselves.
Hey 6:20 PM.
You are wrong!!! My post is the one at 4:50 AM!!!
I'll be there tomorrow, so if you want to come out from behind your anonymity and talk to me civilly please do.
Also 6:20 PM.
I was the one that posted the Washington case law that described a homeowners association limiting tree heights to protect views. Are you still going to bash me falsely while hiding behind anonymity?
Talk about your own backside, not mine!!!!!
You must be one of our Overlords.
Hey 6:20 PM.
You're Clancy, aren't you?
Well the Weekender came out today and no copy of the proposed new lighting covenant!! So much for getting information out to the membership! You can go on the website for Surfside and find it. The attachment showing what kinds of outside fixtures we will be allowed to have and be expected to change to, doesn’t show up. So I’m still in the dark about that one!
Post a Comment