Surfside resident, and blog contributor, JoAnne McMurphy, has her "Letter To The Editor" published in the Jan. 8, 2020 edition of the Chinook Observer. This local newspaper is probably better read than any association publications. We are fortunate to have a local newspaper where we can be informed. We are also fortunate to have a member like JoAnne, who is willing to take the time and make the effort to have members be informed with the facts and share her concern for all members and their rights.
Click on the letter once or twice for a larger read:
35 comments:
Nice Job Joanne
I respectively disagree with the statement that the board has done little or nothing to inform the membership about the change. As she herself has stated, the information is on the official Surfside site, no quotation marks needed. That alone would be sufficient to most reasonable people yet wasn't the only process of notifying the membership.
That said, since every member has and uses digital access to know what is going on in Surfside, they also have the capability for online voting. Touche'
11:35- yes the 400 folks that live or visit Surfside and the HOA could access the info. It is the other 800 members that have no idea! How about an electronic voting process to allow full participation in “our” HOA- that would be considered “sufficient” in 2020.
It is true that the Board of Trustees have opposed electronic voting capability, while many HOAs utilize it. It would enable the HOA to take surveys of member opinion, and enable the membership to participate in covenant change/approval, required by virtually ALL HOAs.
This proposed lighting covenant change lacks practicality, ignores the fact that there has been no public appeal for a "Dark Nighttime Sky" community, and has made no effort to assess what kinds of lighting is currently favored by the community.
During half of the year, not more than a few hundred members are present at any given time. Most properties are without exterior night lighting when they are absent from Surfside, making it a very dark community at night. That has been pointed out by numerous astronomy and dark sky fans on the Blog.
There are vast numbers of fixtures available, having varied features and intended uses. In general, about 90% of Surfside homes use "area" lights at their entrances. Such fixtures allow the approach to the entrance to be lighted for safety in everyday access at night, where owners and guests are likely to be carrying luggage or groceries in multiple trips, often in foggy, windy, or inclement conditions.
This policy would sacrifice personal choices made for convenience and safety, for a very restricted policy that will require heavy-handed enforcement to demand impractical changes for which there is no evidence more than a few members want. It isn't worth a broken leg, trying to find your car in the driveway, because of poor lighting.
Limiting wattage to about 60 watts allows for such lighting to be practical, without being obtrusive. But many owners feel that they are safer when an exterior light is left on during the night, and that should be an individual choice to make.
The rumor is, Mr. Reber wrote the policy, and it is somewhat patterned after ordinances in Goldendale Washington, site of a major Observatory on the east slope of the Cascades. It is believed that Mr. Reber is NOT a Surfside member, as he does not own property in Surfside. Goldendale is a much larger municipality than Surfside, has entirely different weather conditions, and has a legitimate basis for a dark sky policy.
You would think we could all have emails under the surfside website, be assigned a email designation and everyone would get notices?
They will do nothing to empower us members and more effectively and efficiently inform us members.
We need to resort to extreme measures.
Sounds like an hoa that caters a bit too much to realtors.
And to J Placers, obviously.
Thanks JoAnne, for taking this to the larger community. I believe that a new law was passed in the last year or so, requiring that Realtors alert prospective buyers to HOA issues that threaten to increase dues and assessments. I've thought that may have something to do with the BOT becoming so resolved to keep information from the owners.
The HOA's ridiculous new emphasis on "pro-active" enforcement, mandatory closing property inspections, charging $200 for a title change, runaway legal spending, hiding County, State, and Federal compliance issues from the membership, hiding huge penalties and fines levied on Surfside,.... ALL violate that State law, as well as numerous State RCWs.
The intended Lighting covenant change has been handled in a similar way. There are no Arch. Meeting minutes posted since the May minutes, and so NO record of the Lighting Covenant Change meetings held during the Summer months.
And the word is, that Mr. Reber wrote the new covenant, and attended the meetings as a contributing member. He is NOT a Surfside owner, and so, is NOT allowed to serve on Committees or as a Trustee. He is NOT a voting member, lacking ownership in Surfside. As Business Manager, he may be allowed to participate in specific matters that relate to the management of the Bus. Office.
Rewriting covenants is the sole authority of the BOT, of which he is NOT a member. The Operations Manual may outline his valid duties further, and I will look into that. But I think that there are clearly limits to his participation that have been cast aside, in a typical disregard for proper procedure and transparency by the Architectural Committee.
Reber needs to focus on cleaning up the current messes, instead of making more.
We need electronic voting vs this archaic in person or proxy voting. This would also need to be collected and tallied by an independent company that has been hired. With all that has gone on I don’t believe we can trust the BOT or anyone at the HOA to accurately count votes and report the results. It is time for change for the good of all Surfside residents not just a few.
I couldn’t agree more! I think electronic voting and notices sent out to members via email would help this communication problem tremendously
Go away J Placer hater!!!
It was balloted in November 2018. It was voted down. The November vote was plagued by low turnout and proxy fraud, which is typical here.
Agree totally!
The recent board meeting minutes aren't published, including the November 2019 budget vote. The committee meeting minutes never say anything of real substance. They probably won't publish the financial records anymore.
I reviewed the published November 2018 minutes yesterday. The total votes cast was 262. The votes for was 123 and the votes against were 140. What the hell. They can't even count.
They wait an entire year to approve the July Annual Meeting Minutes. I think that's terrible, ridiculous, and fraudulent.
There are no BOT minutes for October or any of the usual published information concerning HOA business. Most troubling to me is that from 3-2019 until now the minutes of the Architectural Committee doesn’t even record who attended! The recording of a chart for approved or denied permits hardly correctly records the meeting as required in our rules! If the actions during the period when the Architectural Committee discussed and voted to present the new lighting covenant to the BOT weren’t recorded, then it didn’t happen! Why did it change so dramatically in March?
11:06:
Votes at the annual meeting are collected and tallied by an independent company. Members volunteer to help with the counting of the November budget vote. You are more than welcomed to help if you are willing to volunteer your time instead of just your opinion. That is of course if YOU can be trusted.
Give one example of proxy fraud 7:15. If it is so typical as you say that should be easy, right?
Just another false allegation which IS typical.
How can anything be proved considering the bot constantly breaks the bylaws on transparency etc. only thing we can possible know is by logic and members getting info from other govt sources. Apparently 9:06 agrees with the bot behavior, and says all we need to know about them.
Well 11:22, "apparently" all you want to do is complain, which is fine but leave me out of it. No where in my short comment was I addressing board behavior. Someone (you perhaps?) made a serious allegation concerning fraud at the November meeting which there is no evidence of. Your little rambling rant had nothing to do with what I was commenting on.
How can there be proxy fraud? Members who fill out their proxies properly (my nine year old grandson could do it)are not giving up their vote. An outside agency collects them and hands them out to the member designated. The proxy can't be altered by anyone. If you are that fearful of fraud then throw it away that 85% of us do. So tired of the proxy misinformation.
Our elected Trustees must disclose how they vote and how they vote on proxies when the absent member instructs them to vote for them. Certainly we all agree our elected Trustees must disclose how they vote.
We elect them. We live in democracy, not dictatorship or oligarchy.
906 - an absentee ballot I submitted for a neighbor was not recorded. This has led me to question the veracity of ALL elections since. Having Ms DeLeest monitor activities last year was kinda like leaving the cat in charge of the canary cage.
On the same day, at the annual meeting, the BOT President looked me in the eye, and lied to my face. Same knuckleheads are still in power.
there would seem to be a discrepancy of a vote in the count - so easily an error, but I don't think there's any fraud on this level. What IS a questionable measure of member opinion is enabling a proxy system. A nice aspect of setting up electronic voting is, everyone's vote is secured, votes more easily cast in a few clicks, and no excuse or need for proxies.
If members had this very simple process at their disposal, there would be no need to have someone else vote for you. In reality, if you can't vote on your own, you probably shouldn't be voting. It IS often used as an edge in voting in general. allowing proxy voting is common, but can easily be made an outdated insincere process.
Aren't there potentially some older members who don't have computers and the internet?
Of course there are, but the BOT determines they somehow have Facebook to check water status. So guess it's a draw.
When did Facebook become the method to give information to the Surfside HOA members? I certainly never received information about this method to inform members about important information! I’ve always just gone to the official website as I thought we were supposed to. When I went to the Surfside homeowners Association Facebook page, I saw this statement “ We want people to come to our FB page. It gets too many people involved who don’t need to be. I don’t think Frank Leon wants his page clogged up with Surfside info”. This was 9 weeks ago!
I don’t know if anyone else thinks this is baloney, but I do. Who made this decision? Once more we’re being kept in the dark like mushrooms!
Check it out, full of information! I couldn’t believe what I was reading when I stumbled upon on it during this last water thing!
12:25 - This has been discussed at length, so maybe listen this time. Mail-in votes would still be allowed if the electronic alternative was put in place. There would still be wisdom in ending the use of proxies. Voting should be a matter of knowing what you're voting for, and not just throwing your proxy onto the pile of your favorite Trustee, to make the decision for you.
You do know that some people give their proxies to non Trustees, right?
I used to not be a fan of proxies. I always felt and still do that people should try to attend the annual meeting to vote. But that all changed after the infamous Blagg coup attempt. In that situation if you would have voted electronically you wouldn't have had a say in the attempt to remove Trustees. It's understandable that not all members can make it to the meeting so giving your proxy to someone you trust and who you know will show up is a valid option.
If you can not attend the Annual Meeting or any other meeting where there is a member vote, your vote can be done by proxy. The proxy proves that you are a member and casting your vote. Only you can vote. No one can vote for you.
Surfside is the only place I have ever heard of where a member can cast more than one vote. The Board members can cast one vote only, Theirs. To do otherwise is a violation of any election. This also applies to individual members named as proxy. I have been named proxy as an individual many times, and have only cast their votes as submitted.
Blagg and others have the right to make a motion at the Annual Meeting. The members present have the right to vote on motions.
The last election was rigged with multiple votes from the seated Board. This would not happen with ONE vote per member.
That election outcome is predetermined long before the ballots are cast. When did Williams start, 2008? Seen it ever since.
I would more trust the results of an election in Chicago Ward more than I would in Surfside.
Williams uses all caps a lot when he writes emails to members.
Post a Comment