An opposition group forming?
Have things become so bad that our members are in fear to even use their names? I have been asked to be a go between members who are so concerned in what is happening here, they want to form a group to make plans on how they can return the association to the members. The members do not trust each other. They seem to fear that they will become a target of a few who seem to be controlling every thing. Older members in particular can be fearful because they are more vulnerable to threats.
I think these are exaggerated fears, but can understand how they might feel that way. They are seeing more complaints being written and proposed covenant changes that will be difficult for them. For the senior residents, a small issue for the younger members can be perceived as a big issue for the seniors. The part timers and Rv people are seeing themselves being targeted more and more.
Changing from member complaints to hiring a pro-active compliant investigator is alarming to many. And then when you see people driving around and taking notes or standing in front of your property with measuring tools and binoculars, is threatening. The proposed lighting covenant is so extreme, the members fear what other changes will be proposed.
Recently I had a member ask me to arrange an Email exchange so they could get in touch with each other. This required me to ask a party if the would ok that, which they did. Before you start sending me your requests, there needs to be more thinking, planning, etc.. I only have a limited number of Email addresses. Someone needs to be named as the contact person. I do not have the time or ability to be an organizer. I offer the use of this blog to get information out, but will be limited to that. My role is more of a reporter than anything. Someone needs to step forward and be willing to be the leader in a new group. Again, that is not me. The last time this happened, Ms. Blagg was that person. And we saw what happened there. It fell apart and she sold and moved away. The same was with Patrick to some extent.
I favor a small group or even several individual members who will meet and make a plan for motions at the Annual Meeting. That will not be me. I have to many issues right now.
What a shame that our community is so divided. If some or a few will make the effort, we still might be able to save Surfside and at least return it to..."you knew what it was when you moved here" Unfortunately, it no longer is the community that we moved here for, only a few years ago. Good luck, your going to need some.
90 comments:
I don’t look as this so much as opposition, but as improvement. Be thinking where we need to start and what the priorities should be. Return to calm and trust
Since you brought up Blagg......
Does this mean this latest group is going to show up at the annual meeting to try another coup WITHOUT letting the entire membership know? Thanks for the warning. I'll make sure to get all of my neighbors to attend or give me their full proxies so we ALL can vote.
Will be interested in seeing how large this opposition group is...
Cox: Will you lead the group?
Why did Blagg try a coup WITHOUT letting the entire membership know?
Do you mean like the board does? Motions can be made at the annual meeting without the entire membership being notified in advance. If your that concerned, just attend the meeting. It's only once a year and during the summer. No big hardship for most.
01/26 10:31 PM: You go get their "full" proxies every time right. Or are you just displaying your fear?
Have a nice day.
Change is inevitable. Small groups who work to bring about change are either revolutionaries or rebels, depending the popularity of their message and their successes. On thing for certain, nobody will follow an anonymous person in a fight for change. Therefore, the status quo is safe and the revolution is dead. let the ineffective whining continue.
Why anonymous? I think the answer is very obvious all the way around. You’d be surprised what a small group can do when necessary.
5:44, refer to the likes of 10:31. They will resort to anything to keep power.
Small groups of individuals have accomplished amazing things. 56 delegates to the continental congress signed the Declaration of Independence. What a difference that made document has made. Of course, none of them signed it as anonymous. Their lives were at stake. They had every reason to be afraid. The British government would hang them if they caught them. Some of them paid with their lives. Others with their fortunes. Yet, they signed their name to the document. Courage at its greatest. So, you just keep on whining anonymously, your courage inspires us to even more inaction.
8:36. You are too funny! So why are you anonymous? I think we all know why
True. 10:31 sounds like the one who has repeatedly bullied us, attemoted to intimidate us, and threatened violence.
10:31 - YOU and your buddies are the reason we even have to deal with the BS. YOUR BS! Promoted by special interests, their syncophants and fools.
We're not going anywhere, and the dissatisfaction with belonging to an organization that operates illegally is growing.
Hilarious ROFL
"10:31 sounds like the one who has repeatedly bullied us, attemoted to intimidate us, and threatened violence."
I'm NOT moving 10:31!!!!!
They are sure worried by the "small group". They should be. Get some motions on the ballot and the floor, and you have my support. The members just need the opportunity to cast a vote. That is what the power elite are trying to stop.
When is the Annual Meeting, I need to get it on the calendar and make sure I"m around that day.
Somebody needs to video the annual meeting
I think it would be a good idea for the monthly meetings be put on live so everyone can participate. The annual meeting should for sure. We do live in this new age of technology!
There's nothing wrong with having a designated member group along with the BOT when it comes to discussion, changes and/or voting. There really should be a member group formed to keep the balance. It might even reduce some of the Us vs. Them going on.
It's not a flippin' coup to attend the Annual Meeting and try to remove members or adjust covenants without a notice to your fellow members. Adjust your schedule for the meeting. It's once a year for gods sake. The paranoia displayed here makes me think that maybe there is something in the water after all.
The Members running HOA should welcome other Members getting involved if They have nothing to hide
I can’t wait to see what you small bunch of malcontents don’t do at the next annual meeting. It is so funny the way you stroke each other’s ego.
Right. What are you hiding 10:31?
I'm NOT moving 10:31!!!!!
Fact:
The Annual Meeting is always the second Saturday in July.
Just move already
1253 - buzz off, troll!
1024 - current Board is violently opposed. Witness electronic voting.
Lack of technology makes it easier to control the story. Essential to those who's 'truth' is a control issue and personal opinion, as opposed to accurate information.
1253 - you are truly a pathetic little individual. Suggest mental help.
I asked today via email to the entire board and the BM when they will post a member survey for members to express their opinion for membership voting on governing documents amendments.
If for the Sheriff, why not for that.
Everyone do the same. Let's start flooding their email accounts.
1:54 great idea. Pretty easy to canvas members. I agree completely on voting on covenants.
Remember, although the bylaws state that the President conducts thee annual meeting, it does not say it is a Board meeting, therefore anything is available to the members. That would included questions of the Board, complaints about the Board (lack of minutes, etc). So it is all open and although it might help in pre-coordination with members, it is by no means required and should not be stifled by the President or the Association lawyers, as freedom of speech is a fundamental right of the citizens. We can also call for a vote of the members.
That would be great!
How is the board violently opposed to electronic voting? Has someone been assaulted for promoting electronic voting? Maybe someone is overstating their opinion. Violently opposed. What a drama queen.
6:46 then why was the Technology committee completely shut down and no longer exists?
646 - despots by any other name...It's all about control. Kind of like your pathetic attempt to deflect.
The year I came electronic voting was on the ballot, OMG they can do it, it supposedly failed. Likely by managed low turn-out and proxy irregularities.
At one point, I noticed in meeting minutes that the Technology Committee had been cancelled. I read that the Technology Committee was still active in the governing documents. I pointed out the discrepancy to Laura Frazier and asked what was going on. Was the Technology Committee not cancelled. Laura Frazier told me it was a mistake in the governing documents.
They can't even keep up with paperwork, let alone a water company.
Fifteen years in Surfside as full time resident. It is no big deal that there is a group opposing the Board in Surfside. There has been a group opposing the Board in 2005 and almost every year since. It just goes on and on. The blog has fostered more discontent and made it easier to complain and whine. We used to invite each other for coffee and talk before the blog. Now we sit on our butts at home and tap the keys. Yawn.
909 - could it be because you and your buddies have been in power since then? Williams first term was in 2008.
More lies, revisionist history, and a pathetic attempt to rewrite history..
Yawn.
We’ve been here for more than 12 years and it was never this unrest as now. It seems to have started about two years ago. I’m trying to figure out why, but I think mostly the board has kept secrets and made decisions in a vacuum. Just my opinion
Where's Cox. This board postpones one CC&R amendment and puts one petition of member opinion on the website and that satisfies him, not surprising.
And good morning to you 5:50! It must be miserable to start your morning out being so hateful or does this just make you feel better? I know you’ve sure put a damper on my morning!
5:50 is just another feeble attempt to divert attention from the real issues. He would rather have you talk about Cox then have the discussion be about the board and others who only hide information. They are sure afraid of Cox for some reason.
657 - Competence scares them.
Yes they are scared of him.
There is nothing scary about Cox other than his willingness to blabber on about things that he does not fully understand. Most members figure out quickly that he is nothing more than a blow hard. lacking self awareness.
I would say that description fits you, blabber mouth.
1019 - talking about yourself again? Your self involvement is a troubling sign of deterioration. Perhaps silence, then you would only be perceived a fool, rather than proving it.
Problem is 10:19 never "says" anything, much like our bot. Go figure.
10:19 - Really got an ax to grind eh ? I offer my name 90% of the time when I comment here, so I am perfectly confident that when I say something is a fact, I can verify that it is so. So I hear your big fat attitude, but you are the one that is blathering on without substance.
I have discouraged efforts by a couple of members to put several proposals on the July ballot at once. While I think there is no question that the bane of Surfside is the Tree Policy, it's a complicated issue that deserves lengthy consideration to change.
I'd like to see efforts focus on just the one ballot measure, to require member approval to change covenants, or add new ones. The primary objective of the effort to put Electronic Voting in place was to enable the secure voting on covenant matters, so it may be wise to pursue these in tandem. A group of Deb Blagg abusers managed to obscure her intentions, and the committee was dissolved after finally successfully launching the site.
The hateful banter ignored the basic objective, which was to enable Surfside members to vote in the very important process of revising written covenants and instating new ones, just like other HOAs. The part-time status of many in a vacation community makes it impossible to gather signatures door-to-door as most HOAs can do.
We can hope that what we saw and heard at the Hearing Jan 9th, was an indication that Board members may be willing to take a different approach in governing Surfside, having seen that members DO care, and want to be a part of such major decisions.
On the other hand, two Trustees wanted to deny the manufacture of complaints by Trustees is true. We know it to be FACT. A little over a hundred Tree Complaints were submitted in 2017 and 2018, most by Mr. Clancy. This year, the number was well over 200.
When we heard that the Lighting covenant was being rewritten, we were told there had been a big uptick of complaints on lighting, up from a few to " more than you would expect", as we heard. When asked point blank, Mr. Reber stated there had been 50 submitted at once by Mr. Clancy and 2 others.
When I stated this at the Hearing, I was chastised by Olds and Deleest, claiming I was making a false statement. Mr. Reber had also denied he had stated what he did in a weekly Arch Meeting, yet others heard what he said. Interesting that neither DeLeest nor Olds would say how many complaints had been filed, to initiate the rewrite, as the crowd grew restless, demanding to hear how many complaints there had been. They are Trustees to the Arch. Comm., so they surely knew there was a specific number.
After shuffling some papers nervously Mr. Reber stated there had been "15" and then mumbled some nonsense to confuse the matter.
This manufacture of FAKE complaints needs to be stopped by a BOT mandate. What began as a simple system to resolve neighbor disputes has been turned into a weapon to deceive the membership, and justify heavy-handed enforcement measures. We don't want or need this nonsense. Elaborate enforcement standards create more problems than they solve. Keep it simple, and have a happier community.
I agree on the two proposed motions, however, I would add a third to eliminate the tree height restrictions. If what you only propose and it is approved by the members, we are still left with the status quo. It is not complex. Just do away with it.
As for organizing, the stuff I have outlined here is, in my opinion the main objective, but I would add, finding some good candidates to run for Board vacancies. A majority on the BOT refused to approve my appointment to the seat left vacant Sept 30. Some have a problem with diversity of views and interests, and want to keep a lock on the agenda.
Certainly DeLeest and Olds are 2 who opposed my appointment. They have a right to appoint whomever they want, though the person who received the next most votes in the election has been appointed on several occasions in the last 3 years. Mr. Winegar was appointed to the BOT in a May meeting, and attended only one full meeting before the election that year.
In this case, Mr. Chandler resigned prior to the Oct. Meeting, and it was NOT announced at the meeting. I don't think it has been addressed in an open meeting, except one member stated that he wanted me to be appointed. There was no real reply. The covenants REQUIRE the Board to appoint a replacement, which they have ignored. This is dishonest governance folks. It isn't rocket science as they say. Whomever is appointed, the sun will rise each day, and set at night.
Facts can be proven.
Your blog postings cannot.
"On the other hand, two Trustees wanted to deny the manufacture of complaints by Trustees is true. We know it to be FACT. A little over a hundred Tree Complaints were submitted in 2017 and 2018, most by Mr. Clancy. This year, the number was well over 200."
Writing it on the blog does not make it a FACT.
3:09 - The Tree Policy is NOT a simple matter to dissolve. You totally miss the point here. Keep it simple. A member measure has never been approved in an Annual Meeting, and the group is conservative. The Covenant issue isn't really a controversial one, from the standpoint of owners. Vote to secure the rights to have a say on these issues, as other HOAs do.
By focusing on just this issue, and HOW the voting will be done, we may successfully change this Bylaw.
Until electronic voting is instituted all other complaints/recommendations/actions/opposition groups will fail.
@4:47
Your statement assumes that everyone would vote as you do...
3:12 - I know that you have read numerous statements by different people on this Blog, confirming that what I have stated is true, and that it has been bragged about by Mr. Clancy. I have documented what happened in 2 public meetings, and stated that it can be confirmed that Mr. Reber stated that 50 complaints had been filed. You don't have enough integrity to state who you are or why anyone should believe YOU. Nor do you offer any explanation why anyone would fabricate this information. You are a joke.
You can live in your world of make believe. The rest of us expect our representatives to be honest, and we have proof they are not. That's a problem that promises to keep on giving.
I will never vote for Cox for anything.
GTH 5:09 PM!!!
@6:32. It’s anonymous people like you that take all the actual sharing of ideas and conversation to a new low! Really take a break you ruin it for those of us who take this forum seriously and respect all the hard work George has done to provide us this Avenue. This really is so unnecessary and very rude!
What about 5:09 PM JoAnne?
Unacceptable. I hope George removes it!
Check out all the conservatives on here Cox. Even the blog administrator favors Trump supporters on this blog. I see.
I guess I'm too low and rude for your opposition group JoAnne.
Good luck. I'm sure there's already a big group working together.
If you would read, I’ve already stated I view this as an improvement group, not opposition. I do know how to work with people and I do know how to be courteous. I am done, I will not make you feel important by replying to you anymore. Good night
I had no idea that was you JoAnne. It was an anonymous post.
Someone was allowed to go political on here, so I did too. That's all.
7:16.... I can only reference the predictability of BOT endorsed candidates being elected each year by the electorate. My reference to the voters being largely conservative relates only to what we know about the BOT majority line, that they want to retain the Tree Policy at all cost, and prefer to avoid any significant changes to policy or procedures.
Nothing can be improved without thoughtful change, and the BOT is directed by the State RCWs and our covenants to act in the best interest of ALL of the members, to the extent possible. Transparency in actions and spending of community funds is a State and HOA requirement, only observed in Surfside when convenient.
322 - this blog is a MUCH more timely and accurate source of information than ANYTHING that come from the BOT. Yet another pathetic attempt to deflect.
The only posts that are consistently inaccurate are YOURS!
News flash Cox, the BOT doesn't act in the best interest of ALL of the members and doesn't act transparently.
Cox must really want on the BOT, he gives them an out, "to the extent possible". Been talking to our attorney lately?
You are trying awfully hard to put me in a box with a label on it. No matter what policy the BOT may adopt, this is a community of over 2000 memberships. You aren't going to satisfy everyone. You are extremely naïve about the role of Trustee. I have served in this role, and understand that you can have your own ideas about how everything should work, but governance is a group effort, which requires compromises, even if everyone has similar views or goals.
I opposed the Lighting proposal because there was no real effort to fashion a policy that served the community's needs. In the meeting on Jan. 18th, it became clear that owners have diverse needs. Some have mobility issues, are elderly and have poor vision or balance issues, some may have handicaps, young children can be put at risk in poorly lit circumstances. Lighting, while seeming to be a small matter, has a broad impact on our daily lives.
The meeting was successful because neighbors were talking, and the issue was addressed seriously by a large group of Surfside owners. Some want to pretend they're badass radicals and dis any cooperative effort. Trying to work together is where the rubber meets the road. You're going to enlighten me huh ? I'm a sell-out huh ? I'm my own person yoyo. That's how it will remain.
...and those are the Days of Our Lives.
yoyo lol ?
Steve is sounding more and more like a board trustee. Just a bunch of double talk. Does he think that you can deal with this board in a reasonable way? They are not interested in any kind of reasonable compromise. They are only interested in their own self interests. You can not reason with these kind of people. The only solution Steve, is to throw the bums out. There is no need for a "cooperative effort" on a false made up issue. The solution is simple on the lighting covenant. NO WAY to any of it.
I asked this board via email to conduct a petition for members to voice their opinion on membership voting of governing documents amendments. They told me they already told me to go call a special meeting by getting over 400 signatures. I told them if they wanted members to have a say in their community they could make this happen at any time. I further told them that if they wanted to petition the members on membership voting of governing documents amendments they could perform a petition at any time.
This email exchange was to all eight Trustees and Tom. Tom insincerely told me thanks for my input.
What have you emailed them recently Cox? What letters have you sent them recently Cox? Or are you just trying to get blogger of the year again?
Well anonymous 3:07, at least you got a response! The BOT voted unanimously at the October meeting to acknowledge by email receipt of all communications from members. My three emails requesting a report on exact numbers of lighting complaints, has never been acknowledged. Date of the first request was December 28th, January 14th the second request as I felt this information was critical in making any decisions about the proposed lighting covenant. To me it’s impossible to make such a huge decision without being fully informed, which obviously the BOT was not informed of in an actual printed report
Any board member or the general manager are required to respond to a member Email, within ten business days. To not do so, is a violation of our governing documents. A complaint should be filed against them for the deliberate act by Reber for not following the rules. How disrespectful for not making a reply. It is clear that they do not want the truth revealed about the complaints. This place is so corrupt.
Good luck, your filing a complaint against the ones violating the rules. Money n lawyers are the only solution.
Not going to waste my time filing a complaint. I know what happened and it’s well documented.
3:11 - You sound like you're Mike Riley. You may be very pleased with yourself for sending out a lot of letters and information requests, and would like to take credit for having an impact, but that can't be verified.
We know that some Trustees read the Blog so it is reasonable to expect that strong statements on policy get some attention by some Trustees. I frequently read about members writing the BOT, Bus. Office, individual B. members, and not getting a response, so I don't assume that writing to any of these folks will get any response. I also recognize that just sending back a reply that says: "Thanks for your input" qualifies as a reply.
The claims that I "sound like a Trustee" also sound like Mike Riley. There is no organized plan to dissolve the HOA, nor a plausible strategy to remove ALL of the Trustees. Few in the community would get behind these proposals, and no one can claim that they understand how the complex business of dissolution would be implemented. It's a ridiculous idea.
If the members can't muster a half dozen solid qualified candidates with rational objectives and deliver a newly constructed Board, then the insurmountable objective of a blanket recall is definitely out of the question. I'm a very big advocate of common sense, and building off of what is practical and doable.
I've made a couple of common sense based suggestions for member supported ballot measures. Neither are actually controversial, just member empowering.
It's not out of love for the current status of politics in our community that I take the positions I do, but based on realistic expectations and practical solutions.
I'm not trying to be a hero, so I don't need to prove anything to anyone (least of all anonymous bloggers). I see problems that need solutions, but few who are motivated to vote, let alone work to implement modest changes.
8:55/Mr. Riley
In the words of Richard Sherman "You mad bro"?
Let it go.
I will give you kudos for being the only candidate/member in attendance that asked the BOT a question at the annual meeting. Everyone else here just whines about how the board doesn't respond or answer questions and then all were meek as lambs when they had an opportunity to ask in public.
8:55 - Actually, another member asked the leading question about the failed permitting at the Water Dept.. I had intended to get into some of the issues in my candidate's statement, but the meeting was in its' early stages, and I was hopeful/expecting the Board would at least mention the Asbestos issue, or the permitting issue. They didn't.
And it was interesting that the Board had been so silent about these matters, that when asked the question about the failed permitting, Mr. Clancy claimed there hadn't been any failed permitting. Mr. Neal corrected him. To his credit, Mr. Riley tried to pursue this further, but the BOT cut him off.
I was disappointed that these issues had not been revealed, let alone given discussion time. I was criticized roundly for being meek and non-confrontational at the meeting. I had been very vocal about the issues on the Blog, and had dedicated nearly all of my candidate's statement (in the Newsletter) to exposing these issues in brief form.
I was disappointed the discussion Mr. Riley was trying to get off the ground, was snuffed out, as I would have certainly taken part.
The community has a difficult challenge before us, as a largely part-time residence for most members. Our varied purposes, RV use, Camping lots, vacant properties, and stick-built homes, also complicates our coming together on policies and standards.
But there isn't going to be any vote to dissolve this community, or recall the entire Board. The support isn't there, and won't be materializing. The only way to improve what we currently have, is to elect level-headed folks to the BOT, who have not sworn allegiance to the status-quo and the Tree Policy.
3:52 - You are not an appointed representative of an organized group of Surfside members, so who is the "we", and from what power base do you make these "demands" ? Talking like this makes your cause mute to pretty much everyone.
If someone puts the measure to require member approval for covenant changes on the ballot, and nothing else, there should be a very good chance of member approval. Don't turn it into a rebel movement, or a demand, following proper procedure, and keeping the effort simple.
You belittle yourself by coming unhinged over trifles. You refuse to accept that my intentions have always been to encourage you to be realistic about your objectives. Because of that, your association with any attempts for change discredits other's more humble intentions. You just want to fight with someone, and I'm not a good target. You will always lose.
Post a Comment