And other business...
As part of the Board Summary, as published in last weeks Weekender, the following was stated:
"Cancel July 15 Annual Meeting and BOT election. MP to cancel the July 15
annual meeting and the BOT election.and move any required annual
meeting business to the November Budget ratification meeting."
The statement seems simple enough, but it is far from simple. It clearly shows a lack of understanding or knowledge of the Articles of Incorporation and State RCW's. Competent management would not provide or accept such a vote. We pay large sums for a General Manager and legal representation and counsel. One or both have failed.
Yes, there are emergency circumstances where the rules, regulations and policy can not be followed. However, even in those circumstances, a good faith effort must be made to follow as much as you can. That good faith is lacking. Suspending elections or extending an elected term of office, is what dictatorships do in third world countries.
We have 4 Board positions where the elected term ends the second Saturday in July. It is questionable if the Board can legally set a number of trustees without a member vote of approval. (a legal question) Not having an election would reduce the Board to 5 members. We are required by law to have 3 to 9 members. There is no requirement for a quorum to have an election. There is no reason to cancel the election. Candidate statements can be included in a ballot mailed to the members. Any other policies of meet the candidates is not needed and poorly attended. Only requirement to seek a position on the Board is to be a "member in good standing" In other words, current of paid up on dues and assessments.
Annual Meeting Business:
"move any required annual
meeting business to the November Budget ratification meeting."
This is just another indication of a basic miss-understanding of rules and procedure.
Annual Meeting business can only be conducted at the Annual meeting and if there is a quorum present in person or by proxy of 10% of the total membership.
The business conducted at the Annual Meeting is the business of the members, not the Board. Members approve the minutes from the previous years meeting, make floor motions and vote. The staff and Board, provide reports. Nothing else. It is a MEMBER meeting.
Of course I am not a lawyer and the above is based on my experience and knowledge of our governing documents. Some of the thousands of dollars we spend on legal, needs to be spent on some competent advice from legal council. It is clear to me that those in charge here, don't know what the hell they are doing, and just make up the rules as they go.
We are not a third world dictatorship. When your term is up, your out. The election needs to be held as scheduled. The usual Annual Meeting reports can all be sent with the ballots. The Board power is not absolute and for whatever length of time they want.
24 comments:
Couple of questions. Do you know when the number on the board went to 9? Seems to me 5 would be sufficient comparing to other boards I’m aware of. Also what seats will be up for election?
The only concern I have with no actual meeting is that there will be no member input by comments or motions.
"Suspending elections or extending an elected term of office, is what dictatorships do in third world countries." this statement reminds me of someone, rhymes with rump?
Who's terms end in July? Would it possibly be a good thing if their terms just ended with no replacements at this time? Let us see if operations can continue? Or would it give the wrong people too much power? And why isn't this a good time for mail in ballots? Or is the BOT too afraid of us deplorables.
Clearly the Board cannot be trusted to conduct business consistent with our Bylaws and Covenants in non-public meetings. As you point out George, the election can take place as usual, making it strictly by mail. The meeting can be held later. So far, there is no indication that Covid 19 has impacted the County health, with only 4 known infections, 2 of which were contracted out of State.
So while there may be a reasonable argument for delaying the meeting by a month or 2, there is no basis for delaying the election by 6 months. This "meet the candidates" stuff is a creation of the current Nomination Committee and chair-person Annette deLeest, and was utilized last year. Previously, there was no in-person appearances by candidates. It isn't necessary to conduct the election, and hasn't been in the past.
What is really irritating is that they refused to replace the empty seat vacated Oct 1st, as required by the Bylaws, just to avoid appointing the candidate with the next most votes, Steve Cox. Now they offer no indication why the election should be delayed so long, or other critical details which they surely discussed. My bet is that they intend to keep all of the current Trustees in place, when in FACT those whose terms have expired come July have no business continuing on the BOT.
This is a lot of unnecessary meddling, where there is no real problem having the election strictly by mail. In fact, there is plenty of time for the election to be set-up to be done electronically as had been planned a little more than a year ago. They just decided that they could get away with this so why not ? But as Mr. Minich told me, "anyone who claims there is lacking transparency in BOT actions is on a fool's errand".
Of course he intended to mean that there IS full transparency, when there obviously is NOT. There should be member objections made clear on this. At the very least, there needs to be established a definitive END to expired terms effective the day after the date of the July Annual Meeting. It is totally inappropriate for the Board to decide to extend their own terms.
Terms that expire in July are: DeLeast, Williams and Scott. There is a 4th, whose term was not filled when vacated. This was the seat that should have been filled by Steve Cox. Steve may remember who that was. If the Board can get away with deciding to only have 8, they can decide to only have 5. I favor only having 5, and maybe 3 would be enough. Just a bunch of dead weight there now, not knowing what they are doing, and getting no direction from a General Manager.
In the 15 years I have been here, there have always been 9 Board members until last year. A few years ago, when I was on the Board, and Election Committee Chairman, we did have a meet the candidates meeting ptior to a regular Board meeting. Being a sticker for following the rules, I did everything according to the book (Operations Manual)so that the election was done as mandated by policy and other regulatory rules. During that election and years to follow, the meet the candidates/question and answer, has continued. There was never many members attending. It was a waste of effort.
The ignorance of this Board and the General Manager is alarming. They continue to create problems of their own making. There is a person in that office now, who has more knowledge on elections and the processes than all the rest of them put together. That person is "The Secretary to the Board" Kimber Haltermann.
We have one failure after another. Probably good we don't have an Annual Meeting. If we did, they would probably all be removed from the Board. All it takes is a member quorum, a motion, a second and a majority vote of those present. Maybe that is what this is all about.
Sorry, think I got that wrong, (at least I admit to mistakes) on ters expired. I think Williams is remaining. He want's to be President again. (God help us) It is Winegar whose term is up. (Thank God) One of the worst Board Presidents we have had. He ranks right up there with Kirby Smith, Williams and Flood. Easy to see why we are in a continual mess and crisis.
I guess I didn't realize that there had been a formal introduction of the candidates in previous years. I may be wrong, but I don't think there were two appearances scheduled by the BOT, as there was last year. But as you say George, few members attend these, attendance at the Annual Meeting being pretty slim as well.
What is apparent is, participation by members voting is weak, with fewer than 15% casting votes annually, so utilizing strictly mail-in or electronic voting may even result in greater participation. It has been assumed that voting electronically would see a jump in member participation, and that has been the source of Board opposition. There's more than 8 weeks to put an on-line voting system in place - plenty of time really. That would be the best solution, allowing mail-ins as well.
I agree, the terms that end in July and the one vacant seat, done! Let’s have a smaller board, it may work better in the long run
The entire election procedure is spelled out in the Operations manual under "Elections". There has been an "introduction of the candidate to the Board". This is in May. In June there is a chance for members to ask questions of the candidates. Both of these events were during regular Board meetings. Both were poorly attended by the candidates or members. A total waste of time for all. By this time now, there is usually an "election packet" published where candidates can fill out election forms.
For some unknown reason, the former crack pot candidate Riley, thinks that Mr. Cox see's all the deleted comments he tries to put on this blog. Mr. crack pot, he does not. I don't even bother to read them. At least, if there is no election, we don't have to vote you down again.
We have enough crack pots now, without adding you to the mix.
I am disappoint that Mark Scott has stated that he will not seek re-election. Of the eight currently serving, he is the only one that I respect. The rest are clowns in a 3 ring circus.
I call um the way I see it. You all may not agree with how I see things, what I say or how I say it, but at least I have the courage and integrity to use my name, and not hide behind anonymous or some fake name. I don't always agree with what those who use their "real" name may comment, but I respect them for being honest. That seems to be a scarce commodity these days. Civil disagreement is a good thing among those who use honest identity.
I wish more would have the courage and integrity to "speak up and speak out". Sitting on the fence is not a comfortable position. JoAnne and Steve, especially have my appretation for speaking up. Their comments have credibility and deserve attention and consideration. What I hate, are the one line quip comments. Thoughful dialog is best.
I am a member who uses Anonymous as the BOT monitors these comments and I dont want to be targeted by them again. The only way I would be willing to post my info is if this was a closed blog where legitimate, verified, public emails were used and only members allowed access could see and post. I would like to be a productive part of the community and help fix things, but feel that is not going to happen. A couple of the BOT m were members are already grooming their kids to take over positions in the future, as overheard in a local restaurant a few months back. Not by me, but by the waitress who is a family friend.
That sounds like a cop out to me. They can't eat you. As long as people just sit back, the bullying will continue. It is working for them. I guess when enough members become targets, they will finally say "enough is enough". By keeping the members in the dark, they have been able to continue with their bullying tactics and further their special selfish agendas. By not speaking up and out, you are a part of the problem, not the solution.
When the terms are up, then out you go. No free 6 month ride, BOT can live with 5 members if need be.
If we can’t have an annual meeting in 2 1/2 months for elections then the HOA needs to get off their butts and either prepare for an all member mail in voting or all member electronic voting or combination of both! 10 to 15% voting should not a quorum make and begging for proxy votes should never be allowed, that’s kind of like counting the votes of dead people & illegals.
You do know that Scott did voice support for that lighting covenant change at a BOT meeting while the others did not, right?
Your statement is too vague to have credibility. You don't specify when this took place, and we know that initially the board approved of the proposal and scheduled the Community Review meeting. That means that a majority of Trustees voted in favor. He was very positive in tone at the community meeting, and didn't defend the proposal.
This was a covenant revision that was created under wraps, with no published minutes or research as to what owners currently have lighting-wise, or what the majority want. On the other hand, Mark has shown himself to be open about his views in general, and has often taken his own tac on issues. He is entitled to having an opinion, and is capable of changing his mind in spite of the BOT majority's preferences.
We don't know a thing about the promised re-do of the re-write, which is the next chapter. A simple alteration was what was stated as their objective this round, but there have been no meeting minutes, no updates, and no clues beyond the approved purchase of a lumens meter, which was what was discussed at the meeting.
Mr. Cox.
First off I did say it was at a board meeting, Second, unlike you not everyone needs to write a mini novel every time they make a comment. But to please you and spell it out further here goes.
It was at the board meeting where the proposal first came up and where the board didn't approve it as you say but decided to send it for the review and comments from the members. During the exchanges between the trustee's he went on a mini rant how his neighbor on J had bright lights and that if he is required to cut his trees for the J place people than the J place people should be required to dim their lights for him. Is that specific enough for you now?
To the credibility accusation. I was AT that meeting, as I am at most. So I'm just repeating facts. YOU were not. In fact you rarely attend any meetings to witness first hand what transpires between the trustees that doesn't make it into the minutes. Yet this doesn't stop YOU from giving your opinions. So I'm not going to say your the last person who should be accusing someone of lacking credibility, but in this case you are at the bottom of the list.
Anonymous ( why not honest enough to identify yourself?)
I’m not disputing that Scott said those things during that meeting, one I was not at that I recall, but I can attest to the fact we had conversations with Mark about the lighting changes and he was very open to listening to concerns of ours. This us more than I can say of certain others, James Clancy for one who told me he saw nothing wrong with the new proposed covenant!
Mark was more than willing to listen and understand the problems with some of the specific rules in the proposed covenant change. You arguing that Mark was completely for this proposed covenant means nothing!
What the issue here is if the BOT has the power to extend the length of those board members whose terms end in July!
I'm not sure why you are so intent on proving I am wrong - apparently about most anything. I didn't attend the meeting you spoke of, and yeah, I understood that you were referring to a Board meeting. I can't say exactly what transpired at that meeting, but you are obviously NOT representing it accurately. However the motion was worded, the Board voted to approve sending the proposal to the "Hearing" or Review meeting, which is the last step before the Board votes to formally approve the covenant change.
Hearings are not routinely held just to hear what members think. They are the last step before a covenant is approved as permanent. So yes, the Board majority voted in favor of this proposal by moving it on to the Review. This was a totally uncharacteristic turn-out of members who had strong feelings about the issue, and the Trustees present stated that the measure would be looked at again by the Arch Comm. and rewritten only for clarity.
I have no idea what Mark's views were on this matter, and my point was that he is entitled to an opinion. He did not take that posture at the Review meeting, and it seems he may have changed his viewpoint somewhat by the time the Review was held.
Funny you ignore all of the rest - that this is still not a settled issue - for the sake of bantering with me. I don't have to attend a lot of BOT meetings to have views on the issues. I won't pretend to know what was said at a meeting I haven't attended, but procedurally, the BOT had to approve moving the proposal to the next step toward finalizing the covenant change.
Boosting all three out would be a good start. Williams has been there since at least 2008, way too long.
Extending the terms of these Board Members would indeed give someone a great lawsuit. They have proved unworthy.
I'm wondering who is penning the fb posts for surfside, only says author. Basically telling everyone " come on over", all is normal.
Now that’s the pot calling the kettle black! Anonymous wondering who the author of posts on Facebook! Thanks for the laugh I needed thatš¤£
I have been on the board and several committees for 17 years. We have had meet the candidates for almost all those years. I would also like to recommend we keep the number of board members to 9. My reasoning is the more different suggestions brought up before voting the better the chances that the voter has knowledge of many views and might change their own thoughts. The fewer the board members the less chance for different thought on ways to handle the situation they are voting on. Please don't allow this to happen in the next election.
Start thinking about electronic voting again. We have a new group site that would be just right to have it located for members only. The Covid 19 conditions we find ourselves in is a good enough reason to make it happen.
Post a Comment