Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Board Meeting Agenda...updated

June 20, 2020...
Update:
This will be the last Board Meeting for Winegar, DeLeest, and Scott.  Their elected terms expire the second Saturday of July. Scott conducted himself in a professional  manner. Winegar and Deleest proved to be a big disappointment.   

The Weakender has published the Board Meeting agenda a week early, to give members time to submit comments and questions.  This is good, except the members really don't know any thing about the agenda items.  Reber should post the Board packet  that details the information and committee reports.  Then, the members could have comments and questions. 

Surfside Homeowners Association Regular Board Meeting Tentative Agenda June 20, 2020 at 9:00
a.m.

 1. Call to Order - Regular Board Meeting (S. Winegar)
2. Adopt the June 20, 2020 Regular Meeting Agenda (S. Winegar)
3. Safety Message (S. Winegar)
4. Approval of the May 16, 2020 Regular Board Meeting minutes (S. Winegar) 
5. Floor comments (20 Minutes)
6. Old Business
A. Surf Crest Tree Height appeal (Charlie Guthrie)
B. Harris/McGlone complaint
C. David Gray fence

7. New Business
A. Add Larry Raymer as Co-Chair for the Fish and Waterways Committee.
B. Variance Request for David and Shelley Quint at 31302 J Place. 8. Communications a. Incoming Correspondence b. Outgoing Correspondence c. Meetings & Contacts 9. Staff, Trustee & Committee Reports A. Water Systems (J Clancy) B. Treasurer’s Report (R. Turner) C. Architectural Committee (K Olds) D. Community Relations Committee (A deLeest) E. Tree, Brush, & Noxious Weed Sub-Committee (A. deLeest) No meeting F. Land and Buildings Committee (R Minich) G. Fish & Waterway Management Committee (J Clancy) – No meeting H. Business office/Compliance reports (T Reber) I. Emergency Management Committee (M. Scott) J. Other reports 10. Receipt of Committee Reports* 11. Recess to Closed Session on Legal or Employee matters (If necessary) * 12. Reconvene to Open Session 13. Miscellaneous 14. Floor Topics for the Good of the Order 14. Adjourn* (* Requires Board Action)

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

Our leaders are so good to us!

Anonymous said...

Why is there never a General Manager Report? When Laura was manager, we has a report every month about the office operation and a compliance report. We get nothing from this guy but a FaceBook conversation about nothing. We know nothing about the office. We don't even know who is working there. Is everything a secret? Seems so. I would have sent that over paid guy packing a long time ago.

Anonymous said...

They're allowing you to have floor comments. Be grateful!

Anonymous said...

We our offering the meetings on Facebook. We don't care if some members don't use Facebook. That's their fault, not our fault.

Anonymous said...

We are all so greatful for any scrap of information the might FACTION agrees to dole out.

Anonymous said...

What is the deal with the RV labeled as the HOA annex? Hope we didn't buy it or are paying anything for it. Sort of goes against the HOA policy's on RV's, not on a lot, etc. Oh well saw the Compliance officer today. She did six inspections. $1200 in the HOA kitty for a few hours of driving around.
by the way so you won't be able to confront them, the $200 is collected by the Title Company. Maybe that Board Member is correct,"this organization has more money than it needs".

Anonymous said...

What makes you think Winegar, DeLeest, and Scott won't continue as BOTs past June all the way to November? They've already cancelled the election.

Anonymous said...

As I posted when they hired this guy, he has a shady past. Moved from job to job, using the excuse of child's education, etc. Further research found he was asked to leave posts after just months on the job. Research his background in California HOAs as well as a couple in WA. He wasn't vetted, the Board found someone that would enable their internal objectives.

Anonymous said...

Disappointment to YOU, but not to the majority of us who voted them in. Your welcomed to your opinion.

Anonymous said...

By stuffing the ballot box with phony proxy votes! I have no trust in Sutfside elections.
You saying "us" is phony. Your us, part of the Faction, has no interest in the regulations or getting more of the 2,040 members to vote in the elections.

Anonymous said...

Now that Pacific County is in Stage 3; is the Board meeting open for attendance?

Larry Amundson said...

No longer live in Surfside but follow the blog anyway. So tired of the lies (that's what they are) about stuffing the ballot box. If proxies are filled out correctly this never happens. I could hand these out to 6th graders at OP elementary and most could accomplish this. So to 7:47 PM you are misinformed or a troublemaker stirring things up. Your neighbors volunteer their time to keep the hoa running, not some sinister cabal with ulterior motives.

Anonymous said...

GTH Larry!!! Go hand them out to 6th graders at OP elementary then. This HOA would accept them and use them as proxy votes.

Anonymous said...

to 7:49am. You must miss living here

Steve Cox said...

There's nothing preventing members from giving individual Trustees signed unvoted ballots. But the J place folks and those who support their interests are just very well organized and all that is necessary is to notify annual supporters who their chosen candidates are.

There's a lot involved in running this large HOA, so yes, most Trustees make a contribution to the greater good, some only marginally so. The fact remains, they make great efforts to prevent anyone from being elected or appointed that won't tow the "party" line. Continuing the Tree Policy is a key element, in that it serves to maintain a class structure, with ridgetop owners at the top, calling the shots.

It's not a coincidence that J place owners are always in the running, and always winning Board seats. It is counter-productive to refer to a "cabal" or a conspiracy, as they simply have a lock on most of the voting members, and don't need to do anything blatantly improper.

Of course their chosen candidate Chris Chandler needed to resign last October, which would have meant that Steve Cox, the candidate with the next most votes, was in-line to be appointed to the vacancy. This has consistently been BOT policy for years. But Steve is a vocal critic of the Tree Policy, and heavy-handed enforcement in general, an independent voice. They couldn't have that !

In this case, they chose to violate the written Bylaws which state that the position MUST be filled by appointment. Rather than face open discussion of WHY they couldn't appoint Mr. Cox, they chose not to follow precedent OR the Bylaws. Given that disregard for the covenants, we have good reason to question Board judgement about canceling the election, and not offering any details about terms ending in a month.

It would be particularly troubling and improper to elect themselves to extended terms. But to pretend that politics in Surfside is simply a matter of dedicated community servants, is to conveniently ignore that a specific agenda is demanded of new B.members, and those who do not adhere to that expectation, are blackballed and forced to only have marginal roles.

No one is "stuffing the ballot box", but that is all I can agree to Mr. Amundsen. There's a lot of finagling going on behind the scenes, and Deleest in particular is a busy one. She and Trustee Olds' wife, Peg have been orchestrating the much intensified Tree Policy, this past year yielding about double the number of Tree 'Complaints" which are filed by the dozens by known Trustees and Tree Comm. members.

They are not valid "complaints" randomly submitted by individual members, nor does anyone make any effort to establish these trees block any "views". This is all about maintaining "law and order" in Surfside, or an intimidating attitude that insists on compliance to this big lie, the tree policy. This title inspection business is another such effort, meant to intimidate and bilk the serfs of their gold and aspirations of freedom to enjoy their property as they wish.

Anonymous said...

We have been here over 40 years and not on J. Never has anyone come to us in person, email, or otherwise, other than Patrick, seeking to obtain or vote or recommending who to vote for.
As Larry said, this is nonsense along with terms such as Faction, elitist, conspiracy, etc.
The only faction is the group here...

Larry Amundson said...

Thank you Anonymous @ 12:59 PM. Anyone who gives a signed unfilled proxy to anyone (unless a trusted friend/neighbor) is an IDIOT.Anyone who accepts advice on whom to vote for without trusting them totally is an IDIOT. Looks like there are a lot of IDIOTS still residing in Surfside. That doesn't begin to explain the 85% who don't vote at all.

Anonymous said...

12:59, as an anonymous, your statement means nothing, same as mine.

Larry Amundson said...

George - You do know what G(o)T(o)H(ell) means right?

Anonymous said...

The Board agenda in the Weekender references “page numbers” but provides no reference document to view. Most members cannot go to the HOA to see the document. What are they hiding? What is the building height adjustment? Is Clancy building another pole barn?

Anonymous said...

Look up the Economic Injury Diasater Loan. I believe the HOA may have requested and received this $10k under false pretenses.

JoAnne said...

Anonymous 8:35. I’ve voiced this concern from the beginning! We are a HOA and should be completely and totally dependent on member dues and assessments! Listen to the meeting in March and April!

Anonymous said...

A disappointment to those of us who would like to see this organization we are forced to belong to run honestly.

Anonymous said...

I'm guilty. I didn't vote last time because I'm new here and don't know the people running. All I received was a paper with a bunch of names on it. No explanation of who they are, where they are, what their intentions are for the future. How is a person supposed to vote under these circumstances. I know more about Mickey Mouse than the names on the ballot.

Steve Cox said...

Recent meeting minutes indicated that the BOT voted to return the $10,000. Then the Weekender had a reference to it a couple of weeks later saying "remember, we still have the money from the Fed". So we need to hear a definitive statement about this. Another blank spot such as the cancellation of the election, with inadequate information, and contradicting messages.

It is true that this may have been well intentioned, but it seems that the HOA had to misrepresent our circumstances in order to qualify, and it also seems that HOAs in general should not have been in the running for these Federal dollars, which we can be certain, some small businesses have been desperate for. Member payments have continued to be on track with past years.

Anonymous said...

Steve. The BOT purposely applied for the Economic Impact Loan and receivd it. They voted not to go after additional funds. Look up the criteria for the economic impact funds and you will conclude that we were not eligible for them. Money could and should be better used elsewhere.

JoAnne said...

I keep saying, listen to the March meeting and you will hear the discussion on the $10,000.00 we received!

george said...

The HOA has done it;s usual poor job of explaining the loans. As I understand it, there were two programs for obtaining funds. One was for the virus impact loan, which we applied for and got at the tune of ten thousand dollars. This was for a business that had to lay off employees.

The other was for a grant/loan to pay for a new office building. It is my understanding, this is what they decided to not go for again as they have in the past.It was to be located in a safe zone by the golf course on the ridge. This was first applied for by Bill Neal.

The impact loan was not needed as we have not layed anyone off due to the restrictions imposed on our business. That program ended because all the funds were used up. Many small business's did not get a loan because of that and people like us who were greedy, looking for free money. Honesty is lacking in this HOA..

Anonymous said...

To the 12:12 comment. Once again Cox is spreading a false narrative with his biased opinions.

The first time Chandler ran for the board he didn't get elected. The second time he ran he did get elected only because there was no opposition. So to say he was the "chosen candidate" is pure B.S. with no factual basis. 

Same with the tree stuff. Just more false rumor spreading that he has done before, especially when it comes to Ms. deLeest. He has been caught on multiple occasions making false rumors against her. The fact he still does is due to him still not getting over the fact she went up to him in person and called him out on his B.S. And as most bully's do he had to cry about saying he had been "accosted". Typical.  And where is YOUR proof the complaints are invalid? Either the trees are above the stated covenant height or they are not. Doesn't matter who makes the complaint.

I will however agree with him that it isn't a coincidence that J place members run and get elected, but not for the conspiracy he repeats. For many years now there has always been a J place member stepping up to volunteer to be on the board. Same with serving on committees and also volunteering for other duties for our community. Now compare that to the Cox. He ran only once, hasn't done any volunteer work and has stated on here he won't run again because he hasn't the time for our "silly little HOA'. So it's no surprise as to who people will vote for.

Ronda F said...

The board had tech issues after the break. What was the outcome of the David Gray issue and also the Harris/McGlone noise complaint?

Anonymous said...

$10,000 spent and they have technical issues. I don't believe that for a second, assuming they are actually competent. Although I do believe they're incompetent, ignorant, arrogant, autocratic jerks.
They're trying their best to keep the BOT Meetings the way they have been: since they mandate members show up in person, they get very little member attendance, if any.

Steve Cox said...

Anonymous at 6:26....Got a real ax to grind eh ?You must be on the Tree Committee. It is interesting that any mention of De Leest's name gets an angry rebuke. She shouldn't hold public office if so vulnerable to routine criticism. I think all I did was mention that she and Peg Olds have orchestrated the stepped-up enforcement of the Tree Policy, which is a simple fact.

No one has proven false, any tree related comments I have made, so enjoy your little fantasy, while everyone west of the ridge suffers the consequences. Your b.s. can't be identified as a valid comment even if false, as you are too weak to give your name.

I vote, have run for Trustee, express my views on the community in a public forum, have attended both Board meetings and Committee Meetings at times, and follow the Weekender for snipits of HOA information. I was available to be appointed as Trustee as I should have been, and the BOT was afraid to appoint an independent voice.

I didn't say Chris Chandler was hand-picked. Johansen was elected outright, and was then harassed for 3 years for being an independent minded person. I have stated specifically that I don't see the election canvasing by J Place Trustees a "conspiracy", but a well organized, if unethical, legal approach.

It is not possible that Chandler ran uncontested, as a pool of candidates run for election, not positions. So all of your claims about me are false, AND you're a coward claiming the higher moral ground and commitment to the community.

6:26 said...

Weak and a coward, eh? Always quick with the name calling aren't you? Notice how I didn't call you a keyboard warrior and a troll, just listed some facts which you refused to accept. So all my claims are false? Let's see who really is living in fantasy land.

I said you ran for the board once, is there a second time you did we don't know about?

I said that unlike the J place people that you rant about you haven't SERVED on a committee or VOLUNTEERED your time for ANY community duties. Other than volunteering your opinion here have you done either of these? No.

Are you saying you didn't make the "silly little HOA" statement. One only has to scroll down to find it.

To the Chandler election. You said he was "chosen" by the J placers. When he did get elected he was one of only 3 candidates who ran for the 3 open board positions and if I remember right got the least amount of votes. So please old wise one explain how that isn't uncontested as you say.

Lastly, how exactly is canvasing (getting out to introduce yourself and get members input) considered unethical? Just more of your B.S. Since you had to bring up your buddy Patrick again, do you also consider him unethical since he was a major canvasser not only for himself but for others he wanted elected? If not that makes you hypocrite.

I'm not even going to list your tree falsehoods because I don't have the time and I've grown tired of you.

I also don't have an ax to grind. I don't come on here like you for therapy. I just get tired of your bull and call you on it sometimes.