July 18, 2020
Limit your comments to the Board Meeting topics only.
In my opinion, this was one of the better Board Meetings.
In response to my having a response to my Email to the Board....There has been none.
The elephant in the room is the pandemit crisis in this Country and the world. There was no discussion or consideration on what effect this could have on our members and the association. The Board continued on as if nothing was happening. There was also no directive on budget preparation.
New Officers:
President....Gary Williams
Vice President....Winegar
Secretary....Minich
Treasurer....Turner
Noise appeal denied.
Approve RV lot5 stotage.
Use fee for RV holding tank dumping.
Redesign of RV storage lot approved.
Closed session on employee wages for 2021
Approve one new community relations member
50 comments:
Everyone needs to watch and listen to the discussion about the sheriff contract negotiations! I especially like James Clancy’s concern that after all his work on this, it might not be approved at the end! I guess a guaranteed yes to proposals is the only acceptable way this board works!
There has been no discussion on the pros and cons of this expenditure with the members. It was just assumed from the beginning that we needed to continue paying a county employee. I think at this time a line item of over $100,000. ( as stated by the treasurer) is just going to result in even higher dues and assessments. I don’t know about others, but we’re getting to the breaking point of dues!
I agree. this is just another Clancy spend and spend. He is taking charge of this waste of member funds. I saw on the news that half the people making house payments are late. How will they do on association dues? These fools are living in a non reality world. Treasurer Turner is another fool.
I'm not sure the Sheriff even wants a deal done.
Has anyone broached the thought that he may simply want nothing to do with an organization that doesn't even follow their own covenants?
Increasing the RV storage rent 100%, outrageously.
Why increase the rate when last year thus budget item made money? Which according to our by-laws were not supposed to do!
Correction: articles of incorporation, article 2, #19
If you think Jim Clancy is going to get Surfside their own Sheriff Deputy, YOU ARE FOOLING YOURSELF. He thinks by helpingWolfe in his re-election that Wolfe will get the new Deputy. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. The Sheriff is the deciding factor and with his budget it will take full sponsorship to make that happen. Jim Clancy has never finished anything for the HOA. HE WILL CONTINUE TO SPEND , SPEND, SPEND. Look at how much he got for the RV lot, with nothing in the way of results. Now that he is into the Water Dept, Katie bar the vault.
Poor Clancy. He AGAIN did not make president. They keep him busy doing spread sheets. I see they also dumped olds.
Yes poor Clancy. Clancy really enjoys the tree complaint and investigation spreadsheets. He loves the sound of chainsaws.
How about Flood being there? As usual, he was on the wrong side of an issue. He needs to crawl back under the rock he came from. He is not missed at all.
Clancy & Wolfe... easy $ for county in past for deputy. It is time we end that arrangement. Looking at type of crime and amount for our area does not warrant the excessive cost. In the time we’ve been paying for the nonexistent deputy there has been no uptick in crime. Time to retire Clancy from active duty on money issues.
What was the noise complaint and appeal?
Did the community relations committee give a report or just add a member?
Suggestion about the noise complaint and process, to prevent the HOA board of Trustees getting into these very painful and time consuming events, I would suggest the noise covenant simply refer to the County Ordinance #9 Public Nuisance. Leave this enforcement to the county. It’s already completely covered by them! This is too problematic and time consuming issue to expect our board to manage.
Just wondering why former Board members were elected to a position on the Board. As we know,the By-Laws specify the terms are for three years. However, it also says that unfilled spots may be filled by appointment by the Board. As there is no record of said appointments, the expired terms remain unfilled. Particularly as there was no public declaration called for or received. The By-Laws also state that the Board elections shall be at the first meeting after the annual meeting. There was no annual meeting and no declaration that such elections were required. Therefore the Board election process is null and void. The increase in RV storage lot fees also violates the By-Laws as that enterprise has continually shown a profit with the present fee structure. Again, expressly prohibited by the By-Laws. So whose rules are we following?
I’m confused I guess! I thought three board members terms ended yesterday? Or were they appointed by the new officers? Maybe I just didn’t see that part?
The Board terms ended on the second Sat. of July. The term is for three years, not three years and something. I think they can get away with postponing thr election or deciding to continue with five until next July. They can not appoint to a position that was not filled. Because of the pandemic, I think they can delay or defer the election as this is an unforeseen situation. For Winegar to continue on the Board is a violation. It is made even worse for him to be elected as Vice President. Deleest and Mark Scott are now illegal on the Board also. All three should resign, not that they need to as they are bot there in a legal position.
The Board of Trustees owes the membership an explanation for sure! If they met in executive session and made these decisions, it must legally be brought to the open meeting and brought to a motion. I never saw any of this yesterday! I know board members submit comments here anonymously, so what’s up?
Surfside By-Laws state Article IV Section 2: Trustees shall be elected to serve for a term of three (3) years; Three (3) Trustees shall be elected each year; and each shall hold office until a successor is elected. The trustees are elected to three year terms but if there is no elected successor, they continue to serve until there is. This is standard practice in corporations.
Thanks anonymous board member, now I completely understand! Until an election is held, this will be our board! Perfect! And pray tell why didn’t the board president clarify this last Saturday? Oh yes, it’s right there in the by-laws people, just read it and trust us!
Then why no election, just cause a little inconvenient? What does it say bout excuses for no elections?
8:22....This stated condition presumes that the Board themselves have not postponed the election. This just states that if no one is elected in the election, the position can be filled. This is a perverse action taken by a self-righteous Board, and an intentional misinterpretation of what the Bylaws say.
The Board themselves have delayed the Annual Meeting, and so, the election. There is nothing to indicate that the election could not have taken place without the Annual Meeting. They created the situation, and the expired terms should have been accepted by all on the BOT. It is legal to run with five Trustees, and it should have been presumed that appointing a replacement Trustee immediately after their term has expired is improper.
These people are a joke. Yes, the Pandemic threw a monkey wrench into the situation. But honest people don't have this much trouble accepting following clear guidelines.
Steve Cox, agree.
Their actions just seems to get more egregious as we move forward.
It says three (3) Trustees shall be elected each year; and....
Three (3) Trustees need to be elected this year as it says "shall".
Such sage legal advice. Worth every penny we didn’t pay for it. The board, based on direction from the governor, canceled the July membership meeting. HOA’s across the country are doing the same thing. The board has acted prudently and in accordance with the law and our governing documents. Your flawed legal opinion will not change that. You all should be cited for practicing law without a clue.
And just what makes you a legal expert? More BS by the board. When has this board ever followed any law, rules or regulations? They pick and chose whatever serves them best. Some times they get caught. Their fraudulent election practices fool no one.
Plus they are afraid to use their names on blog, so cant be held accountable. I dont use mine because i dont have the ego or stupidity to manipulate this hoa for my own benefit.
Also since I have used my name on this blog in the past, my neighbors are sure that the board will retaliate against me and make life miserable for me.
I've thought that as long as I am compliant with the CC&Rs, I would be okay. Unfortunately, maybe I've been mistaken. Exhibit the Johansens and the McMurphys. Although you didn't have to hire an attorney and pay legal expenses did you, JoAnne.
I wonder if since speaking up and trying to change things I'll have to stop building on my lot and just tent camp.
No we did not hire an attorney, although looking back probably should have! “Selective enforcement” was what happened to us! We thought we’d be ok with our appeal, changes in lights and justification, but no. It took from July of 2019 to March of 2020 to finally receive the letter from the board saying we were in compliance! And if anyone has noticed there are plenty of places still out of compliance. We were an example case for sure
As far as being anonymous, not quite the right way to participate on a blog
3:06....You would fit in well as a Trustee, as you manage to ignore the clear impropriety of canceling the election, then authorizing themselves to serve extended terms. None of that was ordained by the Governor. You state it in haughty terms, as if they have a working relationship with the Governor, which of course they do not.
It is ridiculous to suggest that anyone needs a legal expert to point out that the Board's actions are self-serving and are in no way justified by our Bylaws or Covenants. All of the election could have been conducted without Public meetings, and through mail and on-line statements by the candidates. On the other hand, 5 Trustees is enough to have continued business as usual until November.
What we see at this point, should have been predicted - that the Pandemic has become much worse, and no public gathering will be likely in the near future. So the Trustees canceled the election rather than retool in a way that is sustainable longterm, and appointed themselves to extended terms. We should then by your example (3:06), understand that they now have life terms.
Oh that would be too honest and simple to have had mail in ballots! Candidates could have been on zoom. Pretty easy!! You’re right Steve, this thing is not going away soon! Lifetime board status!
If we ever have3 another annual member meeting, the first order of business should be the removal of the entire sitting board. This would set a clear example for any future boards, that they will be held accountable. We can never again let it go so far that we have to remove an entire board. We will do it one at a time as .
Just because you don't use your name Mikey doesn't mean people don't know it's you making the comments.
While it might seem like "selective enforcement" to you JoAnne doesn't make it so! You got a complaint and it was dealt with as most complaints are! It happens when you have a complaint driven HOA! Chandler, a sitting trustee who lives on J got a lighting complaint from someone on G and dealt with it. You don't see him constantly coming on here crying about it many months after it happened!!
Board or committee member 8:04 thanks for your insulting remarks! If that’s the way all complaints are, god help us! So a trustee on J street got a complaint? So? Did he appeal or just change his lighting? We appeared before the board a second time for clarification as to what was still not in compliance and received no answer from the board. Then finally in March we got our all clear letter. In the meantime nothing had changed with the appearance of our lights. I’d say from July 2019 until March of 2020 is a bit ridiculous to wait for communication from the board! And for your information, I’m not “crying” about receiving the complaint, only in the way it was handled by the board. It was also stated by the person who came out to look at the lights that “we were a test case!”
I’d say that qualifies as selective enforcement! The board was counting on passing the new proposed lighting covenant so our decorative lights would be out of compliance!
agreed 2:00 Joanne is always accusing folks of being a board member, she's accused me several times and I haven't even attended a meeting or been on a committee.
8:04 & 2:00 P.M. - How can you state definitively that the McMurphy's were NOT singled out if you were not involved in the enforcement process ? Anyone who knows the details of their situation can easily recognize that they were cited for a violation based on the proposed lighting changes before they were even made public. They were not approved then, and have not been since.
As obvious as it was that this was a clerical error, OR just blatant harassment, the Board allowed this issue to linger rather than dismiss it at the first appeal. What seems apparent is, that it began as harassment and the Board got their jollies causing the McMurphy's many months worth of anxiety. The Trustees are all very aware that marginal enforcement issues really bug most members and cause unnecessary frustration and anger, which disrupts our lives.
Good honest Trustees in an HOA care enough to not pursue frivolous enforcement issues for the sake of their member's happiness and confidence. Trustees with conscience understand that they must show themselves to be worthy of member's confidence and loyalty.
We often see that given authority, many people can't resist misusing their authority to pursue their own agendas or grudges, and get a kick out of pissing members off and causing misery. This was just such a circumstance. A. deLeest in particular took exception to the McMurphy's lights, and insisted that ALL string lights needed to be banished. She alone cannot be blamed, as the entire BOT languished on this, as if it was a tough decision.
OK Cox, I'll play your silly game. How can YOU say that they WERE singled out? The complaint came before the proposed lighting changes which btw came from a committee. Keep in mind, I WAS at the board meetings during the appeal and the lighting proposal, you were not.
To your member's happiness statement, what about the happiness of those who are making the complaint? You and your like always like to defend the person who gets the complaint and criticize the person making it.
Since you asked JoAnne, the point about the Trustee was that other people beside you have received lighting complaints, I just used one example. For you and Cox to continually make an accusation that you were particularly singled out from the entire HOA for a proposed policy has no basis in fact.
Says nobody/anonymous.
Actually July 20, 2020 at 8:04 PM, Chandler was not a trustee when he got the complaint. After dealing with the situation himself, he thought it so unfair he decided to run for the board. After dealing with the board for a while he decided to resign early. I understand that was due to frustration with the Surfside Board and health issues.
For some reason Faction members frequently comment indicating that everyone should forget illegal and unethical actions of the Board because they happened in the past. It doesnt matter if it was 1 month or 10 years ago, what is wrong is wrong.
Can you say, manipulate the conversation. This is George’s blog. He can do what he wants.
@8:59 - then the blog host should follow his own posted guidelines. There is nothing "attacking" with the post that is continually deleted other than apparently the host disagrees.
"@JoAnne - just because other perspectives may not align with your opinion does not mean they are posted by Board or Committee members. That is a common misconception on multiple blog posts."
5:36....The "silly little game" that you so easily dismiss is the principle placing respect of members above trivial enforcement judgement calls. Your reference to "(you) me and my kind" is a very ignorant reference that shows that you do not grasp the importance of dissent and open discussion of community policies.
Those who speak up when they see practices by the HOA that seem unfair or inappropriate, seem to really bother you and bring on a defensiveness that is hard to justify unless you are a Trustee or Comm. member. But we'll have to settle for your ghost, anonymous.
By the way, I DID attend the B. Meeting of the McMurphy's appeal, as well as the Lighting Review meeting, so your assumption that I did not was incorrect. I also attended an Arch. Meeting with JoAnne, wanting to suggest that they delay any decision on their lighting non-compliance citing, until after the scheduled Review Meeting a month later. They refused to even discuss the case, and walked out.
At the Review Meeting, Pres. Winegar moved that the citations all be waived until further review after the covenant was again rewritten. That hasn't happened yet. So yes, my views are so radical that Winegar thought the same thing, a moratorium, was a good temporary measure.
The rampant self interest showed by the Board continues.
You should be cited for badgering without a clue.
804 - another Board apologist, or just the same misguided fool?
There are a lot of people out here disgusted with the self interest, nepotism, and blatant disregard for THEIR OWN RULES.
You seem to champion it. Says a lot - about you.
So does the Board. That's the problem.
Who are you people always point to the rules, but completely forget them when it suits your self interests. Hypocrisy is alive and well in Surfside.
"Who are you people always point to the rules, but completely forget them when it suits your self interests. Hypocrisy is alive and well in Surfside."
And on this blog...
Good post Cox! Right on.
I agree. Right on Cox!
Post a Comment