So you don't like how Surfside is run, the rules, the covenants or the dues and assessments? Whose fault is it? Who can we blame? The answer is YOU!
Everuthing that is done, is done with member consent. If you think there needs to be changes, it is up to you to do something. An "Anonymous" comment on a blog has little credibility or power to change anything. You can speak up and speak out, but to be effective and have credibility, you must be willing to identify yourself. Otherwise, your just another complainer.
The absolute best way to make a difference and make a change, is to be on the Board. Second best is to be on a committee. You can have a vote. Your only other opportunities to vote is for a Trustee and to approve a budget. And, you know how well that works.
I urge you to read yhe page on the left titled "communication",,You will see the ways in which you can "speak up", but all require you to use your name. This is a small thing that we can all do.
35 comments:
Last year I ran for the Board. I appreciate the 92 households that voted for me, which gave me the highest vote count as runner-up to the 3 positions filled. A few days prior to the October b. Meeting, Mr. Chandler resigned as Trustee. For years prior, the runner-up has been appointed to the vacancy. The resignation was not acknowledged at the Oct. Meeting - when or if it was, I can't say.
No one on the Board contacted me, had the integrity to meet with me, or offer any alternative intentions. No one was appointed to this position, a violation of our covenants.
Considering this year's election, I decided that the seated group are fearful of someone who can't be dictated to, in spite of the fact that they know next to nothing about my politics, beyond my opposition to the current Tree Policy. That in itself scares the hell out of them. As I have stated before, as an appointment, my term would only run until the next election. So I figured there would be no point in bringing up the Tree Policy, and that my objective would be to see if I could connect with anyone on the BOT, and learn the Trustee's personalities.
What I know well is that without building alliances in a group dynamic, you can't have any influence. What I have seen with Johansen and Blagg, was that they were basically ignored and marginalized - even left out of private meetings and decisions made outside the Boardroom, a violation of State mandated procedures. So I decided not to pursue any HOA role in this or any election.
But I have to say, I like the suggestion of a major write-in effort, and I would definitely rally to the cause, should that come to pass. The same barrier would exist as was exercised last year, but there would be more pressure to accommodate the will of the people.
I will also write in Steve Cox for the Board. This could accomplish several things. First, it would deny votes from a candidate, hopefully Williams. Second, it would show a protest against the present Board, amd finally, If there should be a vacancy, Steve would once again be in line to be appoinmted. Should things work out, Steve would be a breeze of fresh air on this foul Board. He might even inspire or at least shame the others into proper conduct. I know that is a streach, but what have we got to lose?
I plan to do the same! As we just happened to be attending all the BOT meetings at that time, I can attest to the fact no one on the board said anything about the resignation by Chandler. You’d have thought there would be open discussion and the by-laws followed. The board “shall” replace any vacancy. It was totally ignored and no one placed in the vacant seat. How was the decision made to leave that seat vacant? Not the way it had been done in the past.
Write-in vote for sure from us!
I meant to convey that I would happily accept a write-in candidacy, and think it's a great idea. I would commit to serve if called on without reservation.
Opt in to WA RCW 64.90.
Vote by mail.
Membership vote for governing documents amendments.
Abide by current WA RCW 64.38 and conduct board meetings for members to observe in real-time with the full intent of enabling members to make comments and questions during floor comments agenda topic.
Stevie has 2 supporters who aren't anonymous cowards and morons. Even after George asks them to use their names, they won't own, a word Cox has used many times, their support for Cox.
Ronda, are you going to write-in Cox? I like you. I want to vote like you.
Stevie and clan think he'll be able to singlehandedly right this ship.
Certain more experienced current and past Surfside members have told me that in order to right this ship a new group of 9 members would need to be elected to the board.
Cox is not a team player and doesn't believe in that approach. He continues to just thinks about himself. That's not a surprise to me.
@6:25, I seriously cannot tell if you are being an asshole or not. No, I am not writing in Steve. Steve got shafted and it shows the true colors of the current board members. My 2 votes are with Dan and Marily. The others will not do our community any good.
Actually Ronda, I would like to vote for you as a write-in vote. Do I have your permission?
I have the membership list. There are only two Rondas in Surfside.
And where is your mind and what are you implying about me 9:49?
I have been impressed with her comments on this blog. There's nothing more or nothing less about my proposed write-in vote. Sorry, conspiracy theory perpetrator and deflector!
Hey crackpot, nutjob, idiot, moron, coward, little mikey, bottle man, crazed weasel, can't organize a sock drawer, GTH!
The fact that there are people in the community who believe in me is flattering and has tempted me into consenting to a write-in campaign. Sorry to change my tune, but the fact remains, that nothing will be different this year, from last. As I've said, working in a group situation requires making alliances, or you are just keeping a seat warm.
The current regime is so entrenched that only judgmental bullsh*t comes from these people and their supporters. We saw how ineffective Patrick and Deb were, just completely marginalized and even left out of private meetings between Trustees outside of meetings.
I'm backing out of my offer to consent to a write-in. As I've stated, I'm needed in Lacey at times to help raise my Granddaughter, and I don't see any kind of cooperative possibilities, if I was to be appointed or elected.
I'm accepting that I'm getting old, and need to consider what is and isn't a good use of my time. If I lived in Surfside fulltime, I might want to be on a committee at most. I have to travel close to 3 hours each way to S.S., and don't see it being a worthwhile use of my time, being scorned and ignored because I won't buy in to the BOT's status-quo agenda.
Thanks 1:06. I agree wholeheartedly.
Another good one. So true. In a small way, I feel sorry for them. They hold so much resentment and fear.
On the other hand, some get therapy by their ways on here and date night probably soothes their egos.
I'll offer one response. So much anger here ! So many erroneous claims that ignore my stated point of view and in general, reality. Much of this is incoherent and makes no sense - who's talkin' about who or what ? Unhinged people.
Reminder - I ran for Trustee last election and was elected to the alternate position. Board vacancies have consistently been filled by the alternate from the previous election. I was willing to take on whatever was necessary as a seated Trustee, and have the background, intelligence and skills to perform well in an organization that accepts new ideas and personalities.
I was never offered this position, and no explanation was ever offered the membership. The resignation was kept quiet. That demonstrates the ill-will and lack of conscience with which this very political decision was made.
Because I had aligned myself with George, Patrick and Deb, I was blackballed.
Opposing views and valid criticism are not tolerated on this Board, and no one must ever suggest that the Tree Policy could or should, ever change. This above all establishes the elite class that live on the ridge, and may dictate and rule the community.
Interesting that one comment, likely from a Trustee, chastises me for critical comments I made about the Bus. Manager. He was incompetent and lied to me several times. He was fired by the Board wasn't he ? We didn't hear why.
I enjoy my time with my sons and their families. The granddaughter will only be little a while, so I want to enjoy the experience while I can.
There's around 4000 members in Surfside, assuming most properties are co-owned, or husband and wife. That's a lot of folks who all can be candidates for HOA roles. It's not my sole responsibility, nor do I owe the community any further service than I have already offered and been denied. I have a perfect right to criticize bad decisions and Board cover-ups, as does each and every member.
Anonymity is made for abusive statements, and all of this anger over things you think I may have said, or ideas you THINK I may have, or the bad intentions you FEAR I would have as a Trustee. God, you are so weak ! There's no doubt some of this crap comes from Trustees.
I may see things differently at some point. But the community is a mess, and I would never buy another home in Surfside. There's many good people out there I'm sure. But politics have made this an ugly place, where newcomers and new ideas are not welcome - and HEY cut yer trees !! Ugly !
What do you propose to do about all that Pied Piper? Oh yes, whine and complain on George's blog.
Father Cox. Terrible sermon. I could care less if you didn't get put on the board. I could care less about you.
Keep dividing the community. That doesn't help anybody.
These anonymous attacks are ridiculous! I can’t imagine why anyone would not agree with Steve and acknowledge what happened was wrong and handled badly by the BOT. Liking someone or disagreeing with them has nothing to do about being appointed to the board to fill out the term of an empty spot!
He was treated rudely and has every right to not want to serve now! If you’ve got valid reason to uphold the boards non-action, please state it, but quit this anonymous crap! It’s really tiring and is far from constructive!
Now you can attack me, anonymously of course!
Steve’s previous posts that I haven’t seen, should have nothing to do with following previous practices by the BOT. He got the second highest vote after Chandler, when Chandler resigned the seat should have been appointed to Steve. I would still like to know how the board decided on this non-action. Did they discuss among themselves or just not talk about it at all?
JoAnne. Who cares. So what? I don't care if little Stevie didn't get seated on the board. He acts like an abusive self-righteous idiot on a blog, which he knows is monitored by the board and he really thinks they're going to seat him on the board. Give me a break!!!
It's like everything else they do.
There is plenty of other things to address that affect us all, not just little Stevie. But you people won't band together to do anything constructive. Stevie and the rest of you are too busy worrying about your own opinion and fighting amongst yourselves.
Writing a name in on the ballot will do nothing. Every family will receive a ballot with 4 names on it and 4 open positions, my name is not on the ballot, nor is Steves. I would guess maybe 10% of the members, if that are on this blog. Half the members don't even vote.
I have never met Steve and probably never will. It annoys me how many bullies are on this blog, most of you anonymous . I am in no way defending him, as I have read his rants, some points are spot on, others not so. But the fact you people make fun of him for wanting to spend time with family, a grandchild at that, you're despicable. Again, not defending him, as I do not know him, but he was shafted by the BOT, plain and simple, in my opinion.
The board is well within their rights not to appoint anybody to the board after Chandler's resignation. The board must be between 3 and 9 members. I fully support the board not seating Cox. That has been their best decision in recent years.
Really@5:40? As I read the by-laws they certainly don’t have the right to reduce the number of board members. Read by-laws Article IV. Section 1. At any meeting or special meeting called .......
No meeting was called or any motion made or passed to reduce the number of trustees
Section 7. Any vacancy occurring in the board of trustees SHALL be filled by appointment by a majority of the remaining trustees
Maybe you read this differently than I do, but please tell me how they were within their rights to not appoint anyone? And the number of trustees cannot be changed without a vote from the trustees or in a special meeting by the members
Also Ronda. Cox brings up his family telling us about it as part justification of his decisions. Let's assume common everydst human communication. He brings it up. It's fair game to anyone hearing the communication. Of course there's decency too, but we all see the types on this blog.
Cox and supporters, but I'll emphasize Cox because he has described himself as progressive on this blog, is why the left gets a rap for entitlement mentality. It's a crying shame.
We see a number of folks here who desperately want to make excuses for the Board and demean me. You are incapable of sticking to what I have actually said. First, I have never said I am "progressive". I have said that the Board is reticent to consider "more progressive ideas or Board members". In the context of the community HOA Board, terms like progressive, left or right, really have no particular significance. In fact, on the Federal stage, these are vague terms that get thrown around, primarily to denigrate the individual. "They're too this or too that, they're bad."
The Bylaws DO NOT allow for the lack of action taken to fill a Board vacancy, nor have BOT actions suggested that. The Bylaw specifically says " the position will be filled", and explains that the term only runs through the election year. Chandler resigned about 2 months into the new election year.
And I have NEVER said that I deserved to be appointed, nor have I stated that I deserved an explanation. With all of your excuse-making, you conveniently ignore that I was duly elected as the runner-up in an Annual election. 92 members supported my candidacy. The Board owes an explanation to the membership, as this is public business and not private BOT business. I have made it clear that who was appointed is the Board's choice, and I've never whined about it.
What IS a problem, is the cover-up, the refusal to conduct business in the open, transparently as required by State Law. This can always be considered an indication of subterfuge, or unwarranted secrecy. THAT is what ticks me off. Mr. Winegar was appointed to a vacant seat as an election runner-up - appointed in a May meeting. Clearly there is no reasonable explanation for the way this vacancy was kept secret, and the requirement to act on the vacancy ignored in violation of the Bylaw and past precedent.
The problem here is the Board's lack of conscience to act according to our documents, and to keep the membership informed of the reasons for their actions when acting on BOT appointments, when member votes are chosen to be ignored.
It's ridiculous to suggest that my views fit some kind of mold, when I am not big into politics, and can be both conservative AND liberal at times. If you have a brain, you can see that different circumstances merit different approaches. There was a time when this was presumed about everyone. For those who are willing to let their beliefs be dictated to them, as many are these days, I feel sorry for you. Every person has something unique to bring to the situation, when free to think as they choose.
What's your next plan folks? The whole write-in Cox strategy sounds a bit unlikely to be successful. I mean, I'm sure Cox would be your saviour and all.
You just might have to actually get off your %$&$# and do something yourself.
There is no "write-in" strategy. No one but you suggests that one individual on the BOT can alter policy. You have been careful to hide your identity, yet have advice for anyone who criticizes the BOT. What are you doing for the community ? Answering requires your name, otherwise it's just more b.s.
The right to have an opinion about HOA policy comes with membership, and membership requires paying dues and assessments. There's close to 4000 Surfside members and all of those who are current on payments are eligible to run for office or serve on a Comm..
Good for you Cox. Of course you don't talk about working together and forming a strategy for change. Just your typical sermon language.
No one's preventing you from being the hero.
Yes Cox. We need a hero.
I'm going to vote for you as a write-in vote. You're going to straighten up this board. You're going to end the tree policy.
I bet Williams continues as board president. He'll have all the proxies he needs and he's a great suck up to the J Placers.
You're on your own 10:42. The only group that works together is The Faction.
Post a Comment