Part one of several:
The truth is...The members do not really know the facts, and it is not their fault. The true facts have been covered up and kept from them for years. Saying something over and over again and again, does not make a fact. There has been a concerted effort by present and past Board members and others, to conceal the truth. They do this because of their own selfish reasons, to cover up mistakes and to deny their ignorance. The members pay the price for this with high assessments and dues and unfair treatment. There is so much to discuss, it will have to be done in parts. Unfortunately, many of the solutions will have to be settled in a court of law. I am by no means, the only one who knows the real facts, and can't explain why others fail to "speak up and speak out".
PIPE LINR REPLACEMENT:
This fraud statrted about 8 years ago. It started after a great number of breaks on the South end of G Street. It was determined, with no study or proof, thaqt the "old used pipe" should be replaced. Then Board President James Flood, started the mile a year of pipe replacement. Later, Bill Neal said that the breaks had been caused by improper flushing. Sudden on and off the hydrants was causing a pressure surge that far exceeded the capacity of the pipe. This cause continues to this day. New booster pumps with "soft starts" has reduced the pressure breaks. Pressure breaks for other reasons still continue today.
I lived in Ocean Park when Surfside was being developed in the 60's and drove through Surfside and saw the stacks of new AC pipe all along G Street. ?NEW"+
The millions of dollars spent on pipe replacement could have been better spent on other water issues. The fact is...Surfside has the newest pipe in the County, and you do not see anyone else replacing it.
"spresd sheet" and budget:
The "Spending Pland and Budget for 2921 is a fraud. The spending plan that Clancy promotes is a figment of his imagination. Board Treasurer Winegar, even justified a dues and assessment increase of over fifty dollars as saying it was in the spend plan. We need a savings plan where we reduce spending.
BOARD APPOINTMENTS:+
There are mo requirements in our governing documents on how a vacancy on the Board, will be filled. It does state that the vacancy will be filled by an appointment from the Board. This is where the Board faile, by not filling the position. When I as Secretary on the Board, this issue happened, and it was decided to fill the vacancy by the next highest vote from the election. At that time I cautioned the Board that it must be clear that this was not a stated proceedure. As for changing the number of Board members, I don't know,. This is something to discuss and get advice from an attorny. My guess would be, and only a guess, is that it would have to be a Board policy decision prior to an election, not during the year when there is a vacancy.
Future topic's:
Trees: benifits amd property values
Committee's
Governing documents++
FireWise
25 comments:
The language in the governing documents is there to say who appoints the replacement board member. In one of the last sentences, there are the words "if any", meaning the board may or may not replace the board member before the next election.
The words runner-up or alternate board member are not in the governing documents. I may be wrong, but I don't recall reading those words.
Very cool 10:50.
I'm familiar with one of the big cases on that matter. If I remember correctly, it involved the Federal Aviation Administration.
I'm not sure of nearly every jurisdiction.
I know the place I work isn't implementing it. Although, I'll check our typical outsourcing contract language. Maybe our contracting group is implementing it and that superecedes the technical documents.
I think the "intent" is clear.
I think the important point on this debate is not that the seat wasn’t filled or if it should have been, but when and how was this decided? Certainly not during an open meeting of the BOT unless I missed something!
How did the trustees come to this conclusion without talking about it?
This board leadership not transparent. I'm shocked. Hahahahaha
Get a clue folks!
Yes anonymous 8:52. Shouldn’t that concern all members? Just would like an explanation as to how the trustees came to this decision of not filling the vacant seat, Steve Cox or not! Isn’t anyone else wondering? Surely there had to be some discussion on this subject!
I guess that’s a good question to send via email to the next board meeting.
I'm certain they'll answer the question. Hahahahaha
10:50....Interesting information, and I don't question the validity of it. I also think it is irrelevant. That over time Courts and legal documents have established a general approach or accepted application for the use of the term "shall", has no real bearing on our Bylaws, nor the decision by the Board.
The Board covered-up the resignation, and never publicly acknowledged it that we know of. That makes it clear that they did not want to be held accountable for ignoring the election results, or offer reasons as to why precedent would not be followed.
Our documents are likely borrowed from other sources, and many aspects dating back decades. There are countless documents that hold sway on public policy that use the term "shall", and rarely do you see a document using the term "must", when "shall" suffices. All documents in the nation have not been corrected due to the so-called confusion about a given application of the term "shall", nor have they been altered because the Supreme Court decided that the term "shall" can be misconstrued.
The fact that the appointment statement includes the term of the appointee in the next sentence, makes it clear that it means an appointment WILL be made. As for the reference to vacancies remaining at election time, The requirement has already been clearly stated. IF for some legitimate reason ANY vacancies remain at election time, they are to be on the ballot.
Had the BOT been honest about the vacancy, and had the vacancy come 2 months before election rather than 9 months before, I don't think anyone would object. But on the other hand, Mr. Winegar was appointed under these same circumstances at the May meeting, attending only OONE meeting prior to the election of that year.
The possible misinterpretations are just further excuses for actions that reflect secrecy and entitlement, and ignore past precedent and the clear mandate to fill Board vacancies. As it is used here, "shall" is not vague, and it has nothing to do with current legal preferences or the Supreme Court.
Personally, I think the Bylaws should be rewritten, clarifying that the "runner-up" candidate is to be offered the position, as a matter of respect for the choice of the members who have voted/supported this candidate. I think it should be established that the vacancy is not to be used as a political tool, but the decision made by the electorate. If that individual is not available, or refuses the appointment, maybe leave it up to the BOT to decide WHO will be appointed.
George,
Did you write this or did you simply post it?
Too many things are just not correct.
Bob. As always, your comments and corrections are welcome. This will help the readers better understand the water issue we have.
It's not surprising there are things posted on this blog by Miller and Cox.
Bob: What are the incorrect statements?
Pretty much the same nationwide. By the time anybody notices or cares, it will be too late.
This HOA is an oligarchy. This HOA is a dictatorship. This HOA is partly why HOAs are known for corruption and strongarm tactics.
That's the REAL truth!
There is no such thing as a " false fact ". It's either a fact or it's opinion or rumor or whatever. Like much of the blog or any other form of communication lately and sadly that goes for the left and right.
There was no "fake news" until Trump and the Republicans started it.
Long live journalism! Long live the media!
Implement vote by mail voting immediately.
Start being transparent so the blog isn't so burdened to provide the membership information.
If you fill out your proxy correctly the trustees never see them. It's a simple procedure. This conspiracy shit has been going on since I moved to Surfside in 2001 (left 2016). It's horsepucky to claim your vote has been stolen. That is the truth. I received two or three when I was on the Board and none were blank. I was merely signing them on behalf of the non present member. Enough already.
Please answer the question from 1:08 Larry.
To Larry and Anyone Else: have never said my vote was stolen. I bet proxy votes have been fabricated and are being fabricated. Certain members and candidates go around the community soliciting members for their proxy votes. Many in the community are part-time. Many in the community live far away. Why can't they just vote by mail? Why can't we all vote by mail and stay out of the community politics. I want my vote. That's all I want. I don't want to vote by proxy. I don't want to be solicited for a proxy vote. I don't want to participate in community politics.
Above all, I want to trust the voting system and have confidence my vote is protected and counted!
I haven't heard proxy votes won't be used this year!
To be absolutely clear, I meant to type, I have never said my vote was stolen.
Whether it's true, or whether it's false, the claim that proxies have been misused is well known, and believed by many to be true. If a member chooses, they can allow a Trustee to vote for them, sometimes even leaving the candidate choices blank.
That in itself is enough reason to end voting by proxy, requiring ballots be filled in and submitted by the member voting. All ballots could be mailed in, or online voting can be set-up. Great numbers of HOA s choose to vote online. Deb Blagg persuaded the BOT to approve her Committee created for that purpose. It was opposed by some Trustees, and was shut down by Gary Williams, because he was angry with Blagg.
So this has NOTHING to do with Blagg, and is a popular and easy approach. Like anything new, it would take a while to catch on, and another option would be offered for those who prefer just to mail-in their ballot.
Only about 300 votes are cast each election, which is less than 15% of the membership. It is a pretty sure bet that the same people vote each year, and that we see Board supported candidates consistently winning over those not endorsed. That arouses suspicion among members, and has undoubtedly led to concerns about proxies, whether a valid concern or not.
It seems doubtful there is any slight of hand, I believe, the BOT/J Pl. alliance just being very motivated and organized to rally votes for their preferred candidates. The Board surely has knowledge of which members are fulltime and easy to canvas, and/or permission to contact members who wish to maintain the status-quo and in particular, the Tree Policy.
There's no need really, to do anything improper, using common campaigning techniques, though a few dozen blank proxies could be helpful as well. But I think there's no doubt that there is a mechanism at work every election, that seeks to prevent non-preferred candidates from being elected.
It's not a factor this season, as having violated the Bylaws in October, refusing to fill the Board vacancy (and initially covering it up), there are 4 vacancies and 4 candidates. Presumably there will need to be an election still, as write-in candidates can be nominated from the floor.
Steve - If anyone submits a blank proxy they are simply an idiot. There is no polite way to say otherwise. I suppose if you have a trusted friend/neighbor and aren't familiar with the candidates or issues you might do it. Otherwise throw your proxy in the trash. That's way more responsible than returning it blank with permission for someone to fill it out for you,
I think proxy voting in an hoa is total BS. Although, I agree completely with you Larry.
Of course you're right. But it has undoubtedly happened, and there need not be that option.
Post a Comment