Why should the members even bother to vote for a candidate or even a budget when it will make no difference?
There should have been no election for the Board. We can operate and probably better with five on the Board. The real reason we are having an election is because if we didn't, Gary Williams would not be on the board right now or for three more years. I think that three of the candidates will be ok, but time will tell. I suggest that we voye for the three, excluding Williams, and write in a candidate of your choice. I would like to see Williams get the least votes. That might send a message for them all.
The budget will never be rejected because it takes a majority of the TOTAL membership to reject a budget. As far as the Clancy "spending plan", That is his plan and the new Board members are in no obligation to support it. They just might have their own ideas on a cost savings plan. I wish the three new Board members well, and hope they don't disappoint us all. Some independent thinking and willing to change the status quo, would be refreshing.
I hate to even say this....It can't get any worse than it is now. One thing we do know for sure....Under the leadership of Williams and Winegar, this Board is a total failure. I still have a little hope that things can get turned around, but it is little.
28 comments:
Hey George, off topic but I drove by the Vet's park and noticed some new plantings, Are you responsible for it? It looks nice!
Nope. I will check it out. Maybe the Kill Tree Committee planted some trees.
Happy Columbus Day Surdside Neighbors!
Be sure to submit your questions for the board candidates before the deadline! Guess hardly anyone has submitted questions yet
It's a sham. Why bother? They never address my submitted questions.
I'm still hoping though.
We have a nine member board in our new hoa as well. We have two year terms and rotate three every year just like SHOA. We have the three coming up for 2021 PLUS three more for two that quit and one that moved away. We could lower ours to three as well but that would require the three to hold multiple positions. Do we (you) want to put that much power and responsibility in their hands. We may go to a management style governance. That will cost about $ 100 plus per lot (we only have 223 members). The screaming will be heard all the way to Surfside from the apathetic do nothing crowd. And we will still need some kind of oversight group to rein in the management company. There is no simple solution to this problem.
Sure there is a simple solution. Dump the HOA
Dump the HOA
Great idea in my opinion!
I concur, leadership is disappointing & has led to a board that lets personal issues and vendettas cloud the purpose of serving the whole of Surfside.
The decision to spend 500k to county for a deputy in Surfside is ridiculous & a cash cow for county. Tree & Shed covenants have been selectively enforced. J place influence on board & enforcement of certain covenants is classism. RV folks seem to be under fire as well as anyone below J place. Change is needed.
Do you hear that Cox!
Sorry 9:45 you are wrong. Tree and Shed covenants are no longer complaint based. Everyone is treated the same now. You are also wrong with your classism accusation. Even in the complaint days, if you followed the covenants like the majority do and don't give anyone something to complain about you are free from any enforcement. If you don't then you get what you deserve.
I've lived here for close to 16 years now and have never received a complaint and didn't receive a letter from the office like some have recently. Reason being, I followed the rules I signed on for.
To those who keep calling to dump the HOA, you are only a few. The majority here are fine with it. Deal with it.
Also, you'll never get to vote by mail on governing documents amendments. Deal with it.
Anonymous 7:12 that’s one of the funniest things I’ve read! Really if you just follow the rules you won’t get a letter! I’d beg to differ with you as those lights that were in violation when we got our letter are still burning bright!
Have you ever thought maybe some of our covenants are out of touch with reality. For instance read about the state of Washington pushing to encourage people not to cut trees to help our environment with their benefit of helping clean the air!
7:12, You sound like the type of person who follows all the rules, even if they required you to jump off the cliff. Some of the covenants in this HOA are so out of date it's ridicules. The tree policy and the effort by a few to enforce them is obscene. They have ruined the landscape of this HOA, and contributed to the environment problems
we have in this country. The old cry "if you followed the rules" is BS. I've been here 25 years and it has gotten mush worse in the last five years due to people that have no idea how to run a HOA. What has the membership received for the increased dues due to overspending and and mismanagement, nothing !! It would be nice to have a nice large club house where members could gather for cards, pool a library and social gatherings, and probably could have if the spending was not out of control. What has the HOA provided for you beyond water, garbage which you already pay for in your dues !!
7:12 sound like the typical Karen and Ken couple. Probably spend their time in Jack's or Thriftway screaming at people to put their masks on, or reminding neighbors how much nicer their property would look if they cut down that tree or painted their house a different color.
Most HOAs have similar standards, most being pretty basic and sensible, most patterned after one another. What stands out in Surfside is the micro-management of trees, which is obvious to any new visitors. HOAs can operate in relative harmony so long as they steer away from intrusive regulations that interfere with owner autonomy. The fact that Washington State does NOT approve of such regulations, speaks volumes as to the overall public opinion on this issue. I've never received a "complaint", but I see how ridiculous this type of policy is, and am very vocal about it. 85% of the membership seems to ignore the HOA entirely, likely resigned to a Board that ignores member preferences, and State recommendations. Since only 12% vote annually, there's little member leverage, and NO likelihood of dissolution.
So Cox, does WA state not approve or not recommend? The state does allow hoas to regulate tree height. I've provided case law, but you continue to ignore it, refuse to accept it, and provide no solutions.
Whether something is likely to happen, isn't the point. If you have principles and will, you won't let that stop you.
I said "recommend" didn't I ? So we've established your reading comprehension. The State does not have the resources to enforce RCWs, so HOAs must navigate the legal system on such issues. Legal matters end-up a bit of a crapshoot. But the State does not sanction regulations in HOAs that impose upon trees on private property. It has not been established that Surfside would necessarily prevail if this restriction were taken to Court, so you have proven nothing with your "case law". Each circumstance is a different situation. But Surfside covenants do NOT protect "views", which is a serious problem with your contention. The solution I would pursue would be to gather tree owners together and legally contest it. I have no stake in the matter, so am not so motivated. But there is no evidence that the HOA would prevail for certain.
To be more clear, the State does not approve, sanction, recommend communities adopt such intrusive regulations, and chances are, if 90% of the membership or more were to vote yea or nay, this restriction would not be approved by the members. The only way this could be established for certain would be for the Board of Trustees to approve of a covenant requiring that the membership be solicited for approval in order to change or add new covenants or wording. They are not about to do so without being forced to do so.
Want to test this ? Send a statement to each member household stating that the BOT has approved a by-mail vote of the entire membership asking if each member household approves or disapproves of a total elimination of the tree restrictions. Along with that would be the assurance of the Board and Board president, that the HOA will abide by the majority will of the membership, requiring that ALL households vote, or say, 75% ( for example) weigh-in before the voting is concluded.
That must be why only 200 or so votes are submitted each year and why 30 years ago they changes the quorum to 10%- if we can't get more than 200 members to vote on any one issue how on earth can we get numbers in the 90% range? Even when they were trying to make changes to the tree heights only 40 or so members showed up at the meeting. It just seems to me that our fellow members are not wanting to actively engage, they want to come and have a vacation and not deal with the politics.
Again, even with the lighting change there wasn't much participation from the member there either.
I guess the big question is how do you get those here to vacation to actively participate?
The effort to establish on-line voting a couple of years ago was intended to try and expand the voting base. Supporters made it clear that was the primary goal, and consequently, the BOT resisted at the outset. The fact that this has become a common practice by many HOAs eventually swayed the Board to approve forming a committee that would research and establish such a community link. But a contingent were merciless in their criticism of the plan when it ran a test run survey, and Gary Williams mandated it be shut down.
It was also intended to be used to take occasional surveys of community opinion, which would obviously benefit policy making, should the BOT actually care to know what the members want and/or prefer to happen in the community.
This remains, I think, the best approach to trying to break through the overall member indifference. That detachment is an open invitation to overly aggressive enforcement of impractical restrictions such as we are seeing with the Tree restrictions, and the move to a more aggressive enforcement in this community of very compliant members.
Before the last compliance officer resigned, there was talk of having 2 compliance officers, and the lingo in the HOA changed to this phony "proactive" approach, and a half million dollars has been pledged to the 5 year deputy contract. In truth, only a few hundred residents are present in the community for at least 6 months out of the year.
Thanks for shutting it down Williams! Good work!
By stating that you proudly express favor for suppressing participation of members with priorities that do not align perfectly with yours - the Tree restrictions or "law & order" in Surfside, for instance. That's what's wrong with our politics, so congrats on your complacency.
The solution is not that difficult, except you have to be allowed to have a member meeting such as we usually have every July. At that meeting a motion can be made and approved by those present, to change the bylaws. The motion would require a majority approval at a member meeting of a bylaw change. It would require member approval of any covenant change, new or changed. It would also allow members to make motions on covenants.
So what if only 300 or so voted? Who cares? If those 300 care enough to vote, then let their decision count and the changes made. You would see the tree covenant gone as well as other petty covenants. Theobstruction would be a Board that blocks thyis kind of motion happening. Changing the4 bylaws is the best action to take. 10% of the members present in person or proxy is all it takes. t
Thanks George. In doing research last year I discovered the best and cleanest way to start correcting things is to vote at a member meeting to change the by-laws to let covenants be in control of the membership. We need to start this process and see where it takes us. Now new unfortunately have to wait until next July.
Yes wait.
Post a Comment