Board Trustee Election...
First: This will be my 17th Surfside Board Trustee Election. I ran for the position twice and have been the Election Committee Chairman. (ECC) This experience gives my observations and opinions some weight. I have seen good candidate both win and lose. The same can be said for the "not so good" candidates. In my opinion, we have both of those kinds of candidates for this election.
My observations: Only a small percentage of members vote for any election or issue such as the Budget Ratification. It would be great to think that those who do take the time and effort to vote, are informed voters. Some are, and some are not. I can not say what percentage.
For many, especially those part time here, their main interests are where they live and Surfside is of secondary importance. Many will make their candidate choice and vote, at the time they receive it in the mail. They will read over the candidate statement provided and make their choice.
Those with name recognition have a better chance. Those who are currently serving have a better chance. Those who are on or have served on a committee, have a better chance. In my opinion, I think this shows, rightly or wrongly, that the candidate is really interested in Surfside. At least that is the perception that is believed.
If there are many unhappy members for one reason or other, being a part of the governing body could work against the candidate. It is difficult to know how extensive members are unhappy, because the unhappy ones tend to make the most noise. I think that when Flood lost his re-election and Williams, last year came in fourth, are signs of unrest.
My opinion and message to the candidates:
If you really do care about the members and you lose, and this is your first time experience, then I suggest you attend meetings and get involved in at least one committee. Would sure look good for you in the next election. If you are a candidate with all the "better chances" to win, and you still lose, you need to learn from it. You have been rejected and you need to move on to something else in your life.
More than anything else, put the members first. This Homeowners Association belongs to all the members, not just the few in control.
51 comments:
Just like America Politics, we do not need career Board members. You gat 6 years at Surfside and 8 years in Congress or Senate, just like the President. New ideas and different outlooks, slam if you want but term limits are needed in every “ governing body “.
It is only in the past few years that we have had more than three candidates. There were many years when it was difficult to even find three members who would "run" for the Board. That was when the "Nominating Committee" really had a job to do in finding members who would run. With more homes built and more use of RV lots, there may be more interest. Or, maybe the members are just so unhappy, we have those seeking a position, because "They are mad as hell". I sure agree that we need change and maybe it's time for term limits. I think the term should also be changed to two years. Three just seems a little long for a volunteer.
Of course such a change would require changing the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. No big deal. I do not claim to know anything. I certainly have not been here as long as George. What I do know is the voting this year will be very similar to the vote from last year, and the year before, and so on. The good news is not much will change. No matter how the vote turns out, the new board members will not be able to affect much change, too few. There is also the real possibility that if those who want change get elected, they will get discouraged and quit. It has been known to happen.
George,
This was a great post and I appreciate all that you have done and continue to do for surfside.
Thank you!
10:07....Past elections have tended to follow a pattern, and little change has been seen. But publishing a discouraging prediction is counter-productive, when a lot of members want to feel some optimism for the future, and hope that positive changes and a more progressive Board can make things work better. Avoid victimizing members with tired olde policies and a police-state mentality.
No radical change is needed, we just need to avoid building this elaborate oppresive enforcement machine which the olde guard are determined to employ.
We don'need to be the OBJECTS of their amusement and demonstrations of power. Members need to elect new people to have a hand at governing and setting policy. By electing Larry Raymer, we elect someone with decades of experience on committees and a term as a Trustee.
The newer folks bring skills of their own that can build on the background of Larry's knowledge, to determine goals and problems that need attention.
As for terms, the members can easily change Trustee terms, following the Bylaws. Fortunately, the Articles need not be changed.
With the present situation, the best way to get meaningful change is to make a motion at the Annual Meeting to reduce the number of Board Trustees from 9 to 5.
As stated in the Bylaws:
ARTICLE IV
Trustees and Officers
Section 1. Corporate powers of the corporation shall be vested in a board of trustees. The
number of trustees who shall manage the affairs of the corporation shall be six. At any
meeting or special meeting called therefor the members may increase or decrease the
number of trustees to any number not more than nine or less than three.
Maybe the additional three can be ad hoc? In case someone needs to resign?
I hope to see improvement here, otherwise, this will be a very undesirable place to live. The compliance officer will be busy doing "inspections" on homes that are selling.
I vehemently object to having this type of employee on the payroll.
The Board allowed Mr. Clancy (moved away) and a few others to file dozens of Tree complaints at a time, causing the number of complaints to investigate to explode from far fewer than a hundred to over 300.
Only 5 lighting complaints and a few other issues were on the docket, so we know that without the burden of the Tree policy, we would NOT need a full time compliance officer. The amount of money saved on legal expenses (letters of compliance, levying fines,...)and the wages and benefits of a designated officer, is huge.
The Board claimed that owners were so unhappy with the "complaint driven" system they would go to a proactive system. Mr. Winegar championed this approach, his background in law enforcement.
You've heard of going from bad to worse ?
We don't need all of this. It won't fix anything and won't make anything better. The HOA Board is made up of residents, to govern residents. Everyone is to be equal and working in common purpose. You wouldn't know it from the attitude of people like Williams, deLeest, the Olds people, Flood, Smith, Minich- all see themselves as better than the members.
What owners did they ask? I don't recall this survey?
They lie, they lie, they lie.
Not having a complaint does not mean you are in compliance.
@2:56
How about sending out some kind of basic reminders to everyone? See how many comply and remedy these issues on their own? Why hire an employee right off the bat with our money? This is all ass backwards and your worn out one liners are not legitimate.
The reason that there are more tree complaints being made is because it is the covenant that is violated the most.
I also notice that when people bring up complaints being filed there is never a mentioned on if they are valid or not. To this day I have never heard of rampant tree complaints against homeowners who tree are compliant.
Trustees are subject to the covenants as everyone else. Williams, Olds, Flood, Smith and deLeest, before they moved, have/had to follow the same tree covenants as everyone else. Unlike Cox, most of them actually went around the community and talked with members, that is why they got elected. So to say they are not working for residents is factually incorrect. You may not agree with some of what they do but obviously many other members do.
Would someone PLEASE make a motion to remove Kurt Olds from the board. His wife also needs to be removed from the tree committee. Just one big conflict of interest.
About 99% of the so-called violations are written on trees. None have anything to do with views, and nearly all are written by B. Members or Comm. Members.
The HOA will tell you that they must protect the view of J pl.owners, yet nowhere in our documents are views protected. So the policy is based on a lie, enforced at great expense to owners, and again in costs to the association in legal spending and compliance officers.
Pure stupidity. We are ALL victims of this ridiculous policy. There aren't more than a half dozen complaints annually on lighting, so what are the big violations you want to report 2:56 ? Sounds scary ! Please tell us !
Mr Cox, you are a liar and full of B.S. glad you are not running for the board, you are nothing but a blogger with an axe to grind! Whoa is me I didn’t get a seat on the board, give me a break!
I have served 3 years as a Trustee and vice - president in my Lacey HOA. You insist on nagging on me repeatedly, while ignoring what I say, creating your own mythology about me.
I can assure you, I am making efforts behind the scenes to make Surfside a better place. I don't need to.lie about anything, as the simple truth is what bothers you.
I would bet that were I to run for the Board, I would do very well, because not everyone needs to deny the truth such as you. Among those I ran against was Mr. Clancy, responsible for tens of thousands of dollars in fines on the HOA due to his misrepresenting the facts in his meddling in building permits. He also has proudly claimed to personally have filed hundreds of tree complaints. He was re-elected because members were not aware of his collosal failures.
Mr. Olds was promoted by his wife Peggy, head of the tree comm.. These folks got quite the bump in numbers, likely loads of proxies harvested, as Annette is doing this year.
Only about 270 people voted, fewer than previous years, with Mr.Olds getting about 182 votes. He was a relative unknown, so very peculiar, the vote count. I got the 4th most votes at 91.
Somebody's going to win, someone lose. No biggy -only in your mind. Let's get your name to verify you have anything of value to share. I think not.
I can't wait for Saturday! I do know, if the same good ole boys somehow win again, they better have perfect adherence to every covenant because this pissed off ol' curmudgeon is going to scrutinize every board members properties on a weekly basis and file every complaint I can muster. I'm sick of you lying cheatin jerks and I want to get MY monies worth out of that little compliance boy you hired.
Anonymous 5:44. Please read section 7 by-laws article IV. Trustees and officers! It is very clear. “Any vacancy occurring in the board of trustees SHALL be filled b a majority of the remaining trustees. The person so appointed shall hold office until the next annual meeting of the members of the corporation”.
10-18-19 meeting Chris Chandler resigned
11-16-19 meeting no motions were made on the open position
When and where was this decision made? Usual practice in past was for the next highest votes received by a candidate was placed in this position. Steve Cox was that person, but even if they decided to appoint another person why was this not done as per the by-laws?
This position remained I filled until Gary Willams ran last year and received the fewest votes so therefore Chris Chandlers position was filled until that position ends July 10th!
So as with the election rules this year only allowing 3 votes instead of the 4 for 4 positions, this board seems to interpret the rules as they want to
A relative unknown? In your eyes only. He was on the tech committee and was singled out by the chairperson for all the hard work he did on it. He volunteered at the chipper site regularly so talked with members there. He also volunteered his time to help members with their properties. He also walks around the community and talks with members
Other than being a blog celebrity, what have you done for the community Cox? After losing you couldn't even be bothered to show up at the picnic to thank the people who did vote for you like Flood did. If it helps your ego to say this B.S. so be it, but to say he was an unknown is false.
And since you had to take a shot at Annette, she isn't the only one collecting proxies, but since some are people you support that is OK, right?
I hope Annette feels good she had to cheat her way in. Cheaters never prosper. Karma...
To whomever is aware that people are "collecting proxies", please report this immediately to the DECC Janet Corey!!!!!. Proxy ballots MUST be delivered by the member in one of the following methods to be VALID. Any proxy ballots collected by a third party are not valid.
1. by us mail to DECC, box 182, menlo, was 98561
2. in person to surfside office by 4pm July 9
3. delivered to DECC at the meeting site prior to 9:45am July 10
Does anyone have an email for Janet
This selection smells of the Chicago Wards in the 1930s. I am thinking that the fixe is firmly in, unless some independent third-party can verify otherwise.
Prove me wrong.
July 7, 2021 at 6:23 AM You are clearly aware that Annette is collecting proxies, as stated above, please report this to Janet Corey TODAY.
This proxy thing is BS and everyone knows it.
Voting should be done by the homeowner ONLY. The box they check is the candidate they want. This should be mailed in to Janet, with a postage paid envelope and becomes the legal vote from the homeowner. This proxy thing is how cheating is accomplished and is completely preposterous.
STOP THE PROXY VOTING NOW!
I see you all are already coming up with a narrative in case things don't go your way...
@1:16 pm
I dub you King of the "tired worn out one liners". Do you have an original thought? Ever?
That's the only thing you going to win.
Tracy and Ric cannot even respond to emails members send out asking questions. You really think they know what they are doing? They both need to go
I can proudly say this, if Larry, John, Ronda or Cori get elected, they did not have to cheat to get in. They are not harvesting ballots.
Wow Ronda , way to go! No one is cheating! Way to spread rumors to get more votes. Hope none of you get elected!
I think July 7, 2021 at 6:23 AM inadvertently spilled the beans stating Annette isn't the only one collecting proxies. Makes one wonder how they knew she was doing that.
@1:36 - seems all you do is reply to tired one liners.
Nothing in the comment is inaccurate.
This is a two liner.
Easy for you to spread rumors under anonymous. Prove us wrong
The election will be over soon enough. Not much will change, just as with last years election that saw new faces that in a short amount of time were disparaged here. I said the same a month ago. Prove me wrong.
What will be will be. There's nothing to prove, but patience will reveal the outcome. Why the sour predictions ? What is accomplished by scoffing at optimism for the future ? Over a year of Pandemic, and we can't say if it will ever be truely stamped out - and you're taking pleasure in predicting a disappointing community election. That's really pitiful.
Nowhere did @4:25 say they would be disappointed with the results. That is just your spin.
2:18, got news for you. They will as times are changing and there are so many people who are disgusted with the current BOT people are voting for the first time ever!
I'd say you're a little dim. I didn't quote 4:25 as you suggest, but their message was clearly meant to dismiss optimism expressed by some of the commenters here.
@Steve Cox - since you need to resort to names I'll return the favor and say that you are dim. I didn't suggest you quoted anything. I did suggest that 4:25 may not think the elections results would be disappointing to the community. That is your spin. Many may be very happy with a continuation of the status quo. That goes against the grain of this blog but doesn't mean it can't be true. You continue being you. Since all know you must have the last word try responding with grace.
322 - you support an organization that can't even get out of its own way. They do not follow their covenants or their rules. Yet you want to maintain status quo. How ignorant is that?
@10:57 - It is likely a big ask but check your reading comprehension. Nowhere did 3:22 state what they do or do not support. Try harder and perhaps you can avoid name calling in your response, but I doubt it...
1123 - reading comprehension is just fine, as well as my analysis o of this association. It is broken. It is broken because the people that are ruthlessly supporting their self-interest are running it, excluding all who have a different opinion.
But you support that. You support lies. Live with that.
Double check again - nowhere in the comments is it clear what position is supported, only that the possibility exists of multiple positions and some may not align with the blog. You read what you want to read.
1201 - I read the guys being an a** - and you want to join him. Keep up the obfuscation. It's seen for what it is.
@2:22 - the only a** is you for trying to read or assume anything into a blog comment other than the clear black/white which is written. You are seen for what you are.
306 - as are you. A snarky, bitter old man trying to confuse the situation.
@4:10 - you are the only one confused, just read and quit inserting your own personal preconceived notions into blog posts. See how I did that without name calling?
I haven't made a comment on this strain since 10:37 July 7. All of this conversation is hilarious. Yeah, I guess no dimness here. I was so mistaken.
CLUE: I NEVER comment anonymously. You guys better get back at yer tusslin'.
Well let's just make sure to vote in residents that spend the majority of their time in surfside and that are transparent. I know for fact that Rhonda works for a dentist in Tacoma and if she is there (Tacoma) during the week how can she be available to deal with issues as they arise? I'm all for changing things up, but I want board members that will be there to address issues as they arise!
715 - so board members should be living close to Surfside? You got half a board full of part-timers right now, most of which live on J Place. Those are okay?
The amount of hypocrisy here is staggering.
@6:15 and Gary works for Boeing so you obviously don't support gary
Post a Comment