Information on the meeting...
The fact that this information has been made available, is an encouraging indication that we now have a Board that will make every effort to be open and transparent. It is great to be able to report something positive. I and you may find we don't agree on some things in the content as written, but the fact that it is out there is a good thing. It took a considerable amount of effort to put this together. Steve Flickinger, who attended the orientation, will be providing his notes on what happened there. He has promised to share his thoughts and impressions here, later.
Sorry for page 3, as my lack of computer skills are evident. Click on each page one or two times for a larger read.
67 comments:
We certainly appreciate any efforts made to keep HOA business public as it is intended. It is understood that some business such as staff matters are kept confidential.
Not that I am so worldly, but I have never heard of "Secret Meetings". I don't recall ever seeing such a reference - not in the RCWs and not in our documents. These types of meetings already have titles. There are Executive Sessions, and Closed Sessions.
During the period that Deb Blagg and Patrick Johansen were on the BOT, Williams took particular liberties in having "secret meetings" outside of Board Meetings, making decisions without the knowledge of some Board members. Larry was also excluded, perhaps because of his friendship with George. This effort was intended to marginalize and discourage the excluded, but duly elected/appointed Trustees.
I don't feel comfortable with any proper procedure being entitled "Secret whatever". Secret implies improper, and there have been such activities by BOT members on occasion. All Board members have equal footing, specific duties being spelled out in our documents.
Yes Steve, you got it right. "Secrete Meetings" is what jumped out at me also. It could be confusion with the closed session that happens at the end of a Board Meeting, if needed. They are for legal and some employee matters. The "closed session" has been greatly abused in the past.
According to the current posted calendar, Tree committee is scheduled to meet at 1 p.m. this Friday. Why are they meeting if a moratorium has been declared on their activities?
All committees need inactivated except for architecture
It seems to me that some on the Tree comm. must write complaints, or why would they be meeting ? We have a compliance officer whose job is monitoring the community. But the well known truth is that without the Tree covenant, we need no Tree Comm, and we won't need a compliance officer. We also won't need a law firm on retainer at about $80,000 annually.
At least 90% of the compliance issues are Tree issues, and the legal costs we incur are also due almost entirely to the Tree enforcement efforts.
We can better use those dollars saved, for more positive improvements in the community. It's worth considering a replanting effort, that would offer a couple of tree varieties(or a few if they can grow in S.S.) and offer a $50 rebate on purchase and planting. A limit would be wise, on the number of large trees planted on a single property .
Dear members: Committee meetings are getting scheduled. Join a committee. Get involved. Get your voice heard. Thank you.
Thank you Cori
I agree that all tree compliance issues be put on hold. Three changes needed soon.. President, manager and compliance officer are incompetent in serving the members.
Our voice was heard at the annual meeting. The HOA and BOT are ignoring the will of the members.
I find it telling that when there was no compliance officer prior to Tracy's hiring, the Board decided to respond to calls for a moratorium on Tree enforcement due to Covid. I'm not sure how long it was in effect, but I think Dec., Jan. ? When it ended seems unclear.
But given a member mandate, respect for the member's wishes was entirely ignored, and NO moratorium has been enacted. How urgent is it to top more trees ? This really is the dynamic members have been facing for a long time now.
The Tree enforcement is a tool to keep the members out of the Board's business through continual intimidation.
Steve, wrong AGAIN
Georgia had been the compliance office until February of this year.
Thank you Cori!
It is interesting how for years folks on the blog have been saying member wishes have been ignored because the number of votes/quorum at the annual meeting is small and not representative. Now, at one annual meeting, the votes align with their interests and it indicates they have a mandate that represents the entire membership?
I'd like to understand what the "new" board is doing to represent all and how they are going to query the membership to understand what the true majority wants.
9:33.... I didn't claim to know what period the moratorium was - so I am open to information that clarifies this. There WAS a short period during which the Board stopped enforcement around Christmas, they announced it. I believe there were several months that there was no Bus. Manager, and no compliance officer. Georgia came and went pretty quickly. If you know the timelines here, just share them with us.
There was obviously a gap of a couple of months after Georgia left, and before Daryl began, and the same prior to her hiring.
So I don't assume I am always right, nor did I claim to know the exact timeline here. You missed the point I was making which has nothing to do with these details. The HOA announced a short period of a moratorium on enforcement, whenever it was, around Christmas.
To answer August 3, 2021 at 9:43 AM. And for years the boards ignored the folks asking for more inclusive representation and better communication. And then in the last several years the boards really went too far and the members reacted strongly. No vote count ever represents the entire membership. The results of the election tell us the members are unhappy with the direction the HOA was headed. The tide has turned and you must accept the fact that you lost. I believe the new board members will do what they said they would do. Listen, learn, communicate and reach compromise with ALL members in mind.
@11:23 - The results of the election reflects that the members that voted are unhappy. You have no idea if that is representative of all members. It is not a matter of winning/losing (the "you lost" comment is not helpful). The question remains how does the "new" board confirm they are acting in a way representing all. There is not a position taken in 9:43's comment, just asking how a pulse of all is taken to ensure the board direction truly represents all. That question seems fair and reasonable and should result in divisive or defensive responses.
9:43 �� , 12:08 ��
From the Google-meister brain of all brains genius status:
What percent of dissatisfied customers actually complain to the company?
In fact, only 1 in 25 unhappy customers will complain directly to you.
Apr 29, 2021
This current board cannot to any action until august 21! The decision to continue with the compliance procedures after the July 10th members motions and votes, was made by only 2 people! There is nothing really they can do until the next meeting. Unfortunately once again the members are left out in the cold and wondering what the heck happened! It’s time for a pause to review the covenants and make corrections where needed to bring them into a fair and equitable process!
I am @12:08 and the last sentence should read: That question seems fair and reasonable and should NOT result in divisive or defensive responses.
12:26 correction
?? Were intended to be thumbs up
I think the new board secretary (Marriann) has already demonstrated she is putting forth an effort toward better communication. She posted a very well written and informative note regarding the new board's orientation meeting. Thank you Marriann. I would like to see communications such as these go to an 'all member' email in addition to being posted on the website but these things take time and the new board hasn't actually had their first business meeting yet. Feeling optimistic at this point that the majority of the trustees will head us in a new and positive direction.
@12:47-I often read here on the blog of people reading things and then talking about them but I have been unable to find these documents. I have looked on the website, last BOT meeting notes are from May 2021, I have looked on FaceBook but nothing new shows up. Am I out of the loop on where the notes and documents are located?
I did hear of a new Web page, is the link to it different than the old link?
I just don't know where people are getting information from. What's up? Help would be appreciated. Thanks!
HA- and that 1:28 is the biggest problem of all! Keep em guessing and confused is the motto of Surfside.
130 - you are correct, and we need to end it!
Thank you for your comment 9:43 as it brings up a valid point. If the votes would have went the other way with the identical total vote counts of course they would have said the majority wasn't being represented. This is no surprise.
We brought our proposal of a Bylaw change to the Board in May and without the authority to do so, the Board blocked our member motion which was intended to be voted on by the entire membership by mail-in ballot/proxy.
The Bylaw change requires that the entire membership be sent ballots/proxies to vote on any Board initiated covenant changes. The Bylaws can only be changed by the members, and cannot be changed by the Board. The Board voted to block this change even though they have no authority to do so.
We obviously need the cooperation of a law-abiding Board to send out the ballots as outlined in the Bylaws, and to accept what is clearly outlined as the member's rights.
The newly configured Board will allow our motion to move forward for a scheduled vote hopefully in September. We will be presenting it once again at the coming meeting, presuming a decision will allow us to move to a vote at a scheduled "hearing".
Hopefully the approval will prevail. Presuming it does,the Board will be obligated to change the covenants to match the Bylaw, as the Bylaws prevail over the Covenants.
This change is the somewhat subtle key to the members claiming a voice in what the covenants will say in Surfside. The moratorium must last until our scheduled vote on the Bylaws, and with some work in the coming weeks, the Tree covenant changes can be voted on by all of the members in September or sooner.
Marriann's notice was in the Weekender. If you go to the official website (https://www.surfsideonline.org/) you will see a link that states "Click here for the current Weekender". But you are correct, it's very hard to find info. Sometimes it's in the Weekender. Sometimes it's on the official Facebook page. Sometimes it's in meeting minutes. Sometimes it's nowhere to be found or you think it's there and then the links lead you to a dead end. We need a better plan. Perhaps a communication position rather than a compliance enforcement position would be a good place to start? Apparently there is work being done to improve the website. This may be another place to improve access to information and communication with the members.
@ 3:12, I would have never thought to look there for such records. Sigh, I would think this is an official document, should be filed under BOT meetings but at least its somewhere.
Thank you kindly!
312 - this lack of communication is no random accident. It is strictly by intent. Keep the membership ignorant, do what you please.
It worked well for the J placers for most of the last decade until the membership meeting. They're going to have a very hard time spinning that, as well as the Motions passed. There was a quorum, by Robert's Rules.
If the president does not come correct, litigation will follow shortly.
So, is anyone not on the Tree Committee going to the Tree Committee Meeting this Saturday, 6Aug, at 1pm? Just a show of 'aye's for a count, please.
Calendar says the Tree committee meets Friday, not Saturday. Which is it? I will be there if Friday.
Thank you for clarifying my error. I look forward to seeing you there.
Fact check:
The Kill Tree Committee Meeting is Friday Aug. 6th at 1:00 pm at the Business Office.
No one is going to remove Ric Minich from the Board, or fire anyone because of blog comments of dissatisfaction. All such things must follow a procedure that has steps and verification, and take time. We have more important stuff to accomplish, plans to implement, positive steps to take.
Chances are, Minich has pressure being put on him from those who oppose all progressive change. And by the way, progressive means step by step efforts to improve in a positive way.
If the Tree Covenant is essentially eliminated in its' current form, there will be provisions to address the concerns about views. But with over 2000 households in Surfside, granting special privileges to around 300 residences at the expense of the existence of all trees west of the ridge, is not a PLAN. It cannot continue.
The law firm that the HOA consults on all things, does not represent the members, or even all of the Trustees. This has evolved to be a service to the board President and the status-quo. They will tell the BOT to avoid any conflict by keeping things the same. Change does not come by being placid, and fearful of resistance. Nor does anything in our Covenants protect views or allow for unequal treatment of members by the HOA.
The time to ditch this destructive policy has come, long before today in fact. We can make this a positive thing for everyone, I think.
I will be there.
Who is the trustee assigned to the Kill Tree Committee? I would like to know who will be attending on behalf of the BOT this Friday. Could the trustee and/or the office staff in attendance please make sure the meeting is recorded. Thank you. Committee assignments are not yet listed on the BOT tab on the website.
Marianne is the main trustee, Ronda is the other trustee
Steve Cox speaks the truth and I appreciate his efforts as well as others to enact positive change that reflects will of all membership.
We cannot allow the momentum gathered from the Annual Meeting to be blunted!
Any returning board member who cannot follow the will of the membership should resign now, and save us all the trouble of removing them.
That even one letter went out after July 10th let alone 30+ letters is a big ol' slap in the face of disrespect.
Pres should have resigned five days ago. There's some serious insubordination happening in the office. The BM has the authority to counsel this runaway president on the rules and regulations regarding the member meetings but it appears the BM is just a 'follower'. A BM with leadership qualities is essential. Time for some sorting out and replacing, Pronto!
1119 - the BM has already proved successfully that she is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
She is an employee, and her job is to implement policy, not make it. Her opinion has 0% weight in any of the policy discussions that are going on.
So what about the members like me that agreed to the CC&R's and want to have those to protect me and my property, do we have a voice?
Short answer, not with this crowd.
BM is the perfect moniker for her. Anyone checked to make sure the companies she owns don't have any Surfside contracts?
How does forcing me to cut my trees "protect" YOU @August 5, 2021 at 4:48 PM?
Oh let me guess, you are one of the people who think you are entitled to a view? Well, you are not entitled to anything in this life. Too bad nobody taught you this little diddy?
The tree business is the rub. If you don't live uphill, then I guess there's nothing left to say, right? You are more than welcome to cut down your own damned trees but you have NO ENTITLEMENT to tell me to cut mine! Got it?
BM should be replaced ASAP, unprofessional and over paid. It was comical at annual meeting to see her prance around until votes were read and then she seemed very disturbed and angry.
I think that's funny @4:48 PM. You do have a say, however, it would require you to show up at the member meeting, vote, and participate in the HOA, particularly committees. Are you ready to give something to get something? Hmmmmm.........
The point is @4:48 shouldn't have to do any of those things @7:18 and @7:13. They ask a valid question and your responses represent one groups opinion (and the snarkiness doesn't add value). Likely to the chagrin of the "new board" and posters like yourselves, Whether your positions represent a true (not determined by a quorum at the annual meeting) majority remains to be determined. The motion at the floor was for a moratorium on cutting until a covenant review (at least that is my understanding). Just as many here bluster about lawsuits the same can be said by those who support the covenants as they, until changed, represent the current rules all agreed to when purchasing here. Tree height covenants are legal and have precedent. They do not need to mention views (although I think most reasonable people would agree that is their objective).
7:45...It was established at the beginning of the meeting that a quorum was present, with both the ballots and members present counting toward that threshold of 10% of the membership. It is established by law that the entire meeting can function as legitimate until its' end, and consider the fact that the Covid limit on the meeting space was about 219.
The only way the quorum could have been determined as insufficient, is if an official call for a vote of those present, to re-establish if a quorum was present. That DID NOT happen. Instead, Pres, Williams conducted the end of the meeting, establishing that ALL of the motions "passed". The President of the Assoc. announced that these motions PASSED.
Let's face it - the argument that all trees should be limited to the same height as the homes near by is a moronic concept. Virtually ALL tree varieties grow taller than 25 ft., and Arborists emphasize that trees in general should NEVER be topped, and seldom trimmed unless necessary.
This is a tired olde argument that has hung around far too long, and has left a community strewn with destruction of nearly every living tree in Surfside. The irony is that Surfside PLANTED all of these trees to make the bare pile of sand left, to be marketable after the swamp was pushed into canals
@Steve Cox - no where in my post did I question whether a quorum established. I did point out that the quorum doesn't represent a true majority. Supposedly the "new board" wants to represent ALL voices, not just the ones aligned with their positions. The rest of your response is your opinion, which while sometimes interesting, is irrelevant.
And tell me why a quorum doesn’t represent a true majority? Very odd observation. The proxie vote needs to be changed so that every member can cast their own vote either electronically or by mail in ballot
822 - A Quorum represents the voting body for that meeting. It is a representative majority for that meeting. As I was there, I can confirm Steve Cox's representation of the events of that day.
There are many that totally disagree with you as the legality of the tree covenants. That is why do they have to be examined without the light of self-interest. That is what was really decided at the annual meeting.
A quorum only represents what was necessary to conduct business (10% or so of the members) whereas a true majority would mean that at least 50% of the members are in favor of something. Now the quorum may be representative of all, but it may not. What is odd about that?
@8:22 - there have been many links provided on the blog where legality of height restrictions have been upheld. In my opinion the legality is not in question. Again, in my opinion, what could be questioned is the irregular application and having different heights in different divisions. That is what I believe should be addressed also without the light of self interest. Gathering that team to do a fair evaluation without self interest or a preconceived position will likely prove difficult.
Was the quorum vote every year ever questioned previously? Then why now?
That would be Ric and Tracy. Although Tracy has no say
The business manager and Ric are 2 peas in a pod. They both gotta go
She is just an employee, wages paid by members
I would love to be on that team. I believe tree heights need to be the same throughout our community. 16 ft trees block nothing. Even homes in the 16 ft zone block nothing. Do they ever get variances? Nope, just J pl. They can get 9 ft, 15 ft, whatever they want...we need equal across every covenant
@JoAnne - I can't tell if your question is serious. I will say it again. I am not questioning that a quorum was achieved at the meeting. I am questioning whether the results of this election, or any Surfside HOA election where only 10% of the members are required for quorum, represents the full majority. Every year prior to this election the results \have been called not representative because the J faction canvassed for votes, controlled the board and the proxy voting. I guess this year the faction just decided to take a vacation.
8:22....I think you have misinterpreted what their statement means in the context of the Tree covenant which began as an elitist perk, and has continued unchanged for about 40 to 50 years.
Wanting to give the victims of this policy their freedom from this "serfdom", in this case will help balance the J Pl. Deficit to the rest of the owners west of the ridge.
But treating the members equally overall is definitely due, and by ending the restrictions, the community will save a great deal of money, pissed away on enforcing this nonsense.
There has been a lot of animosity building up in recent years. We can get rid of a lot of hostility that has had no relief in sight. That was obvious in the sheer joy expressed by members after the success of these motions at the Annual Meeting. It has to be carried out.
J place no longer controls the board!
Think its time to talk about Minich's media spin on the group in the surfnturf sider newsletter. Probably had Tracy write it for him.
954 - agreed. All need to be heard. The "my way or the highway" attitude of previous Board's must be eliminated once and for all.
Ric is running scared, as is his pet Tracy. They lost the faction
Ric needs to resign. Now.
He did it to himself.
Post a Comment