San Elijo Hills Homeowner Association Board Results

Jeff Tuller (Westcliffe) Elected to 3 year term

Tom Cappellazo (Cedar Crossing) Elected to 3 year term

Michael Young (Azure) Elected to 3 year term

Mary Russell (Crest View) Elected to 2 year term

Hale Richardson (Home Fed/SEH Development) was appointed by San Elijo Hills Development for a 2 years term

The Annual Meeting took place December 8th, 2009. The San Elijo Hills Neighborhood Representatives each cast the votes of their respective neighborhoods for the election of Board members. Five Neighborhood Representatives did not attend and 80 votes were not counted (Carmel, Creekside Cottages, Crest View, Mariner’s Landing and Springfield) Marry Russell who had publicly withdrawn from election has changed her mind and will serve her two year term.  432 homeowners cast ballots (19.2% of the community) Click here for reader comments

2009 San Elijo Hills Association Highlights:

New revised approved plant list to include 80 drought tolerant plants.

Renegotiated O’Connell  landscape contract for cost savings as landscaping requirements have evolved as San Elijo Hills reaches 10 years old.

Ongoing- tree trimming: Elfin Fores Road, San Elijo Road Questhaven Road, parks and limbing up trees on slopes

Ongoing -common area fence repair and repainting

Ongoing- entry monument improvements for neighborhoods

Town center update

San Elijo Hills Development is evaluating the last piece of SEH Town Center. The residential component may be swapped for commercial office space given the market condition. Retail will be a component of this next and last phase.

24 comments

  • Wait a minute. Mary Russell withdrew her name from consideration SIX WEEKS AGO. How does a candidate simply get to “change her mind” once she gets enough votes to win? In fact, why should any votes she received after she withdrew even count? Shouldn’t the candidate with the next highest number of votes be elected? What’s more, I question whether someone should even BE on the Board who can’t decide at any given moment whether she really wants to be there . . . I’m running, I’m not running. Oh, I won? OK, I’ll accept.

    It’s bad enough that Tuller, Cappellazo and Young, who ran their reprehensible and misleading smear campaign against the developer candidates – and who implied that the other resident candidates were not “true homeowners” – won seats on the Board. But to allow someone who publicly withdrew from the election to win a seat over candidates who stayed true to the courage of their convictions and stuck it out is even more absurd.

    I wonder if there’s any way – perhaps through legal counsel – to see whether this is even legitimate, and to see if the community has any interest in demanding a recall and re-running of this election.

    • Way to be positive Ron. Why are you so sore about the outcome? I think what is more appalling is that 5 neighborhoods didn’t vote. I’m not sure if those votes would have changed the outcome, but apathy by people to do what they have been charged to do is not acceptable.

      I trust that the results of the election and method and process met with the appropriate compliance with the law. If you don’t like your representatives, then start your campaign now for Mary’s seat in 2 years or the rest of those who were elected in 3 years.

      To the new board, congratulations and I look forward to seeing positive outcomes from your election/appointment. Obviously there are bitter people out there and will be watching your work closely.

      Cheers to a wonderful holiday season for all in SEH!

  • I cannot believe that Mary Russell would be elected after she WITHDREW her name. I agree wholeheartedly with the comment from Ron. How could these people be elected after such a untruthful, negative campaign. It will be a contentious 2-3 years with these people on the board. They will be working with the developer (I question the word “working”) and have already started a very adverserial relationship. I hope that this beautiful community will not suffer with their leadership. I am glad Hale will still be on the board, however with these four, her vote will mean squat. She has my sympathies.

  • How can Mary Russell formally withdraw and then be told the results privately before they are made public and then decide to fill the 4th seat? We are ok with this? What do we think California law says about this? I’m sure legal council was consulted…but this smells!

    Where is the outrage from SEH?

    The block of 4 was just given a mandate for change. What could that mean: new management company, new legal council, new landscape contracts..new vision for a place we all approved of already?

    80 votes not counted!! Wow the reps who did not show should be ashamed of themselves.

  • How was Mary Russell made aware of the voting results BEFORE they were announced at Tuesday’s meeting? Until the neighborhood representatives signed off on their community’s ballots, no results were official. Was there some deal cut behind the scenes? I agree … where’s the outrage? Are we ok with dirty politics in San Elijo Hills?

  • Five Neighborhood Representatives did not attend and 80 votes were not counted (Carmel, Creekside Cottages, Crest View, Mariner’s Landing and Springfield)

  • I didn’t know that my Neighborhood Rep had to be there for my vote to count — this seems like an odd requirement, and a risky single point of failure when the Rep does not show up for one reason or another. Don’t we have alternates for our community Reps? If not, seems like we should.

  • Generally, most neighborhoods have alternates, although I’ve never understood the rule that reps have to show up for the votes to count. A vote is a vote, right? I mean, what would have happened if NO reps had shown up?

  • 432 homeowners cast ballots (19.2% of the community)

  • Do we have any way of knowing whether the 80 voters who did not have their votes counted would have made a difference between 4th and 5th place in the election, and therefore whether an actual winning candidate was robbed of his/her rightful place on the new board?

  • What is reprehensible is neighborhood reps not fulfilling their responsibilities. These 5 reps names and their alternates should be published here so that those of us in the respective neighborhoods can discuss their in-action.

    The board’s first action is to ensure that each neighborhood is adequately represented.

    And any thought of a lawsuit about this election will gain no support from me. It appears that this process was appropriately monitored and passed the appropriate checks and balances. What I find as reprehensible as 5 neighborhood’s votes not being counted is that less than 20% of the households actually voted.

    Let us rather seek to make 2010 a great year in SEH and support our elected board and provide each of them with appropriate and necessary feedback so they can do a better job than the 5 neighborhood reps who failed at their job.

  • AJ
    How can you say this election process was followed? A candidate publicly withdrew her name, but votes for her were counted? Once you withdraw, you do not get a “do over” and change your mind because you found out you won. I am not happy with this board, but I would be fine if the next person with the most votes would be seated instead of Mary.

    • What I meant is that the procedures were likely followed. I don’t discount what you are saying and Mary should have “fallen on her sword” and declined the results of the election. I think you are saying that it is disingenuous for her to honor to results of the election as it was stated that she withdrew her name from consideration. However I’m sure all of us here in California see people on the ballot of presidential and other elections who still receive votes after they withdraw from a particular race. It effectively means they are no longer campaigning, but if they somehow receive the necessary votes, our system says they are the winner.

  • What a pity there were five neighborhood reps who did not show up to cast the votes for their respective neighborhoods…hopefully this will encourage more residents to become involved in their respective communities…and make sure there are “alternates” for each community just in case the neighborhood rep is not available for such an important occasion.

  • From what I have heard is that the four candidates that won had overwhelming support. It’s about time that this HOA board will have the voice of the homeowners.

  • The only reason they had support was because they were the only candidates who campaigned. I’ve spoken to many people who said they voted for those four because they were the only names they recognized. Shame on the residents who didn’t do their homework to discover that the San Elijo 4’s campaign was built on mudslinging tactics and outright lies.

    • For the past eight years the developer has been in total control of the HOA board and I believe they have done a very good job for our community but its time the homeowners of this awesome community start doing their part and one of which is to be board members on the HOA. People needed to know who was and who wasn’t associated with the developer so they could make an knowledgable decision when casting their vote. Everything I read just made me aware of the true facts, I didn’t see any so called mud slinging. The people of this community have voted for homeowners of this community. There were 14 names on the ballot, 3 of which were associated with the developer. Homeowners had a wide selection of candidates to choose from and it just so happened the 4 who campaigned strongly were the winners.

  • I want to take this time to thank our past Board members for their years of service. I am excited that the reins will now be turned over to the Homeowners of our awesome community. I would like to suggest that in 2010 and beyond we all take interest and participate in our lovely community, which also means attending “Home Assocation” meetings! Let us ALL start 2010 off on a POSITIVE NOTE!

  • I belive we need to REVOTE. It is clearly obvious that being a new community we could have done a better job with this experience. Better communication to the representatives confirming their attendance, informing the community when a candidate is pulling out and allowing those residents to recast their votes since we had a window of time for residents to vote rather than having one day for the votes to be cast by the community.

    I actually recommend the community casts their votes on one day. Just like a regular govt. election. This will give the candidates the opportunity to campaign for the same period of time and appropriately respond to the feedback of the community. This will give the community equal time to make an informed decision.

    If a REVOTE is proposed, I also recommend that all candiates that were on the ballot previously should be allowed to be on the ballot again. If they choose to not participate then they can step down. However it is not ok to allow new candidates and it is not appropriate and it is unethical to only allow the community candidates on the revote ballot. By only having community members on the ballot, this is making a GROSS ASSUMPTION that this is what the community wants. I for one, do not want a panel of all community members. I do not believe that it is properly representing what is best for the community at this time.

    In life… too much of one thing is not what is best. BALANCE is always best. Similarly in this situation. This community is still being developed. We have a ways to go to being done. The developers on the board previously (ie: Kurt Nolan, Hale Richardson) still have the vision, and history of what the design continuinty , feel and atmosphere of what our community is suppose to be. It would be a shame to loose this.

  • I tend to agree, Jennifer. I’ve never quite understood the anger and mistrust directed towards the concept of a developer-majority Board, or the opinion that a resident-majority Board will do a better job for San Elijo Hills than a developer-majority Board. To be honest, have they done a bad job? Have they made decisions that are not in the best interests of San Elijo Hills? They’re business people with an investment in the community . . . what would they possibly have to gain by making any decisions to the contrary? I’ve heard that having developers on the Board presents a conflict of interests, but can someone explain to me how it’s a BAD thing to have people on the Board with a vested interest in the financial success of the community? In my opinion, I think there’s just as much of a risk of having homeowners on the Board being a conflict of interest, when they may make decisions based on what’s in their best interests as individual homeowners, rather than what’s in the best interests of the community as a whole. And In the case of the four new SEH Board members, when you have four people who ran as a block, and therefore all have the same agenda, conflicts of interest can be even worse. Highlighting the need for balance, as Jennifer indicates.

  • I find it interesting that the “thumbs up” versus “thumbs down” rankings on these posts has shifted dramatically in the past day. Looks like the Vote4SanElijo team has been here clicking away frantically, trying to make it look like the community’s opinion has swayed their way. Nice try.

  • HI…we are looking for a community like SEH near Solana Beach where our son lives. We are looking for good weather in the winter and a commute without going on the freeway. really we want a 55+ community as we are in our mid 60’s and retired. Is SEH a good alternative to being around all folks in their 70’s and 80’s? Is there a group of active retirees in this community? A newcomers group? Thanks for any help.

Leave a Reply