In the 2024 Surfside HOA election, I decided to run for the board alongside Steve Wallace. Also running was John Curran, an existing board member. The three of us were running against four candidates backed by Surfside Preservation.

Prior to the candidate interviews, the election committee interviewer introduced a rule for interviews stating that candidates needed to follow the following rule no names or personal attacks.  I found this confusing. I do not typically use derogatory language toward anyone—although over the years members of Surfside Preservation have used plenty of it to ridicule my views. I interpret this as calling someone an asshole for example. Ironically this rule was not mentioned to all candidates. I listened to all the interviews.

During my interview for the 2024 election, I mentioned that the HOA president, , had difficulty responding to emails. This was not meant as an insult but as a reference to a long-standing concern among residents. For quite some time, members had complained that emails to the HOA often went unanswered or were not addressed in a timely manner, especially during the period when the office itself was experiencing significant turmoil.

However, the election interviewed stopped and said no names or personal insults. I responded how was that a personal insult it was a common complaint. Even mentioning a name—even when discussing performance in an official role—was a violation of the code of conduct. I had not seen the latest  code of conduct or seen it before this interview.

The interview continued, and when I was asked what I disliked about the HOA, I referenced an incident involving former president 

During a tree-appeal hearing, a woman who was contesting thousands of dollars in fines described feeling treated badly during the process. A motion to removal of the president to treatment if women and office staff passed at the 2023 member meeting.  In her appeal she had also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving board members regarding tree enforcement by committe members since both of live on j place  and tree enforcement improves their  views.

I did not make those accusations myself—I simply described the names she mentioned who enforced tree violations  that had been raised during the womans appeal. Nevertheless, this too would be considered a “personal attack”.

Ironically, a motion passed in the 2024  election raising the same concern. The boards response changed nothing on the enforcement but ensures the office would handle sending out letters.

I also discussed concerns about how office staff and members were treated by the president at the time. There had even been a motion in the 2023 election  to remove the president from leadership, though the board ultimately ignored it. The reason was according to non profit RCWs,  a  notice wasn’t given for voting a board member out prior to the motion being submitted.  Instead, a special election was held in which he was praised and he remained on the board. The substance of the original motion was not even included. He continued as a board member. Why did they create a special ballot election? Did they know they could overturn this?

After the interview, I was informed that the election committee that mentioning names during the discussion constituted a Code of Conduct violation. I was warned that repeated violations could potentially lead to fines and  even legal action. I am familiar with the 20000 law suit filed against a member for tree fines.

Since several names had been mentioned during the interview, that could theoretically have counted as multiple violations. 

I was just standing up for better governance by better communication, women’s rights to be treated fairly in the office and  against biased enforcement as well as excessive fines. But the HOA and the election committee decided holding people accountable by name was  not acceptable.

The election committee’s response was to remove my interview entirely from the election website, while the other candidates’ interviews remained posted.

After being informed of the No Name edict, I agreed to edit the audio and remove the names in order to comply with the rule. After I stripped them out, the interview was reposted—but only after being prefaced with a statement saying that my original interview had violated the code of conduct.

To me, this was censorship.

Having grown up with family experiences connected to life under authoritarian systems—my mother was originally from communist China—the idea of restricting speech in this way struck a personal nerve. I also served in the military and fought for freedom and the rights of free speech.

After that experience, I decided I was finished running for the Surfside board. I would not be part of a board or membership culture that suppresses free speech. All nine board members are part of this culture. Having grown up with firsthand awareness of how censorship operates in authoritarian systems, this kind of conduct was deeply troubling to me. I had missed the first candidate interview due to a prior commitment, but I chose not to attend the second because it was clear that speaking openly could simply lead to additional “code of conduct” violations. And there was still much I could have said—particularly regarding actions and decisions involving Sherry Mosher and Jim Jones, including issues related to women’s rights and the treatment of office workers.

The election may have continued, but for me the process had already revealed something more troubling about how open discussion and criticism were being handled in Surfside.

The election itself had a result that was similar to previous elections.

Average – Top 4 preservation  Candidates

(Studer, Mosher, Jones, Cook)

Average: 314.5 votes

Average of independent candidates  – Bottom 3 Candidates

(Wallace, Curran, Chevalier)

Average: 182.3 votes

The four preservation candidates: two returning board members and two new candidates got an average 314.5 votes versus the 3 independent candidates. The independent candidates about a 100 vote difference. Also, John curan who is a long standing board member who should have some name recognition received hundred votes less than other board members and even less than new Surfside preservation candidates. This 100 vote margin was consistent across multiple elections.

Surfside preservation candidates had won again with a 100 vote margin.

Did the Surfside preservation walked the streets individually to meet residents? No

Did their interviews broadcast to the members influence members? No. The amount of people attending candidate interviews were around a dozen maybe more with less than ten online. Although ten may be high.

Did the Surfside preservation candidate speeches influence members attending the meeting? No.  The meeting had about 30 members. There was almost the same amount of staff and board members.

The answers to these questions about how the board got elected will be answered. The board and Surfside preservation members on that board knows the answer.