AGM Detailed Results & Recording Announcement – October 23^nd:

Below you’ll find the tallied votes for each Election along with the link to the recording and the commentary submitted. A big thanks again to everyone who participated and had their voice heard. There were 263 ballots submitted.

Recording: Here’s a link to the recording of the 2020 SMLCA AGM: https://zoom.us/rec/share/qioTPE91asKwNBtte8wR7w8oO2jKxubA-5EwDAy_7FZlW2Zr7OaGTPG3fXKdQ_pl.4sO84yqB3GryrZIt. The password is: ki^U6pW@

Board of Directors Results:

Below is the list of the candidates than ran for the 2020/2021 Board of Directors and the tallied votes:

• Frank Boddy (Returning Director) = 153 votes
• Denise Edwards (Returning Director) = 166 votes
• Vince Hosick (Returning Director) = 207 votes
• Craig Cameron (Returning Director) = 247 votes
• Rick Jocsak (Returning Director) = 249 votes
• Harold Toiviainen (Returning Previous Director) = 243 votes
• Adrian Koene (New Director) = 128 votes
• Jason Wilson (New Director) = 219 votes
• Brian Ingham (New Director) = 205 votes
• Erik Otema (New Director) = 117 votes
• Bernadette Mitchell (New Director) = 165 votes
• Tony Schmidt (New Director) = 132 votes

Officer Roles Results:

The results of the Officers election saw the following individuals acclaimed to their roles:

• Frank Boddy (President); Denise Edwards (Vice-President); Harold Toiviainen (Vice-President) = 156 votes
• Abstain = 107 votes

Member Motions Results & Comments:

The results of the four (4) Motions raised by Robin Bolton and seconded by Dave Jordan are as follows:

• Motion #6 – I move that the Directors obtain an opinion from a lawyer on the “Object” contained in the Letters Patent, which reads “To represent the owners of the cottages in the area in dealing with official bodies, other organizations and individuals.” The opinion should clarify the limits of the mandate of the Board, to “represent the owners of the cottages”, particularly as regards advocacy in local government issues.
  • Yes – I support the motion = 103 votes (40.2%)
  • No – I do not support the motion = 153 votes (59.8%)
  • Abstentions = 7 votes

Comments:

1. 1. The SMLCA should continue to represent and advocate for cottagers on a variety of issues, including planning and other GBT issues.
   2. Clarity is required. The major point that the Association overstepped cottager’s property rights is appropriate.  Whether the Associate directly requested the restrictions on building size and characteristics, there is no doubt in my mind that it influenced the nature of the changes to the Building Codes and Official Plan to make them more restrictive from a property owner rights perspective.
   3. From reading this motion, it appears that any ‘disharmony’ has been created by Robin and his associates. I do not approve of divisive maneuvers. Please try to work together. It is inevitable there will be disagreements within associations, but positive interaction is best
   4. I believe it would be a waste of money.
   5. I support the motion and would request that Robin and Dave and their group please stop attacking Frank Boddy and other directors.
   6. SMLCA has clarified to Township that they will not comment on individual variance and zoning applications and clause was added to Directors Code of Conduct.
   7. It is unfortunate that the Object does not use “To represent the members of the SMLCA … ” instead of “to represent the owners of cottages … “
   8. Our letters patent are but a single input. Without a proper mission statement, doing this review would be meaningless.

• Motion #7 – I move that the Directors survey all Members, and receive approval by a majority of Members, prior to making any representation to the Township of Georgian Bay on any matter which would impact the Members’ property rights.
  • Yes – I support the motion = 96 votes (37.6%)
  • No – I do not support the motion = 159 votes (62.4%)
  • Abstentions = 8 votes

Comments:

1. 1. I support the motion “as is” and ask the new board revisit the motion, if this motion is passed, by going to the base of members to get input to include the wording on, “material matters or policy matters”. Given the intent of this motion is to not handcuff the SMLCA Board on “non-material or non-policy matters”.
   2. “The new board should pay very close attention to the spirit of the motion. Prior to making any representation to the Township of Georgian Bay on any matter which would impact the Members’ “”material”” property rights. I strongly support a survey to be sent all members. This survey should request comments by the members on the proposed changes as well. A majority approval of those who respond to the survey should be obtained before ANY suggestion to the township be made regarding material property rights.”
   3. Perhaps a change in wording….Majority could be replaced with plurality?
   4. This seems like a huge amount of time and effort for a volunteer board with a small budget.
   5. I support the spirit of the motion but not the wording. It should read “majority of RESPONDENTS, not members.
   6. The mover of the motion admitted it should have been worded differently, I can’t therefore support this either.
   7. “A poorly worded motion Therefore we cannot support something this vague”
   8. I support the spirit of this motion, recognizing that wording does need to be adjusted and further clarified. I would appreciate the future board looking further in to this though.

• Motion #8 – I move that the Directors obtain an opinion from a lawyer on the minimum legally required percentage of Members required to call a general meeting, and make the necessary change to By-Law #4 if 10% is the legally required minimum percentage.
  • Yes – I support the motion = 92 votes (35.9%)
  • No – I do not support the motion = 164 votes (64.1%)
  • Abstentions = 7 votes

Comments:

1. 1. I feel that lowering the number to 10% will tax the SMLCA unduly and that small groups can approach the association directly without having to call a meeting.
   2. The increase from 10 to 20% makes it too difficult to interject into BOD decisions and behaviours.
   3. “As this issue received legal advice in 2018, it is impractical to revisit the 20% requirement. Remembering that the Board is composed of volunteers, calling a general meeting is appropriate when the issue is of interest to at least 20% of members. A general meeting requires a lot of time, and should not be mandated for every minor interest. Members who wish to raise issues are encouraged to do so with the Board.”
   4. Our condo quorum is 25% so its seems reasonable that 20%, as it is above the minimum of 10%, is fitting for our cottagers’ association.
   5. Want 20% minimum
   6. I agree with the comment that ‘not less than 10%’ clearly means the % may be greater than 10%.  The proposed % is still quite low.
   7. “Why was it thought by the Board that it would be better to further restrict members’ democratic rights? Money was cited as one of the reasons for the Board opposing this motion. I would like to point out that the board supports spending $15,000 on fireworks which is in my opinion an extravagant  use of the members’ money.”
   8. The Board has frequently used “cost” as a factor to consider in approving or disapproving a motion. While it is a factor I do not think it should be the major factor and I think it has been overplayed. Let’s decide what is right/best for the Association and then figure how to get there.

• Motion #9 – I move that the Board of Directors be required to reinstate the Mission Statement on the SMLCA website by placing it next to the “SMLCA Letters Patent” and the “By-Law No. 4” pdf files in the “Executive” section of “About” on the website.
  • Yes – I support the motion = 83 votes (32.8%)
  • No – I do not support the motion = 170 votes (67.2%)
  • Abstentions = 10 votes

Comments:

1. 1. Board members- please work to put these issues behind us ( hopefully thru compromise). We need to get back to focusing on the health and beauty of our lake,   We also need to  engage with the provincial park to promote safe , responsible boating and respect for lake residents.  They have increased their park docks and boating facilities greatly and have little to no signage.
   2. I think that forming a committee to review the mission statement on a yearly basis is an effective solution to this issue. I do not feel that the SMLCA members need to have direct input into the content of this.
   3. Reinstating the mission statement will not solve any issues about the Board exceeding its mandate. Let’s focus on ensuring that the Board does not advocate for any interest group
   4. “My thanks to the outgoing board and committees for their work for our Six Mile Lake Cottagers and my thanks and appreciation to the newly elected members to the incoming board and other committee members. Having served on boards for the last 60 years, I truly understand the challenges that you are forced to deal with. We thank you for your dedication and service.”
   5. The Board had plenty of time to not simply craft a negative “The Board Opposes this motion” but instead draft a mission statement to bring forward to this AGM for member input. Yet the current Board chose not to do so. The current mission statement can certainly be revisited. It is not necessarily a lengthy process as the Board stated. A simple re-draft was all that was necessary to get member input in a timely manner in a public forum.
   6. I approve of the proposal in the comments as to how the Board will proceed on this ‘issue’.
   7. “I support that the removed Mission statement be approved as previously stated and reinstated on the website. If and when a committee is formed to review the Mission, it can be amended at that point.”
   8. Could invite members to participate in a new mission statement. Or, a new board of directors could propose a new mission statement for membership input. Lets make it a new project.
   9. I see nothing wrong with putting the existing mission statement on the website. It may not be perfect but I believe that  it should be there until steps have been taken to actually “craft” a new one.
   10. I would like to see a committee think about whether we need a mission statement or not.
   11. Thanks Frank and board for all your hard work on our behalf. It is sad that you have to put up with unnecessary crap from a few.  Your moderator had a difficult task and handled his role extremely well.
   12. The Board MUST strike a committee on this or they will lose the confidence of the Members.
   13. i support the efforts of the existing board to look after my family’s best interest, as they have since 1953
   14. “A mission statement must involve collaboration from members and directors A clear mission statement should become a project in the future “
   15. I strongly agree with the statement: “There is a huge difference between “informing lake residents” on these matters, and “proactively advocating” on these matters.”
   16. Agree there should be consultation as suggested by the board.

Note: All comments have been untouched with the exception of #4 in section 9. The Member’s name was removed from this comment for privacy.

If you need to contact any of our Directors, their contact information is on our Executive page here: http://sixmilelake.net/about/executive/  and you can always submit any questions you have to info@sixmilelake.net.

Thanks again to everyone that came to the AGM this year – we really appreciate the time you took and the feedback you provided.

Thanks.

SMLCA Board of Directors