I have reported and transcribed a portion of the October 2014, WPA Grounds Report to the best of my ability. As always, I recommend that you listen to the tape of the meeting for yourself, to verify the information. Direct board member transcribed quotes will be provided in quotation marks and underlined. COMMENTS WILL BE NOTED AS SUCH AND BE PRINTED IN RED. It should be noted that whatever this board tried to lay on the table regarding fires, during the October Board Meeting, that it was only first reading. Second reading won't take place until the December WPA meeting. Until then, we should all have to live by the board's published "no exception", restrictions, including the board members.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this. It is 9:00 PM on William Screven St. It is totally dark, and yet what looks like two young skateboarders, are going full tilt down the dark road. They are slapping their boards against the pavement, and headed around the curve, onto Pine Grove Lane. If a car comes around that curve, unaware because the youth don't have lights, who will be at fault if they are hit? Again, do you know where your children are?
This graphic and message from the WPA Board appeared in the latest edition of the Wedgefield Wragg. You'll note, "NO EXCEPTIONS". On October 29th, The Wedgefield Examiner, will provide a transcription of the "Grounds Report", from the October WPA Meeting. In the mean time, prepare to yell, "fire, fire, in Wedgefield". Who gets to burn? Who will decide whether you burned according to the rules? How much will it cost you? It looks like another discussion necessitated by one board member's social agenda.
I have received a response from the board, regarding my request for $5,700. Three items are provided, (1) The Board's Letter, (2) My Response To Their Letter, (3) A 2010 Request For Refund Signed By 17 Canal Lot Owners, Including Some Who Sit On The Current Board (I have removed all the names, to protect individual resident privacy. The board should have a copy in their correspondence file.)
Before you read, if you haven't already, you may want to go to BLOG ARCHIVE at the bottom of the blog page, to Sept. 26, and read, "The WPA September Board Meeting Legal Report". You decide while reading the transcription, whether Legal Chair Garrison, was clear, and up front. DESPITE THE BOARD'S ANSWER, YOU STILL SHOULD CONSIDER SENDING YOUR REQUEST FOR A REFUND.
THE BOARD'S LETTER
MY RESPONSE TO THEIR LETTER
2010 REQUEST FOR REFUND SIGNED BY 17 CANAL LOT OWNERS
The Wedgefield Examiner posted the complete article regarding former board attorney of record, Moody's disbarment, in the article titled "S.C. Supreme Court Disbars Former WPA Attorney". I am quoting a paragraph from the second page of the news article. Is the WPA the client mentioned in the paragraph? Having watched this process closely, I believe there is much more than a small chance that we are, or may have been left in similar circumstance. Here is the quote from the newspaper article: "Moody also is accused of lying to a judge by stating that he had not received an opposing counsel's court filing when, in fact, he had received it months earlier. Moody, in that case, also FAILED TO TELL HIS CLIENTS THAT THEIR CASE HAD BEEN DISMISSED.those clients did not learn about the dismissal until after they retrieved their case file following Moody's interim suspension." If we are the client noted, almost your entire board, in the blind following of Legal Chair Garrison, is RESPONSIBLE. Why? It could appear that Garrison is on a hidden agenda. First he may have covered the facts, and then in order to push his Concerned Citizen agenda, declared that all this ended, in a ruling. Then he nails anyone who has questions. It has been documented many times that he is dismissive and verbally abusive when questioned, or challenged. At the point that Moody was suspended from practicing law, in his two lawyer office, his partner Maring was named by the courts to assume his files, notify banks, etc. Clients were advised in writing that they could pick up their files. There was a discussion at the board table about retaining Maring, so as not to have to pay someone to catch up. McBride asked if that was wise. He asked if the board shouldn't try and find out what the charges against Moody were, and whether we would be best served by Maring. He also suggested the board search for a new attorney. One of Garrison's flip answers, during the exchange with McBride, as the balance of the board sat in silence, let it happen, was "I DON'T KNOW MAYBE THEIR WIVES DIDN'T GET ALONG" Move forward to August, and Garrison announces that Maring has done nothing for them, in months. They can't get answers. Next, they hire a new lawyer, pay to bring him up to date, and just maybe we all are going to suffer. If we are that client, or in similar circumstances, it could appear that Garrison is trying to give the impression that a judge has ruled on Individual Assessment, when all he has is a settlement. I listed questions, in the article mentioned above, perhaps you should begin to ask those questions - NOW. I would, but to coin a phrase Garrison often uses at the board table when asked to get legal opinion, or opinions in writing, "I'm not inclined to do that." Your board, often isn't inclined to answer my questions. Earlier this week, a resident asked if I wanted to bust the association, by asking for a return of the dredging assessment. If you saw it, you also read my answer. After reviewing the article on Moody, if circumstances are right, we wouldn't deserve our assessments returned. What are the circumstances? If we are the client mentioned in the quote above, or were left in similar circumstances, then Legal Chair Garrison needs to tell us exactly what happened, tell us that it was a huge legal mistake, rather than cover up, and pretend that they got a ruling on Individual Assessment. President Walton, needs to remove Garrison, as legal chair and his committee, resign his president role on the board, and remove DeMarchi as Compliance Chair and his Concerned Citizen Committee. If the resident doesn't have to pay because of default of the process, rather than a ruling, and that is explained from the board table, none of the rest of us should get our money back.