IS THERE A MEETING - OCT. 18TH?
The 2011 October Board Meeting should be held on October 18th, the third Tuesday of the month. Has the meeting date been changed? Just a question, because I can't find the agenda for the meeting posted on the WPA website. As residents, we are suppose to have the opportunity to review the agenda, seven days prior to the meeting. Let's assume it is the "same old, same old", that this Board has operated under for months,and plan on attending the meeting.
In honesty I was hoping that it would be up and ready. This is the final monthly meeting, prior to the Annual Meeting, your opportunity to observe the Board Members in action, who are running again for a Board seat, before you actually vote. It is also the time when the Board can clean up any unsettled old business. The current Board Members, appointed or elected, who are running for Board are: Wilson, Thomas, Walters, McBride and McMillin.
The resident comment section may be your only opportunity to ask these individuals questions, that might help you decide how to vote. The Board didn't sponsor a candidate night. When all the candidates were invited to present a written platform, along with their bio's to a popular website, Wilson, Thomas, and Walters didn't. Why, wouldn't they want you to have as much information as possible, to determine whether to vote for them?
HERE ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN UNRESOLVED & THE BOARD MEMBERS INVOLVED:
*$500 PAID TO ATTORNEY MOODY, PRIOR TO BOARD AUTHORIZATION: During the June Board Meeting, Garrison brought up the fact that they had lawyer shopped and sought an opinion, without Board approval. The invoice has been presented and paid, and Huggins and Wilson incurred $500 of expense, prior to approval. This subject is so touchy that Huggins fired a Legal Committee Member, for questioning it (Look for the story regarding the firing and special meeting held regarding it, this weekend at this website.).
*$5,000 Canal Owner Dredging Assessment: During the August Board Meeting, McMillin stated that he was waiting for a legal ruling, before he followed up on the liens on the canal lot owners who had failed to pay their canal assessment. The lawsuit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas was settled on October 3rd. There wasn't a ruling on the assessment, never was written into either of the lawsuits. Will he settle this at the October Board Meeting, using the Board Attorney of Record's opinion, at the time the liens were sent? Wilson, Thomas, Barrier, Walters, and Garrison sent a letter to the Board last summer, stating they had no responsibility for the actions taken, regarding the liens. Is McMillin going to leave this up in the air until after they are allowed to vote at the Annual Meeting?
Will The Board Vote On A Management Company?: Sources tell me that the Management Company subcommittee has completed their work. They've made their recommendations to the Board and brought the recommended management company to the Board for a presentation. Will their efforts be rewarded with a vote? In the past, they've acted with haste, this is a thoroughly researched committee recommendation. "They'd hate to lose a good vendor, will they vote?
What Will The Board Do About Wilson's Attempt to Erase A Portion Of The June Board Meeting Tape?: The entire Board has ignored this, they are each responsible for doing nothing, except for McBride, who forced the issue at the Board table.
Will We Get A Report On The Progress Of The 2010 Audit?: We don't know if it is complete, but wouldn't it be wonderful if it was? We'll see if it comes up. If it is complete, will it and the management letter be available for our review, or become another hidden file?
Will The October Special Meeting Be Reported? Will the Board Tell Us Why It Wasn't Posted On The WPA Website? Where Was The Sign Posted Outside Of The Office Building?: We'll wait and see, but your Board unanimously passed a motion to do this for all executive and special meetings, during the May Board Meeting, and it hasn't happened. Either President Wilson or Secretary Huggins, should have taken care of this.
YOUR BOARD DIDN'T WANT A CANDIDATE NIGHT, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK THEM DURING THE RESIDENT COMMENT PERIOD? CONSIDER SOME OF THE FOLLOWING:
*If elected again, will you vote, manage, etc., with consistency, or will you stand by as the Legal Chair and President, lawyer shop between SC Non Profit Law and WPA governing documents, depending on who is presenting the issues, and which way the Legal Chair and President would like it to go? Will you insist on consistency? Will you stand up and notify residents when these situations occur, or sit back and watch them happen?
*Will you enforce the Board's unanimous vote to notify residents of special and executive meetings? Will you notify residents to the best of your ability, if your Board fails to? Will you allow the meetings to be open to resident viewing, except for personnel. Will you use the term "personnel" appropriately, as it applies to paid staff - only, rather than use it as a term to exclude residents?
*Will you as an individual Board Member, follow the WPA Policy Manual as it relates to Board Member spending, contract bidding & awards, insuring the best price, with the best possible vendor, with appropriate license and insurance?
*Will you endorse resident access to records review, according to the By-Laws?
*Will you as an individual Board Member sign, and ask that all Board Members sign the Board Code of Ethics, and represent the residents accordingly?
*Will you answer resident comments, in a timely manner, with proper documentation and respect, no matter who the resident is?
*Who, in the field of candidates and sitting Board Members, would you vote for, for President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Vice President?
*If the Board has voted on a management company prior to your election, how would you vote, and why?
COMMENTS: I like to seek a second opinion on important issues. Where does one go for that, when it involves your HOA board? I went back through the minutes of the meetings for 2011. This year again, was nothing but chaos, and we have some of the same people running for re-election. I hate to say it but I got the following from the June 2011 Minutes, Garrison is the speaker: "After November's election it was my hope that the newly elected board would opt to move forward and place the business of this association ahead of individual agendas. Sadly, this has turned out not to be the case.
Most of you in this room are already aware of a number of things that have transpired that has brought this board back to square one over and over. The lack of stability and confusion has limited the Board's ability to function, and continue to do so. This is a business. You cannot run a business with constant changes and upheaval. At some point you need to have a group of people that has to get something done. I have been on this board for 7 months and do not feel anything has been done."
He then talks about the fact that a petition has been delivered to remove certain Board Members under SC Laws, that Moran Attorney of Record, has given the Petitioners a favorable opinion, that he Garrison had tried to call an Executive Meeting to discuss the boards' stance, the meeting was called an cancelled, the matter wasn't discussed, yet a letter was sent to the petitioners stating they didn't meet the requirements. The Board had not been given any notice prior to Wilson sending the notice. It was then Wilson and Huggins went lawyer shopping and incurred expense, without approval.
Garrison goes on, "Will the board of WPA ever understand that same rules need to apply ALL the time? Not just when it's convenient. Those disagreements should be decided by issues and not by personalities? It seems deciding unlikely, and in failing to establish this statement within this board, I feel I have failed in my duty as Vice President of this Association."
Surprised that Garrison is my second opinion? Well I'll qualify and say, "he has his moments, but he isn't always consistent" At this point and time the quote spoke to your dilemma, as a voter, approaching the decision, as to whether to vote for incumbents: McBride, McMillin, Wilson, Thomas, and Walters. I encourage you to review their votes and actions. If they represent your belief in how this Board should operate, vote for them. I suggest you question them. Some of them have turned against sound management, business judgement, and consistent governance - whether it be our governing documents, or SC Non Profit Law. McBride has consistently stayed with sound judgement and brought issues publicly to the Board table, at times to the ridicule of the rest of the Board. As to the others go back to documents, votes, and truth.
Give the new candidates a chance, they are Bill Steiner, Al DeMarchi, and Janine Cline.
