Dear Madeline,
The timing of your posting of the ‘threatening e-mail’ was so appropriate. I was discussing the motion that Jason made regarding Bell and malpractice with several residents after the March meeting. We were all wondering about what he, Jason, meant by the statement concerning a ‘letter’ and ‘must’ make the motion. One of the people that I was speaking with asked at the office for a copy of this letter only to be told that there wasn’t one.
I asked several times for the same letter and was given permission to see it today. You are correct in saying that this was an attempt at extortion. I do not understand why members of the Board tried to hide its existence and did not bring it to light at the March meeting. Bob spoke about compromise and working together knowing this letter was in the background. I hope that the Board has forwarded the e-mail to Mr. Moody and that Moody will respond to the sender. It is also my hope that Jacky Walton will bring this threat to the membership at the next meeting with the caveat to all that the Board will not succumb to threats.
Surprise! Surprise! I received an answer from our Community Liaison, Jason Barrier, today. I asked to see the above mentioned e-mail as well as the correspondence file. Jason said he didn’t care, it was Al’s decision. Jason went on to chastise me about writing too much, the state of the legal affairs here, etc. I am waiting to be blamed for the economy and high gas prices. Jason seems to levy charges without having the facts. I decided that, having no opposition, I would go look at the correspondence file.
My reception at the office was cold. I think I have been put in your boat, Madeline. I did receive the file, earmarked five items that I wanted copies of, and was prepared to leave. Another resident game into the office as I was making a list of the pages that I wanted. This resident was greeted warmly and with great enthusiasm. In fact, this resident sat in the inner office reviewing papers. I guess we’re back to different strokes for different folks.
Madeline, please post the following facts on your blog:
Jude Davis alone is not suing Bob Garrison, Roger Armistead, Johnny Huggins, Carol Zieske, Fred Thomas, and George Wilson. The plaintiffs in this suit were formerly defendants in the suit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas. The new plaintiffs are: Madeline Claveloux, Jude Davis, Karl Gettmann, Brenda Martin, Larry McMillin, and Ruth Reames.
I have complained about the communication between Moody and Perrow as unethical. Today, I found in the correspondence file a letter from Carol Zieske saying that she was at a meeting with Moody in order to “explain the legal situation out here.” I doubt that her opinion of the legal situation is the same as mine. When I asked about the rumor that I heard about this meeting, I was told that Moody met with Carol solely about her proposed By-law change. Someone’s nose is growing!
The canal assessment was an individual assessment as allowed by our By-laws. This By-law doesn’t say that it has to be a small amount but does say it can be used in any way the Board of Director’s sees fit. AT THIS TIME, NO ONE IS CHALLENGING THIS ASSESSMENT IN COURT. It continues to amaze me that an individual assessment was levied when Carol Zieske was on the Board for front ditch maintenance. Members paid $2.00/foot to clean WPA property.
And the beat goes on...
Jude
