NOTE: This article was updated on May 17th. See added writing in blue at the bottom
The following observations are about what I (remember I) observed under New Business during the May 15th Board Meeting. Additionally, I will add statements that involve my prior interaction with the subject of confidentiality. AS ALWAYS I ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO TO THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES AND LISTEN TO THE TAPE OF THE MEETING.
Board Member McBride brought a motion to the Board table under New Business (as first reading) to change the language in the Policy Manual regarding confidentiality. That is Section IV, # 1.03, Confidentiality Statement: A "Confidentiality Agreement" form is to be signed by each Director, the staff, and committee members that may have access to confidential WPA membership information. See Appendix IV-3."
Prior to making the motion he attempted to give background or rationale for the potential change. Garrison, Legal Chair and Vice President, said as a side line, "are we ever going to get a motion out of this.?" He who pontificates on subjects, won't allow another Board Member time to speak? It gets worse. McBride states his motion which basically intends to remove and committee members from the blue quote above. To capsulize, he states that staff and Directors are indemnified. They are covered by the association insurance. Volunteers are not. It potentially puts volunteers at risk.
Garrison says he can't come up with a scenario that would put volunteer committee members in jeopardy. He then goes after McBride saying the Board voted on confidentiality three months ago and McBride knowingly had committee members who had not signed. He asks McBride where his due diligence is. He went on for quite some time. Listen to the tape. It reminded me of the Board Meetings when he went after two female Board Members. Quite frankly it was disgusting. In the end a second motion is made to take the issue to the attorney for advice.
I spoke during the resident comment period and told the Board how disgusted I was with the confidentiality portion of the meeting. Why was it disgusting? For a number of reasons. First, for the way the Board, Garrison in particular treated McBride. It was bad enough to sit and watch. Personally, I am sick of the rest of the Board sitting on their hands while Garrison and others, appear to want to demean McBride's relevance. It happens meeting after meeting and this Board has laid claim to a self identitfication of cohesive. Really? Where is President Walton? McBride is a member who was ELECTED by the membership for a three year term. He earned his seat on the Board. He has stood out as the person who wants to open the issues and discuss them at the Board table. His efforts come at a high personal price. I want Board Members who respect me enough as a resident to bring the challenges of leadership to the Board table. I don't want a big brother administration.
Second, I ask Garrison and at least two other Board Members where their due diligence was on this particular issue, if that is truly a concern? I am a member of a Water Amenities subcommittee. I have been advised by my attorney not to sign the confidentiality statement. It is not enforceable (Under the By-Laws, they can't even fire a Board Member who breaks it.), and it does put a volunteer at risk, without the protection of the indemnification that Board Members and staff enjoy. As to Garrison's question about a possible scenario, where has he been living since at least 2009? We have had good, decent, hardworking people sued. These same good people have had their names plastered in our newspapers, in public meetings, and have been threatened with prison terms - without real reason. When the Board approves a committee member I would hope that they have looked at their character and integrity!
In my case, I sit on a subcommittee - the Canal Committee, that was invited to meet with the Board Legal Committee on April 26th. Prior to the meeting, I had sat in several subcommittee meetings, having fully disclosed the fact that I hadn't signed the Confidentiality Agreement. I have not disclosed the discussions of those meetings. On the evening of the 26th, three Board Members were present at the meeting: President Walton, Garrison, and Anderson. As we settled into the meeting Garrison made a statement saying he was sure that everyone present had signed the agreement. I informed him that I had not, because I had been advised not to, and would not sign it. I pleasantly told the people present that I would leave without any unpleasantness. I was told they wanted to hear what I had to say. After a short period Garrison told the group that he had spoken to me off the record twice and the conversations had not come back to him, nor did they appear in print anywhere. I was allowed to stay and participate. I have not, nor will I break my word to hold the contents of the meeting itself in confidence.
My question to Garrison is where was your due diligence? Where was the due diligence of the other Board Members who were present at that meeting, if that is the real issue? I have held to the integrity of my word. Where is the entire Board's due diligence? By the way, do you want to know who was missing the evening of the meeting? McBride. To my knowledge he was NOT invited or informed of the date and time of the meeting. WHERE IS DUE DILIGENCE, FOLLOWING PROTOCOL, AND PROCEDURE IN THAT? He is the Chair of the Water Amenities Committee!
Finally, take a look at the Confidentiality Agreement: "Wedgefield Plantation Association has policies and procedures regarding confidentiality of information from inappropriate and/or unlawful disclosure. When data is collected and aggregated, individual member confidentiality is protected. All staff and volunteers (board and committee) agree in writing to maintain member confidentiality. Information concerning member status, and financial and other personal information is processed for each individual members through Wedgefield Plantation Association office and is an important part of Wedgefield Plantation. CONFIDENTIALITY IS ESSENTIAL!! I understand that any member information to which I have access, through verbal knowledge, access to records or through attendance at board meeting is privileged and shall be held in strict confidence. Member information will only be shared with appropriate Wedgefield Plantation Association personnel."
Whether you believe volunteer committee members should be required to sign the agreement or not, what does it have to do with most committee work? The agreement is oriented toward individual financial information. The Canal Committee has no need to know the association individual resident finance information. My grandmother use to say, "a fool and their money are soon parted". I say only a fool doesn't listen to their attorney.
Yes, today I am still disgusted with the manner the Board treated McBride. I am concerned about the Board's apparent disregard for a person we elected.
UPDATE: After I wrote the article and was thinking through confidentilty. I remembered conversations that took place at the Board table, and it caused me to further question the Board's dedication to the protection of our personal financial information. My question after thinking about it was "Has the policy been developed in an honest effort to protect us, or as another gimmick to keep control of their agenda until they are ready to tell us how things will be? Why would I have this question? The Board itself does not follow the policy, as recent as Tuesday evening. There will be a separate article to cover the subject on a vote to repair bulk head on a canal but while the Board was in discussion during the meeting they named the property owner involved and discussed the fact that the owner hadn't paid their $5,000 assessment. They further stated that he had started to pay and quit when the bulk head failed. Isn't that personal financial information being disclosed to the public at large?
This isn't the first time. Remember, I posted an article when they did this to the resident called "Curb Man". At that time the issue had not gone to court. They hadn't reached the point where the individual had been served papers of a lawsuit. They named him, gave details on what he owed, etc. Do they only want to protect those that they want to, or is the protection sacred for every home owner? Nothing can be done to the Board Members who exposed private information. There are no penalties for those who violate it.
DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? Send it to wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Be sure and note whether you want your name published or not.
