During the May 15th meeting the Board unanimously passed a motion to seek legal opinion on a possible option for the long term maintenance of the canals.
BACKGROUND:
First, be sure and listen to the tape at The Wedgefield Times. This is a delicate subject. It is difficult to discuss for a number of reasons. First, the residents present heard the motion to go to the attorney for advice, but we were not privy to what the option was. It was not revealed.
In discussion Garrison explained that the Legal Committee had met with a subcommittee of the Water Amenities Committee, the Canal Committee. During that meeting there was some option common ground, worth exploring from a legal aspect, as to the feasibility. The over riding goal was to develop a plan that was viable, legal, and could be a possible solution over the long term. There was some mention of the fact that an option might come to a vote by the community through a possible by-law change. If the option isn't feasible then it can publicly be checked off the maybe list, and the group sent back to the drawing table.
I give the Board credit for attempting to resolve this issue.
CONFUSING?:
Maybe, but in fairness, I don't believe intentional. I believe most of the Board Members effort is genuine. Confusing because you don't know what the option is? As I was thinking about this I thought that living in Wedgefield with the canal issue is almost like like living in a war zone. There is nothing that can be announced or discussed, without artillery flying from one side or another. Yet, even in an honest effort, sometimes the means, harms a good intentioned goal. What do I mean?
Wouldn't it have been cleaner to state the option that the Board was seeking legal opinion on? When a public feels there is secrecy, it often brings out the worst in those who wait, in speculation. We suffered the speculation of a multitude of untruths during the 2009 -10 dredging effort. Between July and August 2009, when the vote was taken, the Board met 2 or 3 times (the entire Board) with the Canal Finance Committee to review options. During that time, some Board Members discussed options (with their own twist) with what they called their constituency. Before the Board could take the vote and lay out the plan, some individuals went door to door frightening non canal lot owners with threats of unbelievable assessment. They used their speculation to raise the fear level of the community. This all caused protests, newspaper articles, and law suits.
DOES THE BOARD HAVE A BINDING INSTRUMENT TO USE IN KEEPING THE OPTION CONFIDENTIAL?:
I don't personally think so. As stated in an earlier article, when the Canal Committee met with the Legal Committee to discuss options, Legal Chair, Garrison called on confidentiality through use of the Confidentiality Agreement. The agreement doesn't fit the circumstance. The key protection on confidentiality lies in the following: "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. " Whether you believe anyone should be signing the Confidentiality Agreement, or not, it simply does not apply to the circumstance of most committee's.
I have sympathy for the Board's apparent attempt to try and keep control of speculation as they attempt to look at long term answers to a contentious problem. Use of this instrument to stifle communication with the community just appears heavy handed for a Board that labels itself as cohesive, and for many of the Board Members who pledged open governance, when they wanted our votes last fall. This unenforceable instrument has also limited the residents who are willing to serve on any committee. I know of three who were serving on committees and would not continue when the requirement to sign the agreement was enforced.
Don't think, "too bad, so sad". We have reduced the benefit of the committee structure when we limit the number of knowledgeable volunteers coming to the table. Our Boards in general have a history of failing to recognize the power of properly utilizing committees. More members, more ideas, more buy in from the community, and more ideas for the committee chairs to bring to the Board table.
Finally, why should we all be denied information because of the bad behavior of a certain section of our community? Quite frankly, we still have some of the former protesters, newspaper groupies, providers of speculation, fear mongers, and lawsuit slingers, sitting on our Board and committees. Are they afraid residents will cause harm to them, as they did to others? If you say, "maybe it is lessons learned", I don't believe it. That section of the Board may be afraid they might have to deal with the same kind of havoc they brought to our community. Is that why Garrison says, "it will never happen like it did last time."
I don't want havoc. I want open, don't beat around the bush governance. As for the Board Members we elected in 2011 and those that recently filled vacancies, you may have been mesmerized by the "cohesive persuaders", but there really isn't cohesion when you break your pledges, revert to secrecy, reduce access to information, etc., and develop a poorly constructed instrument - the Confidentiality Agreement.
As a member of the Canal Committee, who hasn't signed the Confidentiality Agreement, I gave my word not to discuss the "option". My lips are sealed about that. I did not promise to remain silent on how the Board is handling this.
DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION? Send it to: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Be sure and note whether you want your name published.
