ERROR IN MINUTES OF MARCH 2012 MEETING, A UPDATE TO: YOU'LL HAVE TO READ IT TO BELIEVE IT - A LETTER TO THE BOARD THAT WILL PROBABLY RESULT IN , "NO ANSWER, WE AREN'T HOME"

I don't have a lot of time to spend on this.  It is end of day and I have been busy.  I have done my homework.  Will you do your homework?  First, if you haven't already, go to the previous article and read through it.  I've quoted the APPROVED  MINUTES, OF THE MARCH 20TH 2012 MEETING.   I've done a little more homework.  YOUR Board promised you that they would post the meeting tapes of our monthly meetings on the WPA website.  It has been almost a year and they haven't done it.  So I went to the only source you have to listen to a complete tape of the meetings - The Wedgefield Times.  I am grateful for this site.

BOTTOM LINE:  There is no motion, as stated in the APPOVED MINUTES OF THE MARCH 20, 2012 MINUTES.   In case you haven't gone back to the previous mentioned article, here is the motion,

"Bob Garrison made a motion to provide funding to have Attorney Moody to proceed with

a motion regarding re-instating Karl Gettmann and Jude Davis to the Board of

Directors. This is associated with their removal from the Board in July or August of

2010. A second was made by Al DeMarchi. Motion Passed"
Now you go to the Wedgefield Times and listen to the tape at approximately 57 minutes and 47 seconds.  IT ISN'T THERE.  I SUGGEST THAT YOU BACK UP AND LISTEN TO THE WHOLE LEGAL REPORT.

What does it mean?  You decide.  A few facts.  First, here is a quote from the April 2012 APPROVED MINUTES regarding APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 2012 MINUTES, "Approval of minutes.  Approve March minutes - A motion was made by Janine Cline and seconded by Bob Garrison to accept the March as submitted.  Motion passed unanimously."  Second fact, these were the Board Members present at the meeting:  Anderson, Cline, Garrison, McBride, Walton (President), McMillin, Barrier, John Walton.  Absent:  DeMarchi.  QUESTION:  Did they read the minutes?  How did this happen?  What is behind this?

I won't speculate.  I've been sued.  I've countersued.  I have no intention of misquoting, or misguiding anyone.  I questioned this Board when they decided that transcription of ALL OF THE TAPE WASN'T MINUTES.  I know that,  but obviously we are living during litigious times and it is a safe guard for ALL.  People, LISTEN TO THE TAPE.  THIS MOTION IS NOT THERE.

Will you do your homework and write the Board?  Will you find out WHY WE ARE BEING MISLEAD THROUGH OUR MINUTES?

This appears to be a lie to our Wedgefield residents.  You'll decide, but it reminds me of two things. 

I'm involved with an eight year old who told a white lie.  A little white lie.  She is in counseling for other reasons.  Her parents advised her to tell her counselor about the white lie.  After her session, when asked what she talked about, she said she told the advisor about the lie.  What did she have to say? she was asked.  She said the advisor drew a tiny circle and said that was like a lie.  Then she drew bigger and bigger circles and it was explained to the child that once you tell a little, tiny lie, it grous and grows, to cover the lie.  Were we lied to?  I don't know.  You'll decide, but let's see if we get bigger circles.  How will your Board explain this?  Will we see big circles?

Finally, I'm as human as anyone else.  I will confess that whenn I'm cooking, ironing, etc., that I listen to Judge Judy.  No laughing, she has a long, sterling court history, and then TV, which can be viewed as daytime drama.  She is true to herself.  Often when she is confronted by a lie, she says this, "don't pee on my leg, and tell me it is raining."

How will your Board respond?  Will they respond?  I don't know.  I'm not accussing anyone, but we all deserve an answer.  Where is my umbrella?  Who knows whether it will be rain, or not?

YOU'LL HAVE TO READ IT TO BELIEVE IT - A LETTER TO THE BOARD THAT WILL PROBABLY RESULT IN A "NO ANSWER, WE AREN'T HOME"

Today I was researching information on the WPA website.  I still can't believe what I read.  How did I miss this?  What has the Board done about it since?  What was the purpose?  Were Gettmann and Davis advised, asked, or anything?   What is Garrison up to?  THE FOLLOWING WAS TAKEN FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 20, 2012 LEGAL REPORT:

"Bob Garrison made a motion to provide funding to have Attorney Moody to proceed with

a motion regarding re-instating Karl Gettmann and Jude Davis to the Board of

Directors. This is associated with their removal from the Board in July or August of

2010. A second was made by Al DeMarchi. Motion Passed"

Rattled by this, I checked the approved minutes for April & May.  There was no update in either month under the legal report, or old business. 

I've always believed that Davis and Gettmann were robbed of their seats.  Garrison was one of the headliners in the propaganda leading up to their  (illegal - my humble opinion) removal.  I personally can't wait for Moody's opinion.  Will it be in my life time?  No one would like to see Gettmann & Davis back at the Board table, more than I would.  Could someone please tell me what is going on?  What is more baffling is that I was at the March Meeting. I don't remember this happening.  I would have been writing about it immediately.

IN THE MEAN TIME GO TO THE WPA WEBSITE AND REVIEW THE MARCH 2012 LEGAL REPORT FOR YOURSELF

P.S.  I'm cutting a pasting this and sending it straignt to the Board.  The management company wasn't involved during this time.  Either way, I probably won't get an answer.

SECOND UPDATE TO:TIME OUT TO WRITE THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Second UpDate:  Management Company (Mr. LaFrance) acknowledges emails. As you read you'll note that our representative has had a death in the family.  I am sincerely sorry to read that.  In an effort to keep you informed I'm providing the following response:



I published the email I sent c/o the management company on June 20th.  To date, I don't know whether our representative has received it, or intends to answer it.  I sent the following today, June 26th.  Here it is:

UPDATE 6/26/12: MR. LaFrance Acknowledges Today's Email:  I'll Keep You Informed and Share Any Response Relating to My Emails of 6/20 and 6/26

Edmund LaFrance <elafrance@wmdouglas.com> mclaveloux@sc.rr.com

Subject: Read: Correspondence Attached

Priority: Normal Date: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:16 AM Size: 4 KB

Attachments:

Your message To: elafrance@wmdouglas.com Subject: Correspondence Attached Sent: 6/26/2012 8:41 AM was read on 6/26/2012 10:15 AM. Reporting-UA: wmdouglas.com; Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Final-Recipient: rfc822;elafrance@wmdouglas.com Original-Message-ID: <20120626124109.JC3UI.183643.root@cdptpa-web26-z01> Disposition: manual-action/MDN-sent-automatically; displayed

PART III, THE JUNE 19TH WPA BOARD MEETING - TREASURER'S REPORT

NOTE: A reminder to you, if you didn't attend the meeting, or require clarification, GO TO THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES and LISTEN TO THE TAPE YOURSELF. In 2011 your Board agreed to post their copy of the meeting tapes on the WPA website, but it hasn't happened.

CONTACT THE BLOG:wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Be sure and note whether you would like your name published with your email.

DON'T FORGET TO READ THE JUNE 25TH UPDATE ON PART II.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WPA Treasurer, Janine Cline, was absent. Al DeMarchi gave the report. The first item of business was to make a motion to contract for audit services for year 2011.  The Board had sought bids and this appeared to be a legal, ethical, process and vote by the Board.

Again, I remind you to listen to the tape.  I do my best to take notes during the meeting.  I'll report what I saw and heard.  DeMarchi stated that it was necessary to allocate our reserves because it was necessary for filing taxes and they didn't want it noted in another audit.  The Board would have to vote through a motion to approve the allocations.

DeMarchi went on to say that he had done a 5 year study of expense and allocated accordingly.  When McBride started to question DeMarchi said he had given his figures to Cline and to remember they were allocated to specific areas, not restricted.

McBride had questions.What did you decide was important?  What values did you look at? DeMarchi asks, "John do you disagree with amount, percentages, or what John."  McBride responds, "the method."  He (I'm summarizing what I heard.) goes on to say that this is not a decision of one or two people.  He says the equivalent of this is important, we are Board Members, we all should know.

Garrison jumps in (again summarized).  Says it is misunderstood.  There are two purposes that are not even  remotely the same.  It isn't about how the money will be spent, but has to do with requirements.  It doesn't make a difference to function.  He doesn't disagree with a reserve study.  Finally he says this falls under preview of the Treasurer.

There was more to be said, but not for you and me.  What do I mean?  The resident audience "Twitter Sisters" were at it again, at the back of the room.  No gavel pounding, no, "let's have order", but like the poorly trained second grade teacher admonishing her students, they get a smile and a hand motion like "you naughty girls".   Hmm, wonder if these two, who don't understand respectful silence will count ballots this year?

At some point in all this DeMarchi says (not verbatim) that he sent his proposed distribution of reserves to the 2009 Board, the 2010 Board, and brought them forward now - 2012 Board. Two Boards did nothing with his figures so put them on the table now?

They vote on the motion.  Eight Board Members vote, knowing this, knowing at least two Boards have ignored these figures, knowing that according to McBride they weren't involved in review, consideration, planning of these figures.  The vote is 7 - 1.

Who is the one who says no?  Barrier. I never thought I would do this, but I thank Barrier, in fact compliment him on his "no".  Doesn't mean I know how he thinks.  I don't.  I'm not sure I'll ever understand Barrier.  I think if you asked him, he doesn't understand me and doesn't want to.  I won't put words in his mouth.  We don't speak.  I do say this, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck, and this motion, on this flimsy foundation has no substance, no order, no back up, and in my view, even Barrier couldn't go with the flow.

I digress. At one point in this mad discussion, Garrison says, "whatever it says ....doesn't make a difference."  Really?  They are about to allocate our reserves!

Some where in this MESS, McBride wants to make a motion to do a Reserve Study.  President Walton says he'll have to do that under New Business.  McBride says, "I can do that."  Thank you, McBride.

McMillin announces that there is no money in the budget for a Reserve Study.

This whole mess could have been termed, like the old soap opera, but we'll call it - "As The Stomach Turns", because it could cause ulcers.


,

UPDATED -PART II, THE JUNE 19TH BOARD MEETING - THE SECRETARY'S REPORT

SEE JUNE 24TH UPDATE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE

NOTE: A reminder to you, if you didn't attend the meeting, or require clarification, GO TO THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES and LISTEN TO THE TAPE YOURSELF.  In 2011 your Board agreed to post their copy of the meeting tapes on the WPA website, but it hasn't happened.

CONTACT THE BLOG:wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Be sure and note whether you would like your name published with email.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board Secretary, Al DeMarchi announced that the 2012 Annual Meeting would be held on November 17th, 2012 at the Presbyterian  Church's newly renovated hall.  The doors will open at 9:00AM and registration (regarding voting on that day) will close promptly at 10:00AM.

Discussion followed with questions from Garrison regarding the mailing of the Annual Meeting packet and post mark deadlines for those who will vote by proxy.

Board Member, Anderson asked about on-line voting.  President Walton said it would require a By-Law change.

It was announced that more volunteers are needed to count ballots.  If volunteers are unwilling to sign the Confidentiality Agreement they could still volunteer for set-up, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUST A FEW THOUGHTS:   First in many respects it appears the Board is trying to organize the mailing, cover potential pitfalls, and give every resident the opportunity to vote.  If you recall during the 2011 Annual Meeting, some residents showed up after 10:00 to vote and we had scenes on the meeting room floor about the fact that they weren't going to be allowed to vote.  One claimed he had driven from North Myrtle Beach.  In the end, they were allowed to vote.   I'm sure the Board will detail the packet advising people of deadline dates for proxy voting, and make sure it is noted about the firm 10:00 AM close time on voting the day of the Annual Meeting.  Life doesn't always allow us to follow our plans to get to the meeting to vote in person.  Elections have been lost and won because residents thought they would be able to attend, and life got in the way.  Use your proxy.

In the past, if you were a volunteer on the Election Committee, when you went to training you were advised that you could not reveal information regarding who voted for who, or the count in general(during the process).  This year your Board will miss use the Confidentiality Agreement, that has nothing to do with anything other than holding confidentiality on individual resident financial information, in hopes of maintaining the integrity of the process.  Good Luck!  In my humble opinion, if you start off with a document that ties you to silence in one area, and expect it to hold the integrity of silence on another, you are damaging the process and intent. 

I believe they said they already had five volunteers for the Election Committee.  While they didn't have to vote yet on the members of the Election Committee, naming those who were prepared to serve, might have encouraged others.

UPDATE JUNE 25:  This morning I received a call from a reader who told me I had missed something regarding this topic.  YOU will have to listen to the tape at the Wedgefield Times under Secretary's report.  I missed catching this in my notes from the meeting.  It appears that after the statement was made regarding the Confidentiality Agreement signing, that those who didn't want to sign, could help with set up.  Someone on the Board said for consistency, ALL VOLUNTEERS would have to sign.  This miss use of the power of a piece of paper that intends to lock the lips of all who deal with the Board is nothing short of ridiculous.  It would be laughable, if it weren't so serious.

So if you were thinking of volunteering for set up, don't worry, read the document, follow it exactly, and just keep your mouth shut if you happen to hear any resident's PRIVATE FINANCIAL INFORMATION, because whether you are in a Welcome, Roads, Drainage, or Water Amenities Committee Meeting, you really haven't signed up for silence on ANYTHING else.  Obviously, my opinion, but I'M LOSING PATIENCE  with this Board treating us like we don't have a brain and can't read and comprehend what we signed.  This tactic to silence you should be insulting. 

Wonder what they are going to do to President Walton for breaking the Confidentiality Agreement?  In case you forgot, he published PRIVATE, RESIDENT FINANCIAL INFORMATION IN THE WRAGG.  Where was my head when I asked this question?  I forgot that was one of them.


When asked about this incident, Garrison tried to say it was public record. It certainly was not at the point this Wragg was published.  No one had filed court papers at this point. Excuses, excuses, excuses, when they abuse what they are trying to force on you.


Here it is:

UPDATED -THE JUNE 19TH WPA BOARD MEETING, PART I, THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT

NOTE:  A reminder to you, if you didn't attend the meeting, or require clarification, GO TO THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES and LISTEN TO THE TAPE YOURSELF.

CONTACT THE BLOG: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Be sure and note whether you would like your name published with email.

The President's report was brief.  President Walton reported we were drawing near completion of the transition with William Douglas, our management company.  It should be complete by July 1st.  He took a few minutes to clarify what portions of collected past due accounts William Douglas would receive.  The Wedgefield Examiner received clarification on the subject and it is contained in a previous article.  We won't go over that again.

As I was listening to the report a resident sitting near me quietly, pointed to the finance report to the payments received by William Douglas, to date.  The Expense Sheet indicates that William Douglas received $2000.00 in April, and $53,000.00 in May, for a total of $55,000.00.  How can that be?  Will you write the Board for an explanation?

I don't recall the exact figure, but I thought as I sat in a meeting when their contract was approved, that I heard a contract figure under $35,000.00.

I have two concerns.  First, why weren't we given more detail on this contract.  Two, I asked the Board to post the contract on the WPA website and received a verbal explanation at the time that at first glance was OK.  After thinking about it, discussing it with others, it comes down to this.  Why can't a contract awarded by the WPA, in a genuine competitive bid process, be posted?  All of our contracts, should be competitive bid.  Does that mean we should be kept in the dark?  I don't think so.

I wrote the Board already this week.  This weekend I'll have to write, ask about the expense, and ask if I can at least come in and review the contract.  I'm afraid we are being kept in the dark on too many major issues.  Finally, remember I supported the idea of a management company.   I just would like some answers.   When will it mean enough to you to attend meetings, write the Board, and share the answers?  If you have written the Board and received an answer, please share the information.

UPDATE ADDED JUNE 23, THE WPA MAY EXPENSE REPORT:

Brady is Back To Announce 7,000 Hits To The Blog

TRUSTED SLUETH BRADY ANNOUNCES 7,000 HITS TO THE BLOG

That's right, as of today we have had 7,000 viewings of the blog.  Thank you for checking in.  We have much to report on from the June 19th meeting.  Be sure and visit over the next few days.

LETTER TO THE BOARD REGARDING ITEMS DISCUSSED DURING THE JUNE MEETING

After last nights meeting I thought I'd seek answers directly from the source.  I'll cover other topics later but these items were important to me.  They might be to you too!  HERE'S MY LETTER:

June 20, 2012

TO: WPA BOARD c/o Mr. LaFrance, William Douglas

FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux

RE: Request for Copy

Clarification and Provision of Information

Objection & Clarification

Request for Copy of Archival Documentation

Request for Copy

I am requesting a copy of Attorney Moody’s legal opinion regarding the confidentiality statement. Please let me know when I can pick it up at the office.

Provision of Information

I was surprised, and am skeptical about the statement made that committee members are indemnified through the Board’s insurance. Please provide a copy of the section of the Board’s Insurance policy, or quote the section’s specific language, regarding this coverage.

Clarification

I believe I heard Legal Chair Bob Garrison state that committee members and Board Members could be removed if they violated the Confidentiality Agreement. I credit myself with a clear understanding and thorough knowledge of our governing documents.

Please provide the section and language in our governing documents that would allow removal of a Board Member under those circumstances. My reading indicates that unless a Board Member has not paid their assessment, has committed a crime against the association and been found guilty, that there is no avenue to remove a Board Member short of a recall.

The answer is important, as we have had several Board Members publicly violate the Confidentiality Agreement. Jude Davis mentioned the very public disclosure in the Wragg earlier this year. At last months meeting the payment status of Mr. Grey was discussed openly at the Board Meeting. What will happen to these Board Members?

Who will enforce the policy?

Request for Archival Documentation

During the June Meeting it was stated that the Confidentiality Agreement has been in place for many years. It wasn’t mandatory that it be signed but it was in the Policy Manual.. As a former Board Member I have numerous old copies of the Policy Manual and can’t find it. Please provide a properly dated copy of this section of the Policy Manual.

　

Objection & Clarification

At least as of yesterday, I was a member of the Water Amenities Committee, assigned to the Canal subcommittee. I have not signed the Confidentiality Agreement on the advice of my attorney. I have not hidden the fact that I have not signed it. In fact I made Board Members McBride, Garrison, and Anderson aware of the fact. I have been allowed to attend meetings with the promise of my silence on the items discussed. I have kept my word.

I am considering signing the Confidentiality Agreement, after the items listed above have been provided, against my attorney’s advice. I am in agreement that any contact Board Member, or committee member has with individual resident financial information, should be held confidential. In fact, the document relates only to confidentiality of that information. I believe I could sign and agree to that. However, if I did sign it and were allowed to sit on committees that is the ONLY information I would find it necessary to hold confidential. The rest would be at my discretion.

It appears this Board has taken an agreement utilized for the sole purpose of protecting individual residents, and used it as a broad brush to silence and hide information from the residents. They are destroying the best attributes of the committee process. It appears that they are afraid of residents having and discussing information.

My verbal agreement went against every principle I ever had as I worked with and on committees and Boards, over 25 years in the non profit arena. Any appearance of secrecy at this point in our history will come back to bite this Board. How insulting to the residents intelligence, for Garrison to make a motion to spend Association funds, on seeking advice regarding a “secret option” for the canals! Most of us don’t spend money until we know what we are buying. Right now, we are contributing to a secret.

Board, please provide the information requested above so I can make a good decision for myself. If the Board has made a decision as to whether I will be allowed to remain on the committee, please be decent and professional enough to notify me.

THE JUNE 19TH BOARD MEETING IS OVER - FINALLY

The June 19th WPA monthly Board Meeting started promptly at 7:00 PM and ended at approximately 9:30 PM.  Yes, it was a long meeting!  I'll be writing more over the next 3-4 days.  For tonight, in brief, no one else was, we should all have some concerns about what some of our youth are doing, I have a compliment for a Board Member I never thought I would, I have to write a letter to the management company for concrete information, I may have to resign from a committee, and there is a curb in Wedgefield whose removal is stalled, and our reserves have been assigned.

Please follow over the next few days.  This is where you live, and yet only about 20 of the 577 properties were represented at the meeting tonight.

P.S.  Up the road, don't say things were done in secret, plenty happened and you didn't bother to get there.  There maybe some secrets anyway!

A SHORT, NOT SO SWEET, REFLECTION, ON AN INCIDENT FOLLOWING A STEP IN THE LEGAL PROCESS REGARDING THE COUNTERSUIT

During the first full week of June, I and two of the other complainants in the counter suit were deposed at the Georgetown County Court House.  I won't go into what was said and who was there during the process that occurred within the court room walls.  It was a long day.

Around 5:00PM, as three of us were leaving via the public hallway (minding our own business), three of the defendants were standing.  As we walked by George Wilson called one of us "a pile of shit".  All three of us heard it, in fact one in our group asked, "did someone just call me a pile of shit?"  There was no response and we moved on.

Sometimes, we are asked, "why do you continue with the lawsuit?" Reflect back on the scene of the day.  We were all participants in a legal setting.  We were in a court ordered meeting, under oath, attorneys, complainants, and defendants present, under the law.  The expectation would be adult, disciplined, respectful behavior on the part of all parties, in any circumstance, particularly this one.

As one of the litigants, in my humble opinion, it continues because of the unrestrained, unnecessary harm brought to my reputation, my family, and my community.  Dependent on the individual complainant, there has been ruthless action of speech, physical harm, loss of community, and financial loss in the value of our homes, and at times it has caused real fear. The undisciplined, harm continues today. 

WILL YOU ATTEND THE JUNE 19TH WPA BOARD MEETING?

Mark your calanders now and plan on attending the June 19th WPA Board Meeting.  The June Agenda is provided below, for your convenience.

Here is a list of items I discussed in a previous article.  I had hoped they would all be covered by the June Meeting.  Review them, look through the agenda and see for yourself whether we will be provided information on all of the items.

Here are some of the opinions that should be coming our way:

*A possible option for the long term maintenance of the canals. The committees involved had to hold the information regarding what the option was - confidential. I personally don't think it should have been handled that way. If you are going to keep residents in the DARK, I wouldn't do it for too long. Suggestion to Board: I'd push for this opinion in writing and provide it, and an explanation to the residents. I wonder what the Concerned Citizens would have reported to the newspapers about secrecy?

*Legal options were to be sought on some of the proposed changes to the policy manual.

*McBride made a motion regarding the Confidentiality Agreement. Legal opinion was to be sought on some aspects of that. After the show Garrison put on about confidentiality at the May Board Meeting, I think this would be answered sooner than later.

*The Board is paying $7,500 to fix 60 feet of bulk head on canal frontage the Association owns that borders a resident's property. There are 4 or five other properties where the Association owns the frontage and the Board spoke of quit claim deeding the property to the residents involved. Will they give us the opinion on this issue in June? One of my wisest friends asked me the other day if I thought the Board had a right to give away Association property. I don't know, do they?

*The final piece that requires clarification is the Arbors. 

 

VACATION

The Wedgefield Examiner is taking a short vacation.  We are headed to the airport to pick up our daughter and will be out and about with her.  The Wedgefield Examiner will be back on June 12th.   Please stay tuned.

THE CLOCK IS TICKING ON LEGAL ISSUES, WILL THE BOARD PUSH TO CUT THE LEGAL TIME HOLD UP FOR THE ANSWERS, PRIOR TO THE JUNE 19TH MEETING?

THERE ARE SEVERAL "HANGING" LEGAL ISSUES ON THE BOARD TABLE WAITING, EITHER FOR THE ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE LEGAL OPINION, OR FOR THE BOARD TO SHARE THE LEGAL OPINION

Residents, it is time to mark your calendar and plan on attending the June 19th WPA Board Meeting.  Maybe it is the Polly Anna side of me, but I am counting on the Board to bring us up to date on Board Attorney opinions. Why?  First, we should have the right to hear & read the attorney's opinions.  Maybe not, if they involve a resident individual issue, but for sure if they involve application of policy or by-laws, on more generalized questions.  Does it sound like I don't trust verbal interpretation by our Legal Chair?  Well I don't.  Why?

Garrison is a hold over from the group who brought Attorney Moran to us when he and his cronies wanted to remove two people from the Board, after the current Board Attorney, told them they could not do it under the circumstances they presented.  It was probably the first, of the last two years of lawyer shopping.  He is part of the crew that ignored Moran as Attorney of Record when he told them to stop their outrageous attacks on Reames and Wijthoff.  As Legal Chair, he has gone to Moody for another opinion on matters that past Attorneys of Record had opinions on file for.  Lawyer shopping.  Additionally, it seems, let me stress seems, that if they feel an opinion will help them regarding how they want issues  to play out, the opinions come quickly.  If not, it seems the lawyer has a busy schedule and we'll have to wait.

Here are some of the opinions that should be coming our way:    

*A possible option for the long term maintenance of the canals.  The committees involved had to hold the information regarding what the option was - confidential.  I personally don't think it should have been handled that way.  If you are going to keep residents in the DARK, I wouldn't do it for too long. Suggestion to Board:  I'd push for this opinion in writing and provide it, and an explanation to the residents.  I wonder what the Concerned Citizens would have reported to the newspapers about secrecy?

*Legal options were to be sought on some of the proposed changes to the policy manual.

*McBride made a motion regarding the Confidentiality Agreement.  Legal opinion was to be sought on some aspects of that.  After the show Garrison put on about confidentiality at the May Board Meeting, I think this would be answered sooner than later.

*The Board is paying $7,500 to fix 60 feet of bulk head on canal frontage the Association owns that borders a resident's property.  There are 4 or five other properties where the Association owns the frontage and the Board spoke of quit claim deeding the property to the residents involved.  Will they give us the opinion on this issue in June? One of my wisest friends asked me the other day if I thought the Board had a right to give away Association property.  I don't know, do they?

*The final piece that requires clarification is the Arbors.  We have research that was conducted by resident R.V. Wheeler that speaks clearly to the issues.  I was going to tell you to go to older posts at this site and read it.  I'll make it easy for you and cut and paste it right into this article. 

Before I do that, a few things to keep in mind.  Why is our Board continuing to ignore opinions we have paid for, and seek a new idea?  Is it driven by, "we'll shop until someone agrees with what we want", at our added expense?  Can we all come into the office and read the opinions?  Can we take a copy?  We paid for it. 

Remember, you can always write and express your opinion at wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Be sure and note whether you would like your name published.

HERE IS THE RESEARCH ON THE ARBORS: