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:
