UPDATE: QUESTIONS TO THE BOARD, UNANSWERED BY THE BOARD, SO I'LL ANSWER

UPDATE - AUGUST 2ND.  I finally receieved a response, but no real response from Mr. LaFrance.  He is unsure of any of my questions that remain unanswered.  Really????  I've sent him the following regarding my July 3 correspondence, provided below.

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE BOARD AND PLACE A COPY IN THE CORRESPONDENCE FILE                                                   

Mr. La France,

I've attached the three page July 3rd correspondence.  I do question the filing
systems of both the WPA and the management company for not having the detail of
what has been answered or not.  As to the document itself, here is
clarification.

QUESTION 1:  Secretary DeMarchi answered it.

QUESTION 2:  No answer from the Board.  I've answered it myself.  Copy should be
in WPA Correspondence File.  If not, notify me and I will provide it.  Your
answer could be that the Board accepts my determination and let's it stand as a
record.

QUESTION 3):  No answer from the Board

How many more weeks will the answer take?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As mentioned earlier, I have two letters to the Board, long overdue for an answer.  I answered one of them and sent it to the Board.  It has been busy.  Now, I'll answer the second one,  As before with the first, when I answer it, I will share my answers with the Board, so they know where to find the information.

HERE IS THE SECOND UNANSWERED LETTER:

PAGE I

PAGE 2

PAGE 3

As to question #  1, Error In The March Minutes:  First, Secretary DeMarchi did respond to that section of this letter - ONLY.  Second, the issue was taken up at the July 2012 Meeting.

Question # 2, (read above) (no answer):  Garrison and the Board don't respond.  Hell will freeze over and the devil dance on it before they do, because common sense says this was a ridiculous move. SO MY ANSWER IS:  The motion made by Garrison was made in poor judgement, reaks of breaking the bounderies of ethics, has all the appearance of conflict, and is a poor use of our funds  What is worse, your Board passed it.  Additionally, it was poorly worded (didn't represent what was said on the tape of the meeting) in the approved March minutes and your Board passed those.  I'll back my answer up with documents, but first a brief history so you and the Board can follow it.

First, in 2010 the Concerned Citizens, later called the Petitioners held a Recall to remove Jude Davis & Karl Gettmann.  It ended up in court and Board Attorney of Record, Winslow represented Davis & Gettman as they were Board Members.  He respresented using the By-Laws.  He was a constitutionalist.

The 2010 "Petitioners" were represented by Attorney Moran.  He respresented under SC Non Profit Law.  He won in Magistrate Court.

The ruling was appealed in Circuit Court. Davis & Gettmann were represented by Attorney Fulton, another constitutionalist who represented according to our By-Laws.  See page three of my letter above.

The now (2010 after recall)  Board (some formerly known as the Petitioners) were represented by Attorney Moran in Circuit Court.

After the hearing in Circuit Court, the judge ordered that Attorney Fulton and Attorney Moran draft a final order.  He would select one and sign it.  He selected Moran's.  HERE IS THE FIRST PAGE OF HIS FINAL ORDER WHICH REFERS TO SC NON PROFIT LAW:

STAY WITH THIS SO YOU GET THE COMPLETE PICTURE

Then Attorney Fulton wrote a reconsideration motion, that still hasn't been heard. So, we are left with this open motion.   After the Board fired Moran, he told them in a letter that they would have to replace him through a filing with the court.

While all this was hanging & before the Board fired Moran, a group of 2011 Petitioners filed 2 petitions with the WPA to remove five 2011 Board Members, under SC Non Profit Law.  Then Board  Attorney of Record Moran supported the Recall Meeting being called according to SC Non Profit Law.  HERE IS WHAT THEN BOARD ATTORNEY OF RECORD TOLD THE BOARD ABOUT THE NEW 2011 PETITIONERS FILING UNDER STATE LAW:

Then Board Members, Huggins & Wilson, (2 of the objects of the 2011 Recall) sought a second opinion under Attorney Moody, despite the fact that they were highly involved in the 2010 Recall under State Law.  I have never seen his written opinion, but have a document from Wilson which states that Moody says we can't hold the meeting, because it doesn't follow our By-Laws.  HERE IS THE "OFFICIAL LETTER I RECEIVED REGARDING THE 2011 PETITIONERS RECALL:

Enough said, but I have provided complete, accurate information and stand by my answer.  Can you tell me how Moody could represent under these circumstances?I

Question # 3:   (no anwer from the management company or the Board)  Please note the question.  After I state that no answers come from the management company (I'm not the only one who doesn't get answered.), I ask what the responsibillity is of the Community Liaison.  ANSWER:  The newly approved Policy Manual says that the Community Liaison has a lot to do.  Coordinate with the Board to secure an answer to the resident, answer the resident, make reports at the Board Meeting each month.  THE COMMUNITY LIAISON, LIKE THE REST OF YOUR BOARD IS FAILING TO FOLLOW BY-LAWS, THE POLICY MANUAL AND REFUSING TO ANSWER RESIDENTS IN GOOD STANDING.  I was going to provide the Community Liaison job discreption but you can look it up in the Policy Manual, Section XII, #1.

I performed  this function when I sat on the Board.  It isn't an easy job.  During the July Meeting, Garrison said something about people with "personal agendas and vendettas".  I answered all the Concerned Citizen Letters during 2009.  Did they have personal agendas and vendettas?  I won't even say, "you be the judge", because we all know the answers.  Bottom line your Board is breaking Policy and By-Laws, by failing to answer.

I'll end my answer with a question.  Why isn't President Walton providing proper oversight and if his Board Members fail, or the management company fails, why isn't he firing Board Members from the chairmanship?  Why isn't he announcing that he has concerns about how the management company is performing?  Remember, he has stated many times that he just wants to live by the By-Laws and Policies, and he and his Board, your Board  - AREN'T.