The article mentioned in the title, "DETAILS & DOCUMENTS FROM THE BOARD DEBACLE REGARDING 31 LOTS", dated July 19th, at this site, can be viewed under OLDER POSTS at the bottom of the page.
Briefly, Thomas wrote President Walton questioning T. Wijthoff's ability to vote 31 lots. While the letter isn't dated, we know that Secretary DeMarchi called Wijthoff around noon on July 9th. We also know that President Walton & Secretary DeMarchi met with Thomas at the WPA closed office on July 20th. We've already questioned why this immediate attention to Thomas, by a Board that isn't answering resident correspondence. The management company isn't answering several residents correspondence either.
There is correspondence authored by Barrier, to Thomas, in the correspondence file, dated July 23rd. Barrier & I rarely agree. I must say, that he has composed a reasonable, ethical answer to Thomas. HERE IT IS (Please note that I have retyped the letter. If any typos are found they are mine - without intention):
"The Board has considered your complaint and has found it to be without merit. There is nothing in our governing documents or in South Carolina law that establishes the need for a corporate resolution in order to establish who may cast a ballot as a representative when more than one owner is involved in a property (or multiple properties). Mr. Wijthoff's stake in ownership of the Georgetown Rental Properties has been investigated and the results were found satisfactory to the Secretary and to the Board. Mr. Withoff has cast ballots on behalf of Georgetown Rental Properties for many years without complaint or dispute. This was done through the tenure of multiple Secretaries, all of whom took their duties to ensure a fair election seriously. Until the Board receives correspondence from another owner in Georgetown Rental Properties disputing Mr. Wijthoff's right to cast ballots on its behalf, the matter is considered closed by the Board of Directors of the WPA."
Jason L. Barrier
It appears that Barrier researched, or was advised, and did the right thing. While I am in agreement with his answer, he did the right thing by responding and placing the document in the WPA correspondence file. To my knowledge, he did not make erratic calls to a resident, meet with the complaining resident when the office was closed, etc. I hope this indicates that he will answer all residents with facts, and the same level of respectful delivery of information that he has to Thomas.
Resident Wijthoff had at least one suggestion in his letter to the Board. Will he get a written response?
