Brady, Denis, and I will be celebrating a graduation, enjoying adult children, siblings, and grandchildren from June 10 through the 18th.
STAY TUNED, WE HAVEN'T GONE AWAY AND NEITHER HAVE THE EVENTS OF OUR GOVERNANCE. THERE WILL BE A BOARD MEETING WHILE WE ARE OUT AND ABOUT WITH FAMILY. THANKS TO THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES, I'LL BE ABLE TO CATCH UP IMMEDIATELY.
PLEASE PLAN ON ATTENDING THE JULY 17TH BOARD MEETING. IT FOLLOWS ANOTHER CLOSED BOARD MEETING. BE CONCERNED WHEN YOUR BOARD CAN'T DISCUSS BUSINESS IN PUBLIC AND WHEN THEY DO GET TO THE BOARD TABLE THEY FAIL TO GIVE DETAIL.
DON'T FORGET TO READ THE NEW ARTICLES ADDED OVER THE WEEKEND AND TODAY.
HERE ARE THE INPORTANT QUESTIONS I SENT TO THE BOARD ON JULY 3:
DATE: July 3, 2012
TO: Al DeMarchi, Secretary
Bob Garrison, Legal Chair
Jason Barrier, Community Liaison
CC: Please distribute to the entire Board & Mr. LaFrance (William Douglas)
Copy to Wedgefield Examiner
NOTE: Please place a copy in the WPA Correspondence File
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: 1. Error in Approved March 2012 Meeting Minutes
2. Question Regarding Attorney Moody & Motion To Alter or Amend
Judgment
3. Question of Responsibility of Community Liaison to Secure Answer
To Resident Requests When The Management Company Fails
1. Error in Approved March 2012 Meeting Minutes
Secretary DeMarchi, I appreciated your prompt response to my email regarding what I perceive as a critical error in the March 2012 Minutes. I have listened to the tape and the motion stated on the tape is not reflected in the approved minutes and may be viewed as misleading. Additionally I have reviewed the “MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGEMENT” file by Attorney Fulton, and your statement that the minutes reflected Attorney Fulton’s motion is not correct. I have provided page one of the document in which is attached. (note: provided in a previous article)
The entire document can be viewed at The Wedgefield Times. Com, if a copy is not immediately available to you. Please see article # 56, “Appeal of Judge Pyatt’s June 22 Order (2010-CP-22-01151)”, scroll down to sub topic - “Post Order Submittals“, end of first paragraph - “here”. I have provided this information to readers of The Wedgefield Examiner, so they might read the content of the order. Quite frankly, my review has left me with some questions for the WPA Legal Chair.
Will the Board amend the approved March Minutes? In the least they fail to represent what was recorded on the tape.
2. Question Regarding Attorney Moody & Motion To Alter or Amend Judgment
Legal Chair Garrison, after reading the content of the motion detailed in #1, I have a genuine question as to how Attorney Moody can represent the WPA without conflict in this matter. My concern stems from the fact that Fulton’s motion begs for adherence to the WPA governing documents. Two courts had ruled on then Board Attorney Moran’s arguments that the recall was legal under SC Non Profit Law.
You’ll remember that Attorney Moody gave an opinion to the WPA Board in 2011 that argued that the 2011 Petitioners could not proceed with a recall because they violated the governing documents. The WPA Board voted based on that opinion to deny the petitioners a recall meeting, under SC Law.
How can Attorney Moody represent the Board now, when it appears he, and Attorney Fulton would both be arguing in behalf of our governing documents, when Moran had argued against them? You were on the Board at the time. Isn’t this both a legal and ethical conflict?
3. Question of Responsibility of Community Liaison to Secure Answer
To Resident Requests When The Management Company Fails
My last question is to the Board in general. I wrote Mr. LaFrance over two weeks ago with questions that required information to help me make a decision that was very important to me. To date, I have not received any answers. What is the responsibility of the Community Liaison to assist residents in obtaining a response? Is failure to answer a violation of their contract. As residents we don’t know because no one will answer the question as to whether we can see the contract. At this point it appears that sending requests to the management company has just created another limbo or dead letter office for residents. What is the problem? Some of these questions could have been answered with a yes or no, and an advisement the more information was to follow.
