BACKGROUND:
I met with the three person sub committee (including myself) for several months trying to find an answer to funding future canal maintenance without the angst, lawsuits, abuse of those who have to make the tough decisions, etc. Prior, to the June WPA Board Meeting, the subcommittee was invited to meet with the Legal Committee to discuss possible actions. I don't believe that I am mistaken when I say that the subcommittee went prepared to discuss a By-Law change that added clarification to INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT.
I, Chris Carrol, and subcommittee chair, Adam Anderson attended the meeting. Garrison, Bob Nichols, and I believe (not sure) Jacky Walton attended in behalf of the Legal Committee. I've written in previous articles that the issue of the Confidentiality Agreement came up before we went to the meat of the meeting. I told those present that I hadn't signed, didn't see myself signing, and was allowed to stay because I gave my word to remain silent about the discussion. Garrison stated that I had kept "my word" to him when I gave it. What I didn't notice that evening, and I should have, was that John McBride, Chair of the Water Amenities Committee was not there. I called him the following day and asked if he had been invited, and he stated "no". I asked if he was aware of the option that was to be taken to the attorney, and he stated "no". First, clue that things weren't being run according to any real standard. Oh, but I forget, you are use to YOUR Board ignoring Mc Bride's attempts to adherence to By-Laws, Policy, etc. Don't forget that he is the chair of Water Amenities, which includes the Canal Sub-Committee!
We were hardly in the meeting when we discussed the By-Law change noted above. There really wasn't any interest on the part of the participants from the Legal Committee. I had written our proposed By-Law change along with my rationale. I brought copies that evening but they weren't handed out. "Other copies were available. When they were handed out, my rationale was not on the copies. Why?
I believe the reason was that my rationale included statements regarding Individual Assessment (currently in our By-Laws). I'll publish it when I send it to the Board by the required dead line and publish what your Legal Committee has to say about it, if it doesn't appear on the ballot.
It should be noted that Garrison stated more than once that it would never be done the way it was last time. I know you wouldn't believe this but I swallowed hard, shut my mouth against retaliation, and listened.
Garrison spoke for the Legal Committee. He discussed a plan that would be contingent on a sub association being formed by canal lot owners. The Board would seek a legal opinion, as to whether that was possible. It was further discussed that that might be a hard sell to the canal lot owners. We already had about 10% who hadn't paid their 2009 Individual Assessment, after being coached by the Concerned Citizen element of our development. We talked about the possibility of grandfathering people who resisted, until their property was sold.
The second part of the proposal was a per cent of annual assessments dedicated to the sub-association in restricted reserves for canal maintenance. This portion of the plan would require a By-Law change, or addition.
It should be noted when our sub-committee met for the first time and discussed possibilities, that I brought the legal paper work from one of the other sub-associations in our community. Very quickly, it was decided that WE didn't think it was the way to go.
Admittedly, I was willing to investigate it. At the following Board Meeting Garrison asked for approval to take the issue of a sub-association to the attorney. When were YOU going to be told what the content of the option was? It didn'thappen in June and certainly not in July. Maybe it will be at the Annual Meeting.
Remember, I wasn't allowed to discuss this because I gave my word. I did secure information from a local attorney and a relative who is an attorney in the Washington DC area. Both said it wouldn't work. One said that lot owners who had a mortgage would have to sign off from the bank.
What is upsetting? Many things, YOUR BOARD voted and approved the expenditure of funds, at a meeting, in your presence, when YOU were not allowed to know what the option was that they were seeking legal advice on. YOUR BOARD held me to secrecy, WHEN SOME OF THEM COULD NOT KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT. I AM SO SORRY THAT I GAVE MY WORD. I GAVE IT TO PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T HAVE THE DECENCY TO FOLLOW WHAT THEY REQUIRED OF ME.
WHAT DO I THINK OF THIS? I'm going to tell you. If you don't like it, get off my blog and don't read it anymore. It is The Wedgefield Examiner, but really it is me. I back up what I tell you with documents, excerpts from governing documents, transcriptions of recordings from meetings, and if it is a rumor - I tell you it is a rumor.
My household will NOT SIGN UP FOR THIS. WE WILL GIVE IT NO SUPPORT. I have never felt so strongly about something in my whole (well almost) LIFE. Why?
First, in 2008 when YOUR then Board, that had allowed the Canal Owners to seek a permit at their own expense, threw the Canal Committee off the Board to stop this expensive permit process, we received a call asking us to commit money to pay for our share of the dredging and for those who wouldn't pay. We capped our pledge to $20,000. When the group tried to meet with that Board to say basically, "let us dredge, we will pay the whole thing", THAT BOARD WALKED AWAY AND DENIED THE OFFER WAS EVER MADE. I will remind you that I was in the court room when some canal residents sued that Board, and the person who had made calls to solicit participation and financial commitment stood up and told the judge how much money had been petitioned. At that time, we - my household would have given $20,000 to control the destiny of the canals.
NO MORE! Our family had never lived, in all of our long lives, under the restrictions of an association. WE HAVE LIVED with how we fence, paint the outside of our house, etc. since 2004. THERE HAS BEEN NO CONSISTENCY in property maintenance (still today). I have a curb across the road that is illegal, is a safety hazard, and the chair of ARC in 2011 drove by it every day it was in development and never stopped it. Yards are in disrepair, and your Board (current) doesn't care. I have seen vendor contractors with no insurance and no license, gain huge contracts. I have seen an office built with no public vote and money taken out of reserves. I have been sued as a Board Member, individually, by people who broke all the governing documents and built that office. MANY OF YOU GAVE THEM MONEY FOR LEGAL EXPENSES WHEN THEY SUED THE BOARD I SAT ON. I have watched Boards destroy the name and reputation of individuals on Boards that worked to follow the rules. THE CURRENT BOARD DOESN'T FOLLOW THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, STARTS THIS PROJECT WITH A TRUMPED UP CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE THAT DOESN'T APPLY, AND IS NOTHING MORE THAN SECRECY.
Our household will NEVER sign off to do this. We own our "little retirement home outright". It only takes our signature and WE WON'T DO IT. If they come to your door, remind them that there is "no solicitation" in Wedgefield and that you think for yourself.
If you have drank the kool aid and think you might buy into this, think about it. It started with a secret, based on a bogus confidentiality document, so they could tell you what they wanted, when they wanted, and have you follow the herd. You are a herd when you watch your Board approve funds for an option they aren't willing to share with you, and you don't question it..
If you are against the canals, remember they promised you so many things, and settled a lawsuit "in behalf of you"! Remember, your cuurent Board, named a Concerned Citizen as Legal Chair. Who do they put on the committtee with Garrison? Another Concerned Citizen. In the recent past, both of these Bobs authored and signed a letter to residents telling them not to pay their $175.00, but to put it in escrow. This is like setting the fox up in the hen house. Now they have an idea in the best interests of the canal lot owners???? You research it, I have. What does your attorney and bank say about a sub association and your deeds and your lending agreement?
THIS HOUSEHOLD ISN'T BUYING INTO IT. We have had eight years of erratic Boards and we will not add another layer telling us what we will pay for next!
