It's Complicated", was a recent romantic comedy. Trust me, there is no romance or comedy, in this subject. Much of life can be termed as "it's complicated" - whether good or bad. "It's complicated", when we discuss the WPA Board. In fact, it might better be termed"the good, the bad, and the ugly". Don't get your dander up and believe the subject pertains to the current Board, only. The thought came to mind as I listened to the Legal Report during the August 21st Board meeting. Before we get into the subject, start with a few premises, in fact, facts.
1)Residents elect the Board of Directors.
2)The Board of Directors elect the officers of the Board, including the president.
3)The president of the Board has the privilege of naming committee chairs.
4)No matter what officer or chair position a board member holds, they each have the power of their individual vote at the Board table - equal voting power.
5)Each Board member should be voting in consideration of whether a motion meets the standard of our governing documents, and is in the best interests of the association. In the purest sense, after consideration of the governing documents, having considered good business practice, the Board member should vote his/her conscience. No deals, no hidden agenda, it comes down to an independent vote of what is in the best interests of the association.
What brought all of this up? During Garrison's Legal Report we were brought up to date on the curb and fence violation on lot 107. It has taken a year and a half. We hired a lawyer. We have gone to court, thought there was a final ruling, and now there is a hold, and it appears the case is in mediation. During the report varying Board Members had questions. President Walton added comments, stating to my understanding, that the judge said the equivalent of, "there is fault on both sides". The homeowner didn't do a number of things - in fact blew off ARC and told them to sue him. ARC failed to move in appropriate time. In fact prior to trial the homeowner had someone come through and measure other similar violations in the association. Now, the Board is faced with a decision to mediate away the fines, give variance to the too tall fence, and get the curb removed by the owner, because it is a safety hazard. The question became, do we mediate and accept what is on the table now, or continue to fight in another court? The finance report this month indicates legal expenses of over $3,000 on this case. Some on the Board stated if we didn't proceed legally, our ARC rules meant nothing. Others stated that if we mediated and settled we wouldn't be spending untold additional funds over what could be a very extended time period and not end any better than what it is today. In the end the Board voted to try and mediate it to the terms mentioned above. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE LEGAL REPORT FROM THE TAPE OF THE MEETING AT THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES. I have tried to detail what I thought I heard occurred honestly.
At the end of the meeting a respected resident commented that he felt the Board had made a mistake in not following through to adherence to the ARC rules. I understood his point.
After the meeting I talked to a couple of Board Members who I don't chose to name at this point. I had gone to the Board table to tell those seated that I thought that the Board had made the best decision they could, given the circumstances. I don't like the fact that we are letting a resident ignore our ARC rules, any more than the resident who spoke at the end of the meeting. Last year's (2011) ARC Chair's name came up - Huggins. To make the point, a brief review of the Board, the president, the officers and the chair.
The 2011 Board Members were: Jacky Walton, John McBride, Larry McMillin, Jackie Walters, Jason Barrier, Fred Thomas, George Wilson, Johnny Huggins, and Bob Garrison. In January 2011, The Board elected Jacky Walton president. He remained president until June 2011. We won't spend a lot of time reviewing the harsh history of at least three executive board meetings, where Barrier, Thomas, Wilson, Huggins, Walters tried to meet to remove Walton as president because they didn't want McBride, as Legal Chair (appointed by Walton). In fact Huggins eventually stated publicly that it was "all about legal" At that time I worked along with other interested residents, to gather residents to attend the executive meetings. Attorney Moran had told the Board they should be open. When the public came, those members trying to remove Walton argued with residents in the parking lot. They wouldn't conduct their business in public at the board table. Based on what I've seen of Jacky Walton's voting record, I would not work in this defense again.
The Concerned Citizen majority board made Wilson president, McMillin treasurer, Thomas vice president, and Huggins secretary. Wilson then appointed Huggins chair of legal, roads, and ARC. So our first 3 premises hold, and are allowed under the governing documents. Then resident Al De Marchi was a member of ARC and had been for some time. Jacky Walton was on ARC.
A little history about Huggins and DeMarchi. I was on the Board in 2009 with Huggins. Don't get your violins out but I was in the office 3-4 days a week. I had the opportunity to observe Huggins and DeMarchi at work. De Marchi and I often have a difference of opinion, not on his role in ARC. I observed DeMarchi trying to update the ARC manual, visiting the office regularly to check files, get up dates regarding what was happening on a request (project) etc. I can not begin to tell you how many times he was upset that a project had begun and the files either had nothing more than a scribbled note, a hand drawing relating to nothing, or at times, no file at all. DeMarchi would be upset, leaving messages for Huggins, trying to track him down, etc. Huggins would state he wanted to fire DeMarchi from the committee, and eventually did. It could appear that DeMarchi was fired for his competence. You be the judge.
Back to the subject. Huggins was inefficient in his many roles, but under Wilson, and the majority Board, he just kept getting promoted, in what appeared to be control, rather than service to our community.
As Road Chair with Huggins, we had the $29,000 debacle. Read the minutes for yourself, in the article titled, "What A Difference A Year Can Make! It Depends Who Is Speaking As To Whether Your Board Will Take Appropriate Action, Or Not". The following Board Members exercised their individual voting power for a second contract to an unlicensed, uninsured, vendor, who hadn't appeared in months. There was no first contract. Who voted to do it? Wilson, Thomas, Huggins, Barrier, Walters, Garrison, Mc Millin, Walton (Jacky) voted to do it. These members failed all of us as residents. Failed to use their vote, whether heard or unheard (made a difference in the out come), failed to represent you. McMillin insisted he'd save the day by writing the contract for the second award. In the end he bended to almost the position of "no contract". The document he created and signed had none of the basics - no total contract amount - $9,000, thereby avoiding the question as to why they wrote a $4,000 advance.
Take a look at legal. During 2011 there were many legal issues. Legal Chair Huggins, had declared months before that "it was all about legal". The Concerned Citizen majority board had fired their hand picked attorney - Moran. Why? It may be termed speculation, but review of minutes and files reveal that the final straw was Moran's positive opinion regarding the 2011 Recall Petitioners, who had petitioned for a recall under the SC State Law. The same laws the Concerned Citizens used to remove Davis and Gettmann in 2010. Huggins & Wilson went to attorney Moody for a second opinion, without board approval. Later, they took non board or committee member, Zieske to Moody. We paid, according to Zieske herself, for her to discuss the legal climate in the plantation. Several unapproved expenses appeared on the legal invoices. Finally in late 2011 the Board visited Moody. Mc Bride took notes and asked that they be included in the legal report in the minutes for December.
Now we are at the point that we have a new board. These discussions take place at the January 2012 Board meeting. The 2012 Board are Walton, Garrison, Cline, McMillin, Huggins, Walters, McBride, Barrier, and DeMarchi. Your board elects Walton president, Garrison vice president, Cline treasurer, and DeMarchi secretary. Walton appoints Garrsion as legal chair. Your Board voted against McBride's request to include the document and allowed the paid unauthorized legal expenses to stand Why? MC BRIDE'S REPORT IS PUBLISHED AT THE END OF THIS ARTICLE.
Where is President Walton in all of this? How short is his memory? Garrison is on record in 2010 Board Minutes and recordings, as being one of the 2010 board members who went after Reames and Wijthoff claiming they had misappropriated funds regarding a $7,500 check to Attorney Fulton. They were even threatened with prison terms. Please go to The Wedgefield Times, article # 22 , "Ruth & Yvette's Dilemma" (hit "here" on the front page). The article contains transcription of a Board Meeting tape, a quote from attorney Moran to "cease any further allegations of criminal wrong doing". Next go to the WPA website and read the minutes from the September 21, 2010 minutes. After two months of terror for these women, I spoke, presented documents, and they never brought it up again. Their malicious moves came as a surprise to everyone because after the recall of 2010 a vote was taken to hire attorney Moran, without the complete involvement of the Board. Thomas was legal chair during that time. There is an email on file where Thomas writes Moran and says, the equivalent of we are thinking of making Wijthoff president. That is how little they were looking out for good governance. There was a vendetta at play.
Remember the song, "What's It All About Alfie"? Hope I spelled Alfie correctly, but let's move on. Our song should not be "What's It All About Cohesion"? I don't want to return to a president who slugs a resident, a board who allows video taping of certain residents for the private use of the president, a board who regularly allows a certain section of the audience to act out and calls the police on other, a board who says we don't need security at the meetings but hires their own security when they are about to take a contentious vote, etc. I want board members who use the power of their one vote to put objections on record, to vote with our governing documents, to treat and answer all of us fairly, and represent all of us. Go back and look at the premises. The Board is failing to follow premise 5. We've added some new members due to resignations. They are Anderson and John Walton. We'll look at their voting records in another article. Today, my feeling is that they also want to sing, "we want cohesion". I want each and every board member to vote in the best interests of the community. Some might say that the community is served with cohesion. I say, you can't build a strong community ignoring our governing documents, ignoring good business judgement, and building on the promises of other board members who have no proven track record of doing what is in the best interest of the community.
HERE IS MC BRIDE'S REPORT:
i
