We will start with transcribing Garrisons's words from the Legal Report presented during the August WPA Board Meeting. I have transcribed to the best of my ability. I suggest you go to The Wedgefield Times, scroll to approximately 30 minutes and listen for yourself. In all cases, Garrison's words will be in black. I will interrupt with my words and the documents I submitted for the by-law amendments in blue.
GARRISON:
"Three by-law proposals were submitted by the members for voting on at this year’s election. Two of these proposals have been accepted for inclusion on the November ballot. The third has been denied on statutory grounds on the attorney’s opinion is on file in the office. The members of the legal committee were only concerned with the legalities of the proposals and whether or not they violate any existing covenants, or restrictions, or statutes. Allowance or denial of those proposals on the ballot should not be considered as an endorsement by the legal committee, either for or against those proposals. The individuals who submitted the proposals have been notified of the decision for two of them in writing. The other one - we only got the opinion in writing yesterday. We will be sending a letter telling why it has been denied and why with the appropriate statutory … Do you want to know what the proposals are as long as we’re at it? (Someone the board say yes.)
Proposal in essence that…You’ll see it on the ballot. It will allow for the Board to place liens on properties for unpaid assessments of any variety. Currently we can only put liens on certain annual assessments. You got somebody that owes us five years of lot mowing, we got no place to go unless…on assessment. Then we can file a lien for the whole amount but we cannot as things are constituted presently file a lien for somebody to just owe for whether it is unpaid for building something, or lot assessments, or lot cutting, or something like that. That’s one of the two." The by-law change I submitted along with my rationale is presented in blue and red below just as I submitted them to the board (except for a change in ink color). What is Garrison trying to do? This by-law amendment is under voting! It never had anything to do with anything else except voting! Additionally, Garrison mixes fees with assessments. Lawn mowing, ARC application, etc., are fees! They have no relationship with this by-law, the amendment, or voting. Personally, I view voting as a privilege, whether national, state, local, or right here in our association. Read my rationale.
BY-LAW CHANGE # 2:
ARTICLE IV, MEMBERSHIP, Section 3: Voting Rights (Now):
On matters submitted to a vote of the membership, members in good standing, who have officially registered with The Association by providing the name and address of the legal owner/s of the property, shall be entitled to one vote for each lot or condominium apartment owned. Members in arrears in payment of their yearly assessment within ten (10) days prior to the Annual Meeting are not in good standing and shall not be entitled to vote.
CHANGE (noted in RED and underlined):
On matters submitted to a vote of the membership, members in good standing, who have officially registered with The Association by providing the name and address of the legal owner/s of the property, shall be entitled to one vote for each lot or condominium apartment owned. Members in arrears in payment of any assessments approved by the Board, within ten (10) days prior to the Annual Meeting are not in good standing and shall not be entitled to vote.
RATIONALE: The Wedgefield Plantation canal lot owners were previously assessed for dredging, under the By-Laws, through Individual Assessment. The assessment, was voted and passed, contracts and loans secured based on the assessment. Members who failed to pay their Individual Assessment, retained their right to vote at the Annual Meeting, which is a privilege, while causing great harm to the ability of the Association to pay its legitimate debt.
BACK TO GARRISON AND THE NEXT AMENDMENT:
"The second one allows for -changes the by-law regarding individual assessments to include individual assessments for canal maintenance and that basically says that in addition to make that inclusive." Read my rationale. I always believed that canal dredging- lot maintenance of any type could be assessed under Individual Assessment. It is legal and ethical, according to our existing by-law. A Concerned Citizen said, "it is for small amounts of money only". Did you see that restriction anywhere in the current by-law? No, but many hung their hat on that person's word and no court upheld that person's word, or struck down the use of Individual Assessment for canal dredging. I hoped that adding canals would aid any board and keep our board out of the courts if the decision had to be made again to dredge.
BY-LAW CHANGE # 1:ARTICLE V, ASSESSMENTS AND PENALTIES, Section 2, Individual Assessments (Now)
Individual Assessments: In addition, individual assessments may be levied by the Board. These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance, or any costs incurred, by The Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-Laws and in the deed “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions.”
CHANGE (noted in RED & underlined):
In addition, individual assessments may be levied by the Board. These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance, including canal maintenance , or any costs incurred, by The Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-Laws and in the deed “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions.”
RATIONALE:The language, as currently written has been applied to canal dredging. As currently written it has not been over turned, in any court. However, considering the historic strife regarding the canals, adding the additional language would remove question, as to the validity of its use, should a Board determine that it was in the best interest of the community to assess periodic maintenance of the canals.
BACK TO GARRISON:
"Both of these have been accepted and will appear on the ballot.
The third proposal is a change in the voting by-law that would limit voting to not one per lot but one vote per owner, regardless of how many lots they owned. That was denied and will not be on the ballot. Reasoning for that is so that we are clear. There is nothing in the covenants that specifically gives the right to vote. The only thing in the covenants regarding lots is you get to pay. Voting isn’t inherent in there. The master deed according to the attorney, does touch on it but doesn’t specifically include voting privileges. Per lot but the statue that regards horizontal regimes which such as the condos very clearly requires that each condo owner get one vote. So to allow this on the ballot would have meant that condo owners, if they own multiple condos would get multiple votes. But if they-law were passed property owners who own multiple properties would not. Consequently it couldn’t be allowed because it would create a discriminatory mess in terms of voting allotment and that is why that one was denied."
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
