Let's begin with a transcription of this portion of Garrison's legal report. I have transcribed it to the best of my ability. I encourage you to go to The Wedgefield Times and scroll to approximately 26.00 minutes and listen to it. The transcription, Garrison's words, will be provided in black print.
"Questions have been raised regarding the Board attorney's opinion relative to the proposed alternative to the canals that Adam's committee brought to the table. At that time I was asked to approach the attorney on a exploratory basis to find out while in doing this proposal - some regime or canal regime, sub association, whatever term you want to apply to it, would it violate existing covenants or by-laws? As such because it was exploratory no written opinion... was not requested from the attorney, as it was only a preliminary inquiry about feasibility......canals regime as I told the Board I would do.
It was made clear by the attorney that such a regime could not be mandated or imposed upon the canal lot owners by the WPA. It simply cannot happen, nor can it happen, subsequently under change of ownership or property. All right, if this were to ever come about it would have to be something that was agreed upon as voluntary by the canal owners. The cost of establishing that in terms of incorporation, if it were to come about, was also discussed at that time and was some where in the neighborhood of maybe a thousand dollars to do. ...relatively simple and essentially he said he did not believe the establishment of this would violate existing covenants and by-laws so long as it was done voluntarily. It would not impinge on any existing mortgages or deeds because that question also came up and that was what that was about."
So now you have heard Garrison's translation of what the attorney said. I'm not calling Garrison a liar. I am questioning the entire Board for allowing such an important opinion to be provided by word of mouth. He said, she said, they said, doesn't cut it any where, except apparently with Wedgefield Association Boards. Why have we been in newspapers, in courts, had protests both inside and outside of our meetings? The canals. What was the subject of the inquiry? The canals. What did the opposition to the canal dredging seek? All of the legal papers, including written opinions. We have a very bad history of legal chairs telling other board members and our resident membership what the attorney said. Often, when you dug far enough and obtained emails etc., sent to the legal chair, the writings did not match what the legal chair had stated. Why set yourself, and us, up for that?
Let's start at the beginning and review what Garrison said. First this is not the proposal Adam's committee brought to the table to discuss. I was at the meeting. Our committee brought a by-law change proposal to the table. Garrison brought the canal sub association thought to the table. Garrison said if approved, it would be coupled with a by-law change proposal that would include a percent of annual assessments going to the new canal regime. There was agreement it would go forward and he would ask the board to pay for an opinion on the feasibility of a sub association. Quite frankly, one down, more options to be considered after. There is no after. It appears the intention is to drag this out as long as possible without really looking at feasibility. Rumor is that Anderson himself doesn't believe this is a possibility because not all of the canal owners will buy it. In August we were told they would survey canal lot owners. No mention was made of it in September.
This is the motion your board voted on at the May 15, 2012 board meeting. "A motion was made by Bob Garrison and 2nd by Adam Anderson to approach the attorney to investigate a long term solution for canal funding. Motion passed unanimously." Where does that motion state any of the following? "At that time I was asked to approach the attorney on a exploratory basis to find out while in doing this proposal - some regime or canal regime, sub association, whatever term you want to apply to it, would it violate existing covenants or by-laws? As such because it was exploratory no written opinion was not requested from the attorney, as it was only a preliminary inquiry about feasibility......canals regime as I told the Board I would do." This just looks like more of your board's under the table hand shake agreements that hold no weight in common sense, sound business, legal, or fiscal management. I believe about a year ago after Legal Chair Thomas sought opinions off the cuff that your board had to pay twice, once for Thomas' chat and then to have the opinions put in writing after. Additionally, this very board ignored a report regarding this attorney that McBride read at the December 2011 board meeting, and then wouldn't include his report in the minutes. Here (in red) is a statement from McBride's report. "All of Mr. Moody's communications were either verbal or via personal Email. Company Emails were not generally used or if they were, Board members did not have the opportunity to see them. It seems to me that our Attorney failed to use due diligence during his tenure. When I asked about how he verified the Board wishes, he had no answer which means he did nothing. He was told when he was interviewed for the position of backup Attorney that at least some Board Directors had questionable honesty and he was told during the summer of 2011 that his work was not being shared with the Board. It is my opinion that minimum due diligence would be to make some Board contact to assure his work was approved by the Board and not just a personal agenda. As it turns out more than $5000 of work was done and paid for and none was ever approved by the Board. Mr Garrison, prior to this meeting, was asked if he knew of these meetings. He answered by saying he might have known about some of the meetings, and then later clarified the answer by saying, yes, he probably knew about the meetings. Why did Mr. Garrison not let the rest of us know what was going on, or object to unauthorized work? Who was at the meeting described in red? Attorney Moody, McBride, DeMarchi, Garrison, McMillin, and Barrier. Who else was at the meeting when your Board wouldn't allow McBride's report to be entered into the minutes, after he had read it in a meeting? Add Anderson and Jacky Walton. Since then some of these Board Members in an attempt to discredit McBride, have held conversations here, there, and everywhere , except the board table, stating that McBride lied. To those I ask you to consider one of McBride's questions. He basically says, "why didn't the board object?"
Here's my answer. This Board has cut some deals amongst themselves. If you listen in this community, you'll hear the canal board members say things like "Garrison's a good guy and he is going to help the canal owners. Listen again, and you'll hear others say, "Garrison will never let it happen on his watch (canal dredging)." Well they are all riding a fence counting on one another to keep the rotten posts up. Where is the sanity of this board accepting a verbal opinion on anything from the attorney that isn't written after our history and after this uncontested -AT THE BOARD TABLE REPORT?
I, and others, have sought opinions on the regime. If Garrison's stated opinion differs, and it does, then remember that's why we have court rooms and judges. Do you really want Garrison to build the case, in representation of your association, when a lawsuit regarding the canal related issues comes? Apparently, Walton, Garrison, DeMarchi, Cline, Anderson, Barrier, Walton (John), and McMillin do? Why? Because of this "I'll wash your back, you wash mine board". Stay tuned because Garrison presents more verbal legal opinions during the September Board Meeting.
NOTE: THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER IS IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING CANDIDATE/ BOARD MEMBER ACTION AND VOTES. CONSIDER THE FACTS REGARDING THE CANAL SUB ASSOCIATION VERBAL OPINION, THE DELAYS IN MOVING FORWARD, THE LACK OF OBJECTION TO ACTIONS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE, AND DETERMINE WHETHER YOU CAN VOTE FOR Adam Anderson, Al DeMarchi, or John Walton. Don't forget to consider voting for Taco Wijthoff. He pledges to represent all of us, answer all of us, and stop under handed dealings! (This statement was not requested or approved by Wijthoff, nor was the article content reviewed or approved by Wijthoff.)
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.
