UPDATE 9/6 AM IS PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE IN RED
MY LETTER TO THE BOARD:
Gentleman,
I was present at the August 21, 2012 Board Meeting and heard Canal Sub Chair, Anderson’s report. As I listened, I expected there to be one more detail. What appeared to be missing was a legal opinion from the Board Attorney of Record, regarding the possible formation of a sub association for the canal lot owners. The option was not presented during Legal Chair, Garrison’s report. Why?
The Board passed a motion almost three months ago to seek a legal opinion regarding a undisclosed (at the time) canal option. I also attended the first joint meeting of the Canal Sub Committee and the Legal Committee. During that meeting Garrison stated that he would make a motion to seek a legal opinion on the potential formation of a sub association. The motion passed and we, the residents, have been waiting for the Board to disclose the canal option and related legal opinion. Why just half of the report?
Rumor has it that there is no written opinion. Call me skeptical, but it causes me to ask whether a verbal opinion was presented at the last meeting of the Canal and Legal committees? If not, why not? If so, please provide your understanding of the verbal opinion, in writing. I believe I deserve an answer.
Thank you. I look forward to your response
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON'S RESPONSE:
Subject: Re: LETTER TO THE BOARD
Madeline,
As I understand it there is no written opinion at this time. Bob's conversation
with Mr. Moody was preliminary and informal. Mr. Moody's verbal opinion was that
it was a legal and viable idea and probably the best scenario available to us.
The biggest hurdle will be getting enough canal lot owners to agree to be a part
of a new regime. He advised us to peruse that aspect first, before we waste any
more time or resources on the other details of the regime. Just last week Kathy
compiled a complete list of all canal lot owners and very soon the committee
will begin the task of polling everyone to gauge their interest. If this is an
idea that is attractive to enough canal lot owners we will take it to the next
level. I would agree Mr. Moody's opinion should probably have been provided in
writing but I understand the reasoning behind why it was not. I hope you find
this answer satisfactory and if you have any further questions fell free to
contact me via the office and I will do my best to answer them.
Sincerely,
Adam Anderson
MY RESPONSE TO THE BOARD:
Adam, thank you for your quick, honest response to my question. I appreciated the detail. I’m not asking for a response to the following. I have real concerns about the manner in which the option is being considered by the Board.
1) A vote was taken to seek legal opinion on a undisclosed option. It was approved. I believe most residents would have expected that the legal opinion be provided in writing, under any circumstance, let alone those that exist in Wedgefield in regard to the canals. The most recent dredging brought a lawsuit, countersuit, and as recent as Feb. 2012 - written and verbal threats of another lawsuit.
2) Without casting any aspersions on Garrison, I believe every Board Member deserved the opportunity to review, consider, and discuss a written, first hand legal opinion.
3) I believe the residents deserved the opportunity to review, consider, and determine whether they would be “served well” by following the opinion. Was the opinion as presented, of value in making a decision?
4) I, and maybe others, lack trust in a Board that moves forward on critical issues without a sound legal foundation.
UPDATE: I would hope that when the Board surveys the canal lot owners in regard to formation of a sub association that the survey is a WRITTEN SURVEY. As a canal lot owner, I will not respond to any survey that is not in writing. WHY? First, I believe it is the only sound way to receive concrete answers and to report exactly what the sentiments are regarding this critical subject. I want a concrete point of reference to refer to. Otherwise, you are left with nothing but speculation and someone else's impressions of what was said. I don't trust our Board to report exactly what was said. Why? They haven't provided a legal opinion in writing. I'm forced to have to consider whether I believe what someone else told us the lawyer said. It gets worse. If I, and others hadn't asked the question your Board wouldn't have provided you any opinion at all. Think about it. They could have done it in July or August during the Board Meeting. They could have reported it under the Canal Report or the Legal Report and they didn't. It appears that they just want you to move forward with their idea without substantiating it! BEWARE!
