Mr. LaFrance.
Board,
When I realized that the survey had been sent out and I didn't receive one I
posted my thoughts on The Wedgefield Examiner. The article is provided below.
Consider it to be my thoughts on this discriminatory act by some, if not all on
the board. I would like a hard copy of the survey mailed to me immediately.
Additionally, I want to know who made this decision. Don't make Kathy P the
fall guy. This wasn't a mail error. The Davis' and my family just happened to
be missed?!!! I intend to keep this public every day until I receive an answer
as to who made this decision.
Usually when a reader sends correspondence from the board I publish it as a document along with the recipient's comments. I don't comment. What changed? Board member Anderson has referred to me as a point of fact in his correspondence to Ms. Davis. I will print his letter to Ms. Davis and respond to the last three paragraphs which are bolded in red in his letter. The following is Ms. Davis' forward to The Wedgefield Examiner and Anderson's letter.
This is my response from Adam. I
thought you had another ’take’ on the meeting where a sub-association was
approved as the response. Finally, Adam admits that his number is based on
opinions, not anything concrete. He fails to address the spoil site funding or
anything else.
Once again, I am chastised for asking to see a document that no one on the
Board has the courage to admit doesn’t exist.
I would hope that you will address the meeting Adam refers to.
Jude
From: Kathy
Phelan
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 1:55 PM
To: 'Jude Davis'
Cc: Edmund ;
adam
anderson ; Al DeMarchi
; 'Bob
Garrison' ; 'Jacky &
Judy Walton' ; Janine Jill
Cline ; 'Jason
Barrier' ; 'John
McBride' ; John Walton ;
'Larry
McMillin'
Subject: FW: FW: Answer to Davis concerns about canal
regime
Office
Secretary
Wedgefield
Plantation Association
1956
Wedgefield Road
Georgetown,
SC 29440
843-546-2718
843-546-4027
Email:
wedgeassoc.com@frontier.com
Website:
www.wedgefield-plantation.com
IMPORTANT
NOTICE:
This email is confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited and may be a criminal of offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender.
This email is confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited and may be a criminal of offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender.
From: adam anderson
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012
1:49 PM
To: Kathy Phelan
Subject: Re: FW: Answer to Davis concerns about canal regime
To: Kathy Phelan
Subject: Re: FW: Answer to Davis concerns about canal regime
Jude Davis,
These are MY personal feelings and not
necessarily that of the board.
The $40-$50 figures come from approximately 10%
of the Annual budget of the WPA assuming that once the dredging loan is paid off
assessments will be reduced to somewhere in the $450- $500 range. I realize that
this is an unknowable number and will be determined by whatever board is in
place at that time. I would assume you will next ask where did 10 percent come
from? Its a figure I have always believed was fair. In my research into this
matter I have asked many people,on and off of the canals, their opinion and a
large majority also believe it is a fair number. Many of these people are past
and present board members, committee members etc. I believe it is a number that
all but a few of the most hard core dredging opponents would gladly accept.
Again, it would be up to the canal lot owners to finance the rest. How we do
that is still very much open for discussion. I still believe the ultimate way
would be a canal regime, but I will readily admit that it will be difficult to
achieve. It has always been my contention that it should be explored, attempted,
and exhausted before we just say" it can't be done". Then if it truly won't work
it will at least be documented that we tried it.
I have no problem with individual assessments so
long as it can be done with percentages that reflect the fairness the rest of
the plantation is seeking. I would like to see the use of these assessments
defined a little more clearly either through the by-law change already on the
ballot or some sort of new by-law in the future.
I am in no way looking for someone to blame or a
scapegoat for hurt feelings or loss of property values. Whats done is done and
the sooner we all realize this and move on the better off we will all be. The
economy and collapse of the housing market and the over- valuation of real
estate from the early 2000's to 2007 are far more to blame for any loss of
property value than any controversy over dredging.
This perception you have that our sub-committee
took a different proposal to the legal committee and came out with Bob's
proposal is inaccurate. We took two proposal to that meeting, the regime idea,
and the by-law modification that is now on the November ballot. Madeline should
recall a meeting the Sunday night before we met with the legal committee at my
house where both proposals were discussed at length and we agreed to present
BOTH proposals. The legal committee had concerns about the by- law change
proposal and felt the regime idea was a better plan because it takes the WPA out
of the equations and allows the canal lot owners to control their own fate. It
also prevents a future board from undermining attempts by the canal lot owners
to dredge. Madeline then resigned and wrote in her blog that she was surprised
that the regime idea was the more accepted plan. I don't know why she has this
perception because we had many conversations where we agreed that this should
at least be attempted and exhausted before moving on. I agree this is advancing
at a slower pace than I would like, but when you do things by committee, and try
to include everyone's ideas, it takes time. Hopefully this regime concept will
be decided in an up or down, it will work or it won't fashion by the years end.
Even if I am not re-elected I want to see this through and will stay on the
committee until it is exhausted or advanced. You will be receiving an
informational poll soon, and you will be given ample opportunity to voice your
feelings about this.
It seems to me that you will never be happy with
any board member that does not agree with your positions or take your advice on
the issues you bring up. That's fine and certainly your right as a member of the
association but you shouldn't be shocked when you don't get a response from some
of the board members you have spared with for years. Maybe they have had enough
and know that any response they provide won't be good enough. Your approach
seems to be attack, get a response, attack, get a response, and on and on it
goes. No one is looking to constantly debate you on the issues.
At some point we, as a board and the entire
community, have got to get beyond this petty arguing and fighting and get back
to the basics of running our association. We waste so much time and resources on
what I believe is nonsense. We will never have an attorney, accountant,
software, policy, management company, or even the color of the flowers we plant
that everyone can agree on. It's never going to happen. I tend to have a more
realistic approach and try to focus my energy toward "real issues" and not
semantics or wording. For instance, I don't really care if Bob misspoke or the
attorney chose the wrong word when the Master deed was mentioned. It's hardly
important when you look at the bigger picture and the problems we face and will
face in the future. None of us are perfect. At the end of the day this is a
homeowners association and its not life or death, so stop carrying on like it
is.
Sincerely
Adam Anderson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jude Davis will respond, or not, to The Wedgefield Examiner, as she deems necessary. I know first hand that Anderson had no problem with individual assessment. He chairs the canal sub commitee. I attended the very first working meeting at his home. I had brought a sample copy of the founding documents for a condo sub association for discussion by our commitee. We did not spend a lot of time discussing it, as it was quickly tabled. We moved very quickly to individual assessment, discussing that a clarification - adding and canals to the current language and putting forward a by-law proposal would be something we would pursue. Our next assignment was to put that language together and each prepare possible assessment projections, timelines for assessments, etc. I believe we met at least three times prior to our meeting with legal. Between meetings I wrote the simple individual assessment by-law change and rationale. Each of us also emailed possible individual assessment schedules including varying amounts and timelines for review and comment. We did discuss working to pre- assess, as we knew there wouldn't be any possibility of a loan in future dredging. Additionally, we used the 10 year life of the current permit which allows for maintenance dredging during that time. At no time did we return to discussion of a sub association.
I made copies of the draft individual assessment and rationale to take to the meeting with the legal committee. Anderson had made his own copies and had removed my rationale. No problem. There was very little discussion at the table regarding it. Garrison, to my honest recall, introduced the sub association idea and a possible corresponding by-law change that would fund the associations share of canal maintenance. The second piece would follow if the attorney felt a sub association was viable. Additionally, he stated the board would take the canal sub association option to the attorney. I went to the meeting as a member of the committee with one option - individual assessment by-law change. To this day it is my belief and recall that we had tabled all discussion within our committee regarding a sub association as an option. I wrote an article on the blog shortly after the sub committee option was revealed that stated admittedly, during the meeting with the legal committee, that I was willing to investigate the sub committee option to see whether it was viable or not. It was in cooperation, get it on or off the table and move on, which we haven't in months and months. INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT BY-LAW SUBMISSION WAS THE OPTION OUR COMMITTEE BROUGHT TO THE TABLE. I have copies of the emails of all the funding scenarios we worked on. THERE WAS NO WORK ON THE SUB ASSOCIATION after it was tabled at the first meeting of the canal sub committee. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ANDERSON HAD IN HIS FOLDER THE EVENING OF THE MEETING, BUT OUR COMMITTEE HAD NOT SPENT ANY REAL TIME ON IT. IN FACT ANDERSON WAS THE ONE WHO FELT IT COULDN'T WORK AS WE DISCUSSED IT AT OUR FIRST MEETING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT DISCUSSIONS HE HAD WITH GARRISON PRIOR TO OUR MEETING WITH THE LEGAL COMMITTEE.
Anderson's statements starting with , "It seems to me that you will never be happy with any board member that does not agree with your positions", could appear to be nothing more than cut throat and an attempt to discredit both of the Davis'. Actually during the first meeting of our sub committee, Anderson spoke himself of the potential benefit of having both of the Davis' sitting in on meetings, or participating as members of our committee. It was felt that real detail as to projected costs, previous costs, permit information etc., was a wealth of information they could provide. Neither would sit on the committee. Mike Davis agreed to sit with us, provide information that might be helpful, etc. In fact Mike Davis attended one of our meetings. Anderson himself complimented Mike Davis on his wealth of technical and project informaton. After reading his letters to Jude Davis, I am floored at his treatment of her.
While Anderson's final paragraph does not deal with what I witnessed at the meetings of the sub association, or with the legal committee, I can't help but comment. He says, "I tend to have a more realistic approach and try to focus my energy toward "real issues" and not semantics or wording. For instance, I don't really care if Bob misspoke or the attorney chose the wrong word when the Master deed was mentioned. It's hardly important when you look at the bigger picture and the problems we face and will face in the future. None of us are perfect. At the end of the day this is a homeowners association and its not life or death, so stop carrying on like it is." I care. He should care. You should care. How realistic is it for one of your board members to conduct the business of our association through word of mouth legal opinions? Anderson to my knowledge, has been a respected business person in this community. Is this how he would conduct his business? I doubt it. Words from a board member who was faced with "real issues" and not semantics or wording". The 2009 board that researched, faced the real issues, had attorney opinions in writing available to every board member, discussed in the presence of every board member, had the attorney on site to discuss it with every board member, took a one by one board vote in public of both the dredging and the funding, taped the meeting and transcribed it verbatim, was sued, and held individually in a legal limbo for almost 3 years.
Anderson says, "At some point we, as a board and the entire community, have got to get beyond this petty arguing and fighting and get back to the basics of running our association." Anderson has bought into pettiness himself. He is the chair of the canal sub committee. McBride is chair of water amenities. Anderson's committee falls beneath that structure. He didn't bother to invite or notify McBride of the sub committee meeting with legal. I didn't think about it that evening. The next morning I called McBride and asked him where he was. He had't been invited and he hadn't been informed of the option. This would have been a basic, reporting line, structured invitation to McBride. Why wasn't he invited and kept informed?
The canal issue will come up again. Anderson appears to be following the direction of some of those who remain on the board, who championed the law suit, and who made life misearable for any board member involved in the vote for the dredging. His energy isn't as great as he has written. He has allowed this to stagnate, burn the time down as the clock runs on the permit, and is accepting of misspoken verbal legal opinions. Personally, I would not put myself or my family in that legal jeopordy.
I made copies of the draft individual assessment and rationale to take to the meeting with the legal committee. Anderson had made his own copies and had removed my rationale. No problem. There was very little discussion at the table regarding it. Garrison, to my honest recall, introduced the sub association idea and a possible corresponding by-law change that would fund the associations share of canal maintenance. The second piece would follow if the attorney felt a sub association was viable. Additionally, he stated the board would take the canal sub association option to the attorney. I went to the meeting as a member of the committee with one option - individual assessment by-law change. To this day it is my belief and recall that we had tabled all discussion within our committee regarding a sub association as an option. I wrote an article on the blog shortly after the sub committee option was revealed that stated admittedly, during the meeting with the legal committee, that I was willing to investigate the sub committee option to see whether it was viable or not. It was in cooperation, get it on or off the table and move on, which we haven't in months and months. INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT BY-LAW SUBMISSION WAS THE OPTION OUR COMMITTEE BROUGHT TO THE TABLE. I have copies of the emails of all the funding scenarios we worked on. THERE WAS NO WORK ON THE SUB ASSOCIATION after it was tabled at the first meeting of the canal sub committee. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ANDERSON HAD IN HIS FOLDER THE EVENING OF THE MEETING, BUT OUR COMMITTEE HAD NOT SPENT ANY REAL TIME ON IT. IN FACT ANDERSON WAS THE ONE WHO FELT IT COULDN'T WORK AS WE DISCUSSED IT AT OUR FIRST MEETING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT DISCUSSIONS HE HAD WITH GARRISON PRIOR TO OUR MEETING WITH THE LEGAL COMMITTEE.
Anderson's statements starting with , "It seems to me that you will never be happy with any board member that does not agree with your positions", could appear to be nothing more than cut throat and an attempt to discredit both of the Davis'. Actually during the first meeting of our sub committee, Anderson spoke himself of the potential benefit of having both of the Davis' sitting in on meetings, or participating as members of our committee. It was felt that real detail as to projected costs, previous costs, permit information etc., was a wealth of information they could provide. Neither would sit on the committee. Mike Davis agreed to sit with us, provide information that might be helpful, etc. In fact Mike Davis attended one of our meetings. Anderson himself complimented Mike Davis on his wealth of technical and project informaton. After reading his letters to Jude Davis, I am floored at his treatment of her.
While Anderson's final paragraph does not deal with what I witnessed at the meetings of the sub association, or with the legal committee, I can't help but comment. He says, "I tend to have a more realistic approach and try to focus my energy toward "real issues" and not semantics or wording. For instance, I don't really care if Bob misspoke or the attorney chose the wrong word when the Master deed was mentioned. It's hardly important when you look at the bigger picture and the problems we face and will face in the future. None of us are perfect. At the end of the day this is a homeowners association and its not life or death, so stop carrying on like it is." I care. He should care. You should care. How realistic is it for one of your board members to conduct the business of our association through word of mouth legal opinions? Anderson to my knowledge, has been a respected business person in this community. Is this how he would conduct his business? I doubt it. Words from a board member who was faced with "real issues" and not semantics or wording". The 2009 board that researched, faced the real issues, had attorney opinions in writing available to every board member, discussed in the presence of every board member, had the attorney on site to discuss it with every board member, took a one by one board vote in public of both the dredging and the funding, taped the meeting and transcribed it verbatim, was sued, and held individually in a legal limbo for almost 3 years.
Anderson says, "At some point we, as a board and the entire community, have got to get beyond this petty arguing and fighting and get back to the basics of running our association." Anderson has bought into pettiness himself. He is the chair of the canal sub committee. McBride is chair of water amenities. Anderson's committee falls beneath that structure. He didn't bother to invite or notify McBride of the sub committee meeting with legal. I didn't think about it that evening. The next morning I called McBride and asked him where he was. He had't been invited and he hadn't been informed of the option. This would have been a basic, reporting line, structured invitation to McBride. Why wasn't he invited and kept informed?
The canal issue will come up again. Anderson appears to be following the direction of some of those who remain on the board, who championed the law suit, and who made life misearable for any board member involved in the vote for the dredging. His energy isn't as great as he has written. He has allowed this to stagnate, burn the time down as the clock runs on the permit, and is accepting of misspoken verbal legal opinions. Personally, I would not put myself or my family in that legal jeopordy.
