I've listened to the tape of the April 16 WPA board meeting. I'm not going to transcribe every word of each report. I'm reporting what I heard to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape yourself. TRANSCRIPTION IS UNDERLINED. COMMENTS IN RED
The following contains the ARC & Legal Reports. Legal is lengthy. The balance of the reports will be provided in another article.
ARC:
President Walton provides the report, as he is chair of that committee. He starts by thanking his committee members: Bob Garrison, Al DeMarchi, and Keith Johnson. He says that the last month was extremely busy. The following requests have been approved:
*Lot 450 - tree removal
*Lot 48 - pool installation
*Lot 141 - builder deposit
*Lot 450 - new home construction
*Lot 282 - tree removal and placement of sidewalk
*Lot 474 - patio
DeMarchi adds information on tree removal. Please see the next Wragg for the details but things have changed and the county is involved.
Both Walton and DeMarchi do a great job in providing a full report. Again, watch for an article about tree removal. DeMarchi provided complete information, and we all should be aware of the changes.
LEGAL:
Garrison provides information in several areas.
1) Attorney collection letters on current year:
Garrison reports that at the last meeting the board had talked a little about the possibility of sending attorney collection letters on current year past due accounts. There are about 31 lots and the attorney crafted letters would cost about $75.00 each. The board would need to decide whether it was money well spent. It was noted that by May, the accumulated late fees on these accounts would about cover the cost of the letters. DeMarchi would like to hold off the decision until the May meeting. He feels there are at least 5 or 6 planning to pay up in the next week or two. McBride asks if we can attach the letter expense to the delinquent accounts? Garrison quotes some legal language that indicates that might not be possible. Walton states that he feels attorney letters carry more weight.
2) Can the names of delinquent member accounts be published?
Garrison reports that at the last meeting, the question had come up as to whether a list of delinquents could be published in areas such as the Wragg. He says the answer to that is "maybe yes, maybe no". The attorney does not recommend it primarily because of the "Fair Debt Collections Act". He goes into a credible explanation. He goes on to say, "The only way you could publish it is if in fact delinquency was a matter of public record. Once a lien is filed then there is a public record. The attorney doesn't feel it works all that well."
You'll have to go to the tape and listen for yourself. Garrison speaks knowledgeably about the topics presented above. Then there is a question. I'll transcribe to the best of my ability. Listen to the tape yourself. Things get loud.
McBride, "Did he put that in writing?" Garrison, "No, No" McBride, "Are we paying him for this? Garrison, "I'm not paying him to put it in writing!" McBride, "Why not?" Cline laughs. Garrison, "I already spent $300 for a simple answer!" I just told you what the man said. He did not put it in writing. I did not ask him to, nor was I asked to have him put it in writing. I was asked to ask this question and I did." McBride, "So all we have is hear say?" Garrison, "YEAH JOHN THAT'S RIGHT, JUST HEAR SAY!" DeMarchi, "That's good enough for me." President Walton, "Carry on. Carry on."
3) Update on plots - 5 pieces of land behind property of canal lots:
Garrison reports that we have these plats for these 5 pieces of property that are small and located behind certain canal lots that we've discussed for several months. The plats are done. They are ready to be recorded at the court. He makes a motion, "I make a motion that the board approve $50 a piece for the five of them, to have these plats recorded." DeMarchi seconds the motion. McMillin starts to say, "There was one of the five that" He is interrupted as one of the board members says, "That one is not included in this." Garrison goes on to inform the board that recording does not mean conveyance at this point and that the plats will be recorded to show where the property line is. It will delineate between what is their property at this particular point, and where WPA property is. The intent is to convey the WPA property to them. McMillin, "Does this mean those people assume responsibility to maintain their bulkheads?" Garrison, "Entire purpose of it. Get us out from under that liability." DeMarch, "One of those lots has replaced his bulkhead." Garrison, "Most of them think its theirs already. Once recorded, good standing verified, we will draft a letter conveying that property to them. Not ready to draft them yet. Tonight, ask you to approve a sum, not to exceed $150 to have those letters drafted, as such time approve able to do so." DeMarchi seconds. McBride asks if this is about all the expense related to this? Then McBride asks, "We haven't asked them to pay?" Garrison, "It's our property." McBride, "We going to gift them?" Cline laughs again. Garrison, "That's right. It is useless to us. In the long run will save us potential" Walton, "....bulkheads." Garrison, "A number of expenses." The motion passes, but McBride abstains.
COMMENTS:
As I stated above, both Walton and Garrison did a good job of informing the residents in their committee reports. I have a major objection to the TONE of this meeting and what appears to be a selected, deliberate, disrespect for a board member, often joined by our president. It appears that McMillin, DeMarchi, Garrison, and Walton can ask questions, add comments, and in the case of Cline, laugh outright, during discussions. One resident, NOT board member, commented to me recently about Cline's laughter. They asked if I had ever counted the times she laughed during any one board meeting, or noted who was the brunt of her laughter? I hadn't. The resident said I should quit labeling it as laughter and call it what it is, a cackle. Why doesn't President Walton bring these tactics to a halt? He, personally had every board member sign the Code of Ethics. It appears that it isn't worth the paper it is written on, when you observe or listen to the meeting.
Legal opinions should be in writing. Otherwise, they are simply hear say. If I recall correctly, at a point within the last two years, the board (some of these same members), had to go back to this very same attorney and have him WRITE opinions, he had given verbally, in the past. Since the middle of 2010 we have had conflicts at the board table when a past legal chair, stated the attorney said one thing, and it was later found that that wasn't quite what the attorney said. Each board member, and in most cases, residents, should be able to review, hold in hand to study, legal opinions. Additionally, we have had as many as four or five lawsuits going at one time, in the last five years. Your board is failing to protect the board and you and me.
Finally, I'm not so sure you can give away WPA land. If my property were involved with these parcels of land, I'd say no thank you, verbally and legally. After all, by the board's own words, they don't want the liability. Remember, they repaired the bulk head on a property that had this issue, at great expense to you and me. If I was one of these lot owners, I'd want the bulk head upgraded before I accepted the board's stated liability dump.
