AS PROMISED: DOES WEDGEFIELD'S TWISTED BY-LAW AMENDMENT HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF? DO MEMBERS OF THIS CURRENT COHESIVE BOARD SUPPORT THE POTENTIAL ILLEGAL MOVES OF SOME ON THIS BOARD TO KEEP THEIR PET PROJECTS COMING? WILL OUR PRESIDENT INVESTIGATE BY TAKING THE NECESSARY STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT A PROPOSED BY-LAW CHANGE DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH OUR COVENANTS? WHAT IS THE TAINTED HISTORY OF THE CONCERNED CITIZENS IN A CHANGE THAT COULD CONFLICT WITH OUR COVENANTS?

DOES WEDGEFIELD'S TWISTED BY-LAW AMENDMENT HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF?
The Wedgefield Examiner has gone back in the history of proposed by-law changes and firmly believes that we are in another twisted period, possibly illegal period - again.  Many of the players and moves remain the same.  We only have to go back to the 2010 Annual Meeting.  Then treasurer, Roger Armistead along with current board member Garrison, supported by the Concerned Citizens, put forth four by-law amendments.  For a complete review of the amendments proposed in 2010, go to The Wedgefield Times, article #29, "Preview of Proposed WPA By-Law Amendments".  Here are the first few lines of each of the Armistead/ Garrison/Concerned Citizen Amendments:

1.  "Under no circumstance shall the Board of Directors incur any debt service or indenture to any lender, (etc.) public or private, without securing the approval of the membership of the Association by a referendum, executed at a duly called meeting of said membership......"

2.  "The Board of Directors shall be prohibited from raising the annual assessment to property owners in any given year (defined by billing cycle for annual assessments) by more than 10% in any given year, or by more than 30% in any five consecutive year periods......"

3.  "The Board of Directors shall authorize no expenditure in excess of $50,000 except for the following....."

4)  "Reserve Fund Accounts shall be designated by specific category.  A reserve study shall determine the required categories and the amounts of each category.  No transfer of funds between or among fund categories shall be made, nor shall any category be deleted and funds assigned to that category be designated unallocated, unless approved by the membership......."

Briefly, the Armistead/Garrison/Concerned Citizen amendments restricted the ability of the board in spending our assessment dollars, as the current proposed amendment does. Many felt that they violated # 9 of the Covenants.  At one point the 2010 board pulled the 4 amendments and after some battle, put them back on the ballot.  Then, the board would not answer questions regarding violation of the Covenants.  Residents also submitted 5 additional amendment changes.  At least one of the resident amendments was pulled off the ballot by the 2010 board.  At the same time the Concerned Citizens were holding meetings and sending letters endorsing a vote for the Armistead/Garrison/Concerned Citizen amendments.  You might say, "well there were opinions on both sides."  One of the key players in both the promotion of Concerned Citizen Candidates and the 4 amendments was Ms.  Zieske.  In the midst of all of this, prior to the annual meeting, she sent the following to approximately 50 Concerned Citizens, and Garrison, Wilson and Thomas.

Sent Sunday, October 17, 2010 @ 9:38 PM, Subject:  Amendments to Our ByLaws (Quoted and typed as printed.  Underlines added in key areas.):  "Hey Guys:  First of all, I am done trying to help these guys on this Board.  I give up!  They think they know it all, so be it.  You will not hear from me again.  I have no idea when we will get to court or how those issues will be resolved.

To my knowledge you cannot approve an amendment to our Bylaws that is in conflict with our Covenants.  This has been supported by my research, but at any rate we need our attorney's opinion.  I would really like the amendments that Roger and Bob Garrison approved, but not at the cost of violating our Covenants.  If the legal committee approved the first four amendments provided on the ballot without legal counsel then they could be accused of "not acting in good faith".  Everything I have been able to research is that the Covenants trump the Bylaws. 

I have advised this Board to only put forward only one amendment that would allow for a Special Meeting to be held a few months from now to properly address these proposed changes.  That would give them the time to get proper legal counsel.  However, they ignored my advice and are going to put all of the nine on the ballot.  Consequently, I am no longer in a position where I can promote their election to the Board.

I will not be sending out a letter to promote our slate.  They will be defeated and you will end up with board members that are canal property owners or supporters.  I am totally defeated.  As ever, Carol"

The same person who then board member Armistead insisted on calling "advisor", was provided unfettered access to your records (Some of our records are missing now and DeMarchi thanks her for providing them.), is telling them that they are failing "to act in good faith" and may be violating our covenants.  She tells the Concerned Citizens that Armistead and Garrison's amendments are a problem.  So at times in the run up to the 2010 Annual Meeting they cut the resident by-law submissions and then put them back again, except one.

Here we are again with a submission that appears to be in violation of our Covenants and Garrison is telling us the attorney reviewed them.  He probably did.  Can you trust the opinion?  The Concerned Citizen Board of 2010-11 - Wilson, Huggins, Barrier, Thomas, etc., lawyer shopped and through out board attorney of record - Moran for Moody, after Moran wrote an opinion stating the 2011 recall petitions were valid, as they were called under the same state law that allowed the Concerned Citizen recall of 2010. 

  Back to 2010, Ms. Zieske wasn't done yet.  After standing on principle, she changes her mind and will support them, regardless.  All ethics go out the door the following morning and she sends the following to the group noted above.

Mon, Oct 18, 2010 @ 11:20AM, "Subject:  I was angry and upset"
"Hey Guys:  Most of you do not know about the additional five amendments that their group put forward to be voted on.  Those are terrible and should not even be approved by the Legal Committee to be included on the ballot.  However, if our guys send out only the ones we want approved, then they will catch "hell" from that group.  I was trying to get them to "buy us some time" to properly educate our membership on the ones we want passed and to get them to vote no on the ones that are terrible.  I lost and I was angry.  I have had two years of this stress and I "lost it".

So forget my prior email.  I am still out there working hard to get our guys re-elected.  We must get them elected!  The other four people are all canal supporters.  Carol"

Zieske's's letters were shared with current sitting board members.  Some were amongst those she sent it to.  Others received a copy through me.  One of the apparent authors of the suspect amendments in 2010 according to Ms. Zieske herself, is our very own current legal chair, Garrison.  What is he promoting now?  Another suspicious amendment that appears to be in violation of our Covenants.  McMillin, Garrison, Barrier, were all on the board when this was coming down.  They've seen first hand just how far this group will go to get what they want.  Is Garrison at it again?  Where is your board?  Many sitting at the board table today were provided this information.

Wednesday:  Do Members Of This Current Cohesive Board Support The Potential Illegal Moves of Some On This Board To Keep Their Pet Projects Coming?