THIS IS GOING TO BE A COMPLICATED, AND PROBABLY LONG ARTICLE. I have transcribed portions of the Legal report given by our Legal Chair, Garrison. I've transcribed it to the best of my ability. PLEASE GO TO THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES AND LISTEN TO THE TAPE FOR YOUR OWN VERIFICATION. I WILL PRESENT RUMORS IN THE ARTICLE. THAT MAY BE ALL WE ARE LEFT WITH, WITH THE SECRECY OF SOME ON THIS BOARD. PLEASE NOTE: You will see....... and ? in the transcription. Garrison, often mumbles and I can't make out his words. When did we lose the microphone? There was a time when a board member spoke that they were so sure of what they were saying, that they wanted the membership present to understand, and they wanted it to be part of the record. Did we lose it when we no longer had transcriptions of the meetings and went to sanitized minutes? Quotes will be underlined and in quotation marks. Comments will be in red.
Garrison begins his report stating that there was a discussion in an Executive session. He makes a motion, "that the board approve the continuation of the litigation of.... involving the last,....outstanding in process. After a lot of discussion the motion "Legal Committee concurred that as much as I dislike the idea, I don't think there is any second choice,....at this point, but to continue the procedure that I hope will turn out to be a favorable conclusion" President Walton says, " there is a motion and a second to pursue in regard to the canal issue." President calls for discussion. DeMarchi, "Are we going to set a dollar limit as to.....so we know where we're going with this?" Garrison, "I don't know quite how to do that to tell you the truth. There is no telling at this point.....I don't know how.....some objection. You want to add some dollar limit to it. I don't think the initial appeal is going to be especially expensive.....or how it will wind up, but I'm hoping that....going ahead will still be a little bit more information....I got a straight story. I think.....terms as how this all got to where it is." President Walton, "I'm thinking when we had the discussion. I don't know that attorney gave us a definite ..... in regards to the appeal." Garrison, "No.......talking about filing some paper work and not a whole......I would expect." DeMarchi, "Can we put a $5,000 limit on this initially and then see where we go from there?" Garrison, "I don't have an objection to doing that." John Walton, "I don't think that's feasible. There shouldn't be a limit on it. You get in litigation....." Cline breaks in and says that there could be stages. She says, (not quoting) something about you could expect an estimate. Then she speaks about an appeal filing and maybe someone blinks and goes away. President Walton then tries to save something. He is interrupted by Cline who says something about the fact that you would kind of know what it is. She says we'll pay installments and if our attorney doesn't perform, we have to face the fact that we have two things going on at each end. She adds something about we aren't giving a blank check to someone who may, or may not perform. Garrison tries to talk and is interrupted by Cline. She says something about that is all she is saying. Again Garrison starts to speak and is interrupted by Cline. She says something about they could extend it if they needed to. She is cut off by President Walton, who says something about the fact that they could cut it off at any time if it really got out of bounds. Garrison, then says something about the whole point of it is to make it known that this is not satisfying to us. He goes on to talk about it being an initial phase. He talks about a rational explanation. There is more back and forth. Garrison says something about not wanting to spend a dime of this money. John Walton speaks up about none of them wanting this and hands being tied. Cline and Garrison speak at once again. Finally Garrison says if they want to amend the motion to a max of $5,000....It appears he doesn't have a problem with it. Then DeMarchi asks something about whether there is any resolution as far as the signature validity? Garrison answers saying something about not to his knowledge or satisfaction. The motion passes with the limitation of $5,000.
COMMENTS: Listen to the tape for yourself. The motion is unclear. It certainly is vague. Get the microphone out board. I searched around. I can't ask the board, because they are rude, appear to me to make up answers, and don't follow any law, including the state law they presented to me.
BEFORE WE GO ON, ANOTHER ELEMENT IS ADDED BY A RESIDENT EMAIL TO ME ON MAY 23, PRIOR TO MY EVER LISTENING TO THE TAPE. As always, I have removed the sender's name. I have also removed and inserted "XXXX", where I think the email may disclose the suspected canal resident involved in the litigation mentioned above. HERE IS THE RE-TYPED EMAIL:
Date: Friday, May 23, 2014, 9:03 PM
Subject: WPA's "hush-hush" legal action
I have searched the g'town legal files and can only find the case: 2012-cp-22-01248 which was XXXXX complaint against the special assessment for dredging (either $5000 or $175/unit or lot. I thought I had paperwork on this but cannot find it. Will visit the court house next week and refresh my memories.
Some records do show that something is occurring 06-06-2014, but cannot see the court roster on this date to confirm.
Mr. Marin is representing WPA and Myrtle Beach lawyer is representing XXXXXXX....and a new judge is presiding.
To anyone reading this, I'd start asking the board some questions. I'd research the court records myself. If there is a hearing, I'd go and get to the bottom of this vague barrel. Why? We'll go to the rumors I uncovered. Remember, I'm identifying the following information as rumor, but I wouldn't print it if they weren't reliable. The story is probably some place in between, but it could appear that if true, your board has with held information.
THE RUMOR : The board sued the canal owner for unpaid canal dredging assessments. The court turned it over to a referee. The referee found in favor of the WPA. The canal owner appealed. Something happened during the appeal and the referee (We don't know under what conditions.) ruled in favor of the canal person. It is further RUMORED, that the appeal is being brought by the WPA.
BACK TO COMMENTS: As residents, we may be left with rumor because of the board's vague reporting. Listen to the tape of the May Legal Report. Can you tell who is appealing? I can't. Before I started checking around, I thought that vague as the report was, that the canal resident had appealed and the WPA was putting a $5,000 cap on potential legal fees for the litigation. Contrary to what your board says about The Wedgefield Examiner, I do check around. I would like to trust. I don't trust this board, and I for sure don't trust the recommendations of this Legal Committee. I have no respect for entities that are either so unsure of themselves, or could appear to be corrupt and prejudice, to the point that they won't provide information under the law, some law, any law, name it, that they don't level with us. If the rumor is true, then your board should have reported it when it happened. If the rumor isn't true, in the least your board should have told us up front, who was appealing.
There are other actions that impact this. During the May OPEN Board meeting for roads, one board member stated they couldn't vote for the large expense until they had more information regarding a legal problem. At that same meeting, some board members had information regarding the road project in their packets, that this same board member didn't have. This board member had to go and stand behind Garrison (who had it) to review it. Did every board member get a full briefing regarding this appeal? Doesn't look like it, if you were at the May OPEN board meeting. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck, and right now the RUMOR smells like a duck.
It should be noted, that under new business, during the regular May monthly meeting, that board member DeMarchi asked the Legal Committee to look into obtaining another WPA counsel because he doesn't feel that current counsel appears to be giving the WPA the attention that DeMarchi feels is necessary. Also, DeMarchi resigns from the Legal Committee.
Residents, write, call investigate for yourself, to see if the RUMORS are true. There could be great financial ramifications to them. What if it is true that a canal lot owner didn't have to pay? Well canal lot owners, line up, because no one should have to pay. Canal property owners, maybe you should get your money back. If true, how did the Legal Committee want this to end, and how did they aid in this RUMORED malfunction? Remember at one point early on, now Legal Chair Garrison wrote to residents, along with a member of his committee, and told them not to pay the canal assessments, and to put them in escrow.
If you do decide to ask questions, beware, because some on this board will see to it that you are ignored, stage people in to attack you, and some will invade your life to the point that your spouse is embarrassed while out running routine errands. Today, my spouse went out to shop. He ran into a board member near the check out. He did the socially acceptable thing by saying hello, and commenting on items purchased. The board member's spouse appeared, told my spouse what a nice person he was, and said something questioning my niceness. My spouse ignored the comment, spoke to the cashier who knows him because he shops there each morning, and asked her whether he was nice or not? It can get ugly, your principles must stand, and you need to be prepared for the long armed ugliness of some on this board, and the good old boy behavior of others. Is it worth it? Yes, this board's behavior can appear to be an insult to intelligence and decency, and the place where we live.
Will you determine what is RUMOR, and what is truth? Will you investigate and determine whether there is court action on June 6th? If there is will you go and get the facts for yourself?
