YOUR PROXY IS DUE SOON FOR THE WPA ANNUAL MEETING

 

 

 

 

 

 





IS THE BOARD USING THEIR SEATS AT THE BOARD TABLE TO LEGISLATE THE MEMBERSHIIP WHILE RECREATING ANY WAY THEY WANT?

I have reported and transcribed  a portion of the October 2014, WPA Grounds Report to the best of my ability.  As always, I recommend that you listen to the tape of the meeting for yourself, to verify the information.  Direct board member transcribed quotes will be provided in quotation marks and underlined.  COMMENTS WILL BE NOTED AS SUCH AND BE PRINTED IN RED.

It should be noted that whatever this board tried to lay on the table regarding fires, during the October Board Meeting, that it was only first reading.  Second reading won't take place until the December WPA meeting. Until then, we should all have to live by the board's published "no exception", restrictions, including the board members.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





IT IS 9:00 PM IN WEDGEFIELD, TOTALLY DARK. DO YOU KNOW WHERE TWO OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CHILDREN ARE?

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this.  It is 9:00 PM on William Screven St.  It is totally dark, and yet what looks like two young skateboarders,  are going full tilt down the dark road.  They are slapping their boards against the pavement, and headed around the curve, onto Pine Grove Lane.  If a car comes around that curve, unaware because the youth don't have lights, who will be at fault if they are hit?  Again, do you know where your children are?

IS THE BOARD USING THEIR SEATS AT THE BOARD TABLE TO LEGISLATE THE MEMBERSHIP, WHILE RECREATING ANY WAY THEY WANT TO?

 

This graphic and message from the WPA Board appeared in the latest edition of the Wedgefield Wragg.  You'll note, "NO EXCEPTIONS".  On October 29th, The Wedgefield Examiner, will provide a transcription of the "Grounds Report",  from the October WPA Meeting.  In the mean time, prepare to yell, "fire, fire, in Wedgefield".  Who gets to burn? Who will decide whether you burned according to the rules?  How much will it cost you?  It looks like another discussion necessitated by one board member's social agenda.

 



WPA BOARD MEMBER DE MARCHI, USES RESIDENT COMMENT SECTION OF THE OCTOBER BOARD MEETING TO TRASH THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER



 

 

 

 

 

THE WPA BOARD RESPONDS TO MY REQUEST FOR $5,700

I have received a response from the board, regarding my request for $5,700.  Three items are provided,  (1) The Board's Letter, (2) My Response To Their Letter, (3)  A 2010 Request For Refund Signed By 17 Canal Lot Owners, Including Some Who Sit On The Current Board (I have removed all the names, to protect individual resident privacy.  The board should have a copy in their correspondence file.)

Before you read, if you haven't already, you may want to go to BLOG ARCHIVE at the bottom of the blog page, to Sept. 26, and read, "The WPA September Board Meeting Legal Report".  You decide while reading the transcription, whether Legal Chair Garrison, was clear, and up front. DESPITE THE BOARD'S ANSWER, YOU STILL SHOULD CONSIDER SENDING YOUR REQUEST FOR A REFUND.

THE BOARD'S LETTER

 

 

MY RESPONSE TO THEIR LETTER

 

 

 

2010 REQUEST FOR REFUND SIGNED BY 17 CANAL LOT OWNERS

 

 

 



IS THE WPA THE CLIENT NOTED IN THE PARAGRAPH IN QUOTATIONS, IN THE DISBARMENT ARTICLE? PERHAPS YOU NEED TO BEGIN TO ASK LEGAL CHAIR GARRISON, THE QUESTIONS WE POSED EARLIER

The Wedgefield Examiner posted the complete article regarding former board attorney of record, Moody's disbarment, in the article titled "S.C. Supreme Court Disbars Former WPA Attorney".  I am  quoting a paragraph from the second page of the news article.  Is the WPA the client mentioned in the paragraph?  Having watched this process closely, I believe there is much more than a small chance that we are, or may have been left in similar circumstance.

Here is the quote from the newspaper article: "Moody also is accused of lying to a judge by stating that he had not received an opposing counsel's court filing when, in fact, he had received it months earlier.  Moody, in that case, also FAILED TO TELL HIS CLIENTS THAT THEIR CASE HAD BEEN DISMISSED.  those clients did not learn about the dismissal until after they retrieved their case file following Moody's interim suspension."

If we are the client noted, almost your entire board, in the blind following of Legal Chair Garrison, is RESPONSIBLE.  Why? It could appear that Garrison is on a hidden agenda.  First he may have covered the facts, and then in order to push his Concerned Citizen agenda, declared that all this ended, in a ruling.  Then he nails anyone who has questions. It has been documented many times that he is dismissive and verbally abusive when questioned, or challenged.

At the point that Moody was suspended from practicing law, in his two lawyer office, his partner Maring was named by the courts to assume his files, notify banks, etc.  Clients were advised in writing that they could pick up their files.  There was a discussion at the board table about  retaining Maring, so as not to have to pay someone to catch up.  McBride asked if that was wise.  He asked if the board shouldn't try and find out what the charges against Moody were, and whether we would be best served by Maring. He also suggested the board search for a new attorney.  One of Garrison's flip answers, during the exchange with McBride, as the balance of the board sat in silence, let it happen, was "I DON'T KNOW MAYBE THEIR WIVES DIDN'T GET ALONG"   Move forward to August, and Garrison announces that Maring has done nothing for them, in months.  They can't get answers.  Next, they  hire a new lawyer, pay to bring him up to date, and just maybe we all are going to suffer.  If we are that client, or in similar circumstances, it could appear that Garrison is trying to give the impression that a judge has ruled on Individual Assessment, when all he has is a settlement.  I listed questions, in the article mentioned above, perhaps you should begin to ask those questions - NOW.  I would, but to coin a phrase Garrison often uses at the board table when asked to get legal opinion, or opinions in writing, "I'm not inclined to do that."  Your board, often isn't inclined to answer my questions. 

Earlier this week, a resident asked if I wanted to bust the association, by asking for a return of the dredging assessment.  If you saw it, you also read my answer.  After reviewing the article on Moody, if circumstances are right, we wouldn't deserve our assessments returned.  What are the circumstances?  If we are the client mentioned in the quote above, or were left in similar circumstances, then Legal Chair Garrison needs to tell us exactly what happened, tell us that it was a huge legal mistake, rather than cover up, and pretend that they got a ruling on Individual Assessment.   President Walton, needs to remove Garrison, as legal chair and his committee, resign his president role on the board, and remove DeMarchi as Compliance Chair and his Concerned Citizen Committee.  If the resident doesn't have to pay because of default of the process, rather than a ruling, and that is explained from the board table, none of the rest of us should get our money back.  





  

TWO NEW ARTICLES WERE ADDED ON 10/16/14. COMING NEXT: YOUR WPA ANNUAL MEETING PACKET

S.C. SUPREME COURT DISBARS FORMER WPA BOARD ATTORNEY

The Wedgefield Examiner has provided the announcement of the disbarment of former WPA board attorney of record William Moody.  This comes at a time when you should have more questions regarding the actions your board took during the September 2014 board meeting.  Why?  Moody was the board attorney of record who came to that position, under questionable circumstances.  Moody, for the most part was the attorney of record, from the beginning, regarding the litigation and the canal lot owner who refused to pay his assessment.  Several months ago, when Moody's license was suspended, your board hired his partner, from a two man office.  When questioned about that, your board said they didn't want to have to start all over again and pay another law office to catch up.  Then, after months, the board moved to another attorney, saying Moody's partner had done nothing for them.  In the mean time, RUMOR is that there was a misstep in following appeals, etc., and your board had to try and play catch up.  Even without the rumor, the decision by the S.C. Supreme Court, should cause you to further question just what happened regarding this case.  I strongly believe that there is more to this case, that your board doesn't want you to know. 

The Wedgefield Examiner has suggested questions, in previous article, that you might ask certain board members.  Here are a few questions that you might want to ask Legal Chair Garrison.

*Ask him to allow you to review the complete legal file on the case of the canal resident who failed to pay his dredging assessment litigation.  Remember, Compliance Chair DeMarchi, applied, in writing, to a resident, state law regarding review of files and copies..  It is you right under state law.

*Ask Legal Chair Garrison whether there was ever a time in the history of the litigation, that the board won, as in the resident had to pay?

*Ask Legal Chair Garrison whether after it was ruled that the resident had to pay (if that was the case), whether the resident appealed the ruling?

*Ask Legal Chair Garrison, if there was an appeal by the resident, what happened?  Was there a place in time, after the appeal was filed by the resident (if that was the case), that the board, or the board attorney failed to act, as required by litigation standards, and the court/referee found in favor of the resident not having to pay, by default of actions by either the board, or the board attorney of record, placing the board in the position of having to take further action, resulting in the September 2014 Legal Committee vote.





REQUEST TO WPA BOARD FOR REFUND OF DREDGING ASSESSMENT



THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER RESPONDS TO A RESIDENT WHO HAS WRITTEN TO THE BLOG

The Wedgefield Examiner received the following email from a resident.  The email is retyped below.  As always I have protected the writer's name address, etc. - any information that would identify them.  Additionally, I will provide my email response to the writer.  Normally, I would respond on the blog, without sending an email to the writer.  In this case since the writer has written in a business like manner, I chose to email him/her directly.  It isn't because they identify themselves as following the blog, because you'll note, that they don't speak to one side of the canal issue, or make statements that they agree with me.  They appear to be seeking information. 

THE RESIDENT EMAIL FOLLOWS:
"I have been following your blog for about a year now and have a sense of the canal dredging issue.  What I don't understand is that if all canal lot owners request their $5700 and lot owners request their $700, total almost $800,000.  Won't that bust the HOA and is that your goal here?  Or is there another way this could be accomplished?  We will be attending the annual meeting and look forward to meeting you and discussing this issue further.  Thanks for any info you can give us."

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER'S EMAIL REPONSE TO THE WRITER FOLLOWS:

 

AS ALWAYS, THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER'S COMMENTS ARE IN RED.

 

First, I am not suggesting that we have the board attorney at every meeting.  I am more than suggesting that our Legal Committee, chaired by Garrison, who appointed one of his co-authors of a letter to residents instructing them to put their canal assessments (canal & non canal lot owners) in escrow in Anderson Bank, to the legal committee, has carried the Concerned Citizen agenda through use of our association funds, to the point that he risks $800,000.  This is not the first time HE, has done this.  If you think about the letter he wrote to residents, he did it at that time also.  Go back to the August 2009 transcribed board meeting reports and look at the motions.  Then consider that, that  board had secured the loan approval to the point that the work on the spoil site had begun.  The vendor contracts were in place.  Then Garrison's co-authored letter went out.  You be the judge, but it appears he wanted residents to hold their money in escrow, so that the association would have to default on the loan.  He and his cronies risked $800,000 plus.

 

Hold President Jacky Walton responsible.  As president, he appoints committee chairs.  He appointed Garrison, Legal Chair, knowing Garrison's actions.  Hold Compliance Chair DeMarchi responsible after you listen to tapes of all the meetings.  Note that after DeMarchi was a committee of one for months, that he adds known Concerned Citizens to his committee.  He is often Garrison's back up in making life miserable for anyone who questions at the board table.  Hold your entire board, minus one, responsible for voting these people onto these two committees.  Hold those same board members responsible for allowing Garrison to seek legal opinion, without getting it in writing.

 

Hold board member McMillin  responsible, HE maybe above the others.  HE is the only board member who is left at the table, who was sued as a board, and individually.  HE is the only board member sitting, who countersued the Concerned Citizens, Garrison, named individually amongst a few others.   Ask McMillin whether the board attorney of record was involved in every step leading up to the August 2009 meeting?  Ask him whether every member of that 9 member board had opportunity to see written legal opinions because that's the only kind we got?  Ask him if the lawyer attended meetings with the ENTIRE BOARD to explain the law and opinions?  Ask him if there was a real contract process for the vendors, that included a scheduled bidders conference?  Ask him if the attorney, or his firm, was involved in the loan steps and finalization?  Ask him whether the canal committee, on the board's recommendation invited members of this community, on or off the canals, Concerned Citizens, or not, to join the committee, including the dredging finance sub group, and not one signed up?  Ask him when he was being honest in his vote?  Ask him how he has let us slide, without a word from him, when one brave board member, is called MORANIC and a number of other things, by Legal Chair Garrison?  Ask him how he and the other Water Amenities Committee (he, Anderson, Johnson, John Walton) could throw the questioning board member - McBride, off their committee, aiding Garrison in his smoke a mirrors legal maneuvers, to get us to the point of an $800,000 loss, again?

 

NOTE:  I had ended the article, and in fact published it.  When I thought about it I had one more board member that you should think about asking questions.  I encourage all residents to write to him, specifically, and ask the questions.  Write Board Member McBride, stipulate that you want the answers directly from him.  Why?  He is the only sitting board member who has brought a number of issues to the board table, with his questioning. He was not on the board in 2009 when the dredging vote was taken.  He did have a front row seat, he sat on the general Water Amenities Committee, and the sub committee that explored and sought funding options for the dredge.  For the most part the questions will surround the dredging, but there are some other issues related to the wild actions of this "good old boys' network board, that you might need answers on.

 

HERE ARE THE QUESTIONS TO MCBRIDE.  THERE ARE TWO SETS OF QUESTIONS - ONE GROUP SURROUNDING THE ACTIONS OF THE FUNDING COMMITTEE FOR THE DREDGE, AND THE SECOND REGARDING HIS TIME ON THE BOARD IN GENERAL.

 

#1, DREDGE FUNDING COMMITTEE QUESTIONS:

*Were all members of the community invited several times to sit on the committee?

*Did you develop several funding plans and present them to the full board, and keep the entire Water Amenities Committee aware of all the plans?

*Were there canal dredging meetings that included all members of the Water Amenities Community, that included McMillin, and John Walton?

*Were there times that members of the Water Amenities Committee, one or more, made you aware that current board member Anderson, was inquiring, or providing opinions on the situation as things moved along?  In fact, did you see for yourself shared email communications between him and some of the other committee members?  If so, did Anderson seem aware, and comfortable with how the situation was being handled in his writings?

*Was your funding sub committee advised at a meeting of the full board to begin to seek out banks and their interest and requirements.  If so, did you bring that detail to the full board and present it, prior to the vote in August of 2009?

*Did you keep the entire Water Amenities Committee updated on the bank search, terms, etc.

*Did the board attorney review all steps, give advice, and his firm assist in the closing of the loan contract?

*Were you made aware by the bank, board, or residents, of the actions Concerned Citizens made to disrupt the loan, the process, or the closing?

*As a Water Amenities Committee member, were you ever at meetings where the activities of now Legal Chair Garrison were discussed in any form?  How did the committee members react to Garrison at that time, during the dredging itself, etc?

*Did you, after the loan was signed, approach residents and ask them to pay their canal assessment, because it was past due?

 

#2, QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR TERM ON THE BOARD

*Is it true, that you have requested that the Legal Committee get opinions in writing numerous times, and you were refused?

*Is it true, that there have been times that you have been denied access to records, copies of records, during your time on the board?

*Is it true that at least once, your individual board packet, provided to each board member, at each meeting, did not contain all the information others did, and you publicly noted that you didn't have the information, and were forced to view it over another board member's shoulder?

*Is it true that when the board did not include the up dates on the agenda, or in their reports, at the board table, regarding the dock, that you had to ask questions to bring what was going on to the board table yourself?  To your knowledge did the Water Amenities Committee list the dock for sale, without board authorization?  Did you ask how much the dock had sold for and were denied direct answers at the board table by both DeMarchi and John Walton?

*Is it true, that you were in your yard on the day that the Water Amenities Committee, against a motion of the board, dragged the dock into the canals, and you asked them to take it back?  Is it true that shortly after, they threw you off the committee?  Did members of that committee black ball you from previous activities, and tell you to move?  Did one of the members of the board and committee have you thrown out of your hunting club?

*Were you allowed to review the bidding and contract process, the contract, regarding the gate house fix?  If you were, was there a process that could be labeled "standard business practice".

 

Residents take time now and write McBride, and  get a request into the board for your money.  THIS BOARD HAS SOME EXPLAINING TO DO. 

 

NEXT:    My letter to the board asking for my money back.  AND  A review of the Annual Meeting Packet.





A LITTLE INFORMATION INCASE YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER SMALL CLAIMS COURT

 

PLEASE SEE PREVIOUS ARTICLE, PART III, OF THE THREE QUESTIONS.  If you write the board requesting your dredging assessment money back, and they don't answer, or their answer doesn't make sense, you might want to consider Small Claims Court.  Note the star below which highlights a great government resource page.  Do you know that you could even have a jury trial?

 

 

PART III OF THREE QUESTIONS: IF YOU BELIEVE WHAT THE LEGAL CHAIR SAID ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT PORTION OF THE SETTLEMENT, DO WE ALL GET OUR MONEY BACK?

 

 

 





PART III OF THE QUESTIONS: IF YOU BELIEVE WHAT THE LEGAL CHAIR SAID ABOUT INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT PORTION OF THE SETTLEMENT, DO WE ALL GET OUR MONEY BACK? THIS ARTICLE WILL BE POSTED BY END OF DAY MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2014

THREE QUESTIONS, PART II: WHY HAVE THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHO SIT ON THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE TURNED A BLIND EYE, AND VOTED WITH OUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST LEGAL CHAIR? WHERE ARE THEIR PRINCIPLES, HONESTY, AND INTEGRITY? DO THEY STAND BEHIND ANYTHING THAT THEY'VE DONE?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





BY END OF DAY, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2014: THREE QUESTIONS, PART II: WHY HAVE THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHO SIT ON THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE TURNED A BLIND EYE, AND VOTED WITH OUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST LEGAL CHAIR? WHERE ARE THEIR PRINCIPLES, HONESTY, AND INTEGRITY? DO THEY STAND BEHIND ANYTHING THEY'VE DONE?

THE THREE QUESTIONS - PART 1

As promised, The Wedgefield Examiner has prepared answers to the three questions, as promised in the previous notice.  They are prepared to the best of my ability, are opinion based on attendance at meetings, review of history and documents, etc.  Most supporting documentation is available on The Wedgefield Examiner, or The Wedgefield Times, and should be available for your review at the WPA office, if you request it, and the board will allow you to see it, under what ever law they are using on the date you request it.  As always, verify for yourself.  Questions will be printed in BLACK.  Responses will be provided in RED. 

1)  Was there a conflict of interest in the board's vote to settle the suit regarding a resident's non payment of the $5,000 canal dredging assessment?

Yes, there was a conflict of interest involving this entire board.  The two most culpable are President Walton, and Legal Chair, Garrison.  The WPA President has the authority to appoint committee chairs.  He appointed Garrison, a board member who in person, and on paper, was attached with a group that financed, and brought legal suit against the legal board who openly, with legal advice, voted to assess under Individual Assessment, to dredge the canals. Your current board, voted under the recommendation of Legal Chair Garrison, to admit another resident to the Legal Committee, who had co-authored a letter with Garrison, shortly after the canal assessment, advising canal and non canal residents, to place those assessments in escrow in Anderson Bank, in avoidance of a vote of a legal board.

We'll pause for a moment and seek definition of conflict of interest.  I sought a legal definition.  "A situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person's self interest and professional interest, or public interest."

The Individual Assessment used for canal owners only, came right out of our by-laws.  There was a time in the 10 years that I have lived here that our by-laws and covenants were our guiding legal documents.  That is not the case anymore.  The Concerned Citizens, with Garrison front, and center on stage, introduced the use of state law to over ride our governing documents and do what they wanted to do, when they removed a WPA president and vice president.  Consider the fact, that at will, depending what the Legal Committee wants to defend, they call on our governing documents, then if their will, or want doesn't fit, they throw in state law.  At times, when they seek legal opinion, they put state law in the mix, and other times, not.  It all depends on their agenda.

Consider the fact that often, our Legal Chair, has refused to get legal opinions in writing.  Your board and you, as members, have to take his word, and interpretation, of what the legal opinion was.  Consider the fact that the Legal Chair takes to the attorney, what they want accomplished.  Consider the fact, that if you attended board meetings, etc., there has been a lot of secrecy, fail to update, fail to answer certain board member questions, regarding this particular case, and others.  Consider the fact that if you are a questioning board member, your board meeting packet, sometimes does not contain all the information that non questioning board member folder does.  Consider the fact that for most of us, if you feel you are doing the right thing, you will answer clearly and with assurance, as to what you have done.  I've witnessed twice, our Legal Chair, skirt the question as to whether he has  personally funded the Concerned Citizens in their activities, particularly this question, regarding contributions to their cause, which is also related to the resident who wouldn't pay their assessment, as directed by a letter from our Legal Chair,  and one of his recommended committee members.  It all looks bad.  It does look like conflict of interest.

Finally, remember there was a time when President Walton was about to be removed by the board, a majority Concerned Citizens and their agenda, and the then (prior to Garrison) Legal Chair, said, "it was all about legal."  They removed Walton as President, and then shortly changed board attorneys, because a group of  residents wanted to remove the new board chair and Concerned Citizens on the board, under state law. When the Concerned Citizen lawyer agreed in writing that the residents should be able to proceed to a recall meeting, the former Legal Chair and new president, went to a new attorney, whose opinion differed from their hand selected attorney's.  Garrison, a board member said we wouldn't be paying for that second opinion.  In the end, we as members paid for the second opinion, and for the new attorney's meeting with Mrs. Z., one of the Concerned Citizens, who had brought the canal lawsuit, to tell the new attorney what was happening in Wedgefield, in the world according to her.  With all that said, the former Legal Chair was right.  It is "all about legal", and the prejudice the Legal Chair brings to the lawyers table about what their view of what the board wants is. It just confirms that there is a conflict of interest here, and that we may all pay for it out of our assessment dollars, big time, in refunds. 

Why would a president, and most of the board allow it?  What could it cost us?  We'll discuss that in questions two and three.