DATE: June
18, 2015
TO: WPA
Board
FROM: Madeline
Y. Claveloux
RE: QUESTIONS,
AND REQUEST TO REVIEW & COPY
DOCUMENTS,
ACCORDING TO ATTACHED STATE
LAW,
AS PROVIDED TO ME BY BOARD MEMBER
DE
MARCHI
1) Has there
been a final resolution of the lawsuit regarding the canal owner, who refused
to pay his/her dredging assessment? If
so, I would like to review and copy the final court order. If not, please update me, regarding the
progress of this lawsuit. REASON FOR
REQUEST OF REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS, AND COPIES, IF IT IS RESOLVED: I, like the rest of the canal lot owners,
paid my assessment. If one doesn’t have
to pay, I would like to see what the final court papers say, regarding the one
who didn’t have to pay. Additionally,
our board took a vote on its resolution early last fall, and has failed month,
after month, to report on it.
Additionally, there has been a precedent set, of posting final court
orders on the WPA website, and others.
2) I would like the opportunity to review the Correspondence File, from January 1, through June 2015. I am not requesting copies. REASON FOR THE REQUEST:
2) I would like the opportunity to review the Correspondence File, from January 1, through June 2015. I am not requesting copies. REASON FOR THE REQUEST:
It appears that the residents are getting mixed
messages from the board table, regarding resident requests, and
complaints. For instance, in regard to
the speed bumps, Board Member Garrison said that there hadn’t been any
complaints. Board Member McMillin said
there had been a lot of them. Board
Member DeMarchi spoke about a number of drainage issues brought to his
attention, by resident calls to his home.
What is the proper procedure to bring concerns and questions to the
board? Do all residents have the privilege
of calling board members at home?
3) During the
May WPA Board Meeting, a board member mentioned that the bookkeeper/ accountant
had left, and wanted to know if she would be replaced. When did this contractor, or employee
leave? What was the date? What was the reason that this person
left? Treasurer DeMarchi, did not
report on the date this individual left, plans to replace her, candidates, or
anticipated expense to the accounting function.
Please provide that information.
4) As
residents, we have had little, to nothing, in updates on the state of the
almost 2 year, gatehouse fix. Have the windows,
purchased almost 2 years ago, been installed?
Who removed the dry wall and floor coverings? Who treated, or remediated the molds? Where were the moldy wood and dry wall debris
taken for disposal? How were they
prepared for disposal? Who transported
the debris for disposal?
It appears, looking in the windows, that some dry wall
and wood have been replaced. Who
replaced it? How much did the supplies
for mold remediation, and damage to dry wall and wood cost?
I have reviewed the most recent bids for the
gatehouse. One licensed, insured
contractor said the following, “"Removal of dry wall and floor coverings. (This will be done
by a mold remediation company due to the severity of MOLDS that are
growing so this will take care of Gate House Proposal # 1-2 as well."
He ends with, "This is a good faith estimate for work described in
the bid proposal as well as extras. highly advise to be done."
He goes on in another area to say, "Anything with
a asterisk is highly advised extras to prevent this problem from happening
in the future. Due to the fact the building was built with no extra
plywood an water barrier there are no guarantees the elastic membrane and vapor
barrier are highly recommended to take the place of the plywood an water
barrier to prevent water coming in that penetrates the brick." As a
resident, I am very concerned about what is happening with this project,
particularly because
our board, for whatever reason, has failed to report on it.
5) During
the June WPA Board Meeting, Legal Chair Garrison reported that he had received
two written legal opinions. One regarded
liens on fees, and the other concerned avenues to change the covenants, through
means other than the 100% vote. Garrison
seemed to do a good job providing a thumbnail sketch of the opinions. He also stated that they are available at the
office for review. I would like review,
and copies. REASON FOR THE REQUEST: These are complicated, and important
opinions, if acted upon, could concern every resident. I would like the copies, to review, and
consider them, over time, in my home.
I would like to schedule an appointment, under
the rules provided by Board Member DeMarchi (State Law), for June 30, 2015 at
11:00.
Board Member Anderson, I have appreciated your
prompt responses to my letters. You
should know, no fault of yours, or Kathy, that more often than not, when you
have advised me that records are available for my review, that they are
not. Board Member Garrison was present
on one of those days, and should have witnessed first hand, that staff had to
make calls to board members, and I never got to review all of the requested
documents. My time is as valuable as
anyone else’s. I’m trying to follow the
rules, and the law available to me, and I’d appreciate the board treating my
requests, as though I am a resident in good standing, who is entitled to this
information.
A copy of the state law sent to me by board
member DeMarchi, follows.
Kathy Phelan
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.
From: Alan DeMarchi [mailto:alanantd1@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 7:37 AM
To: Kathy Phelan; adam anderson; 'Bob Garrison';
'Jacky & Judy Walton'; Janine Jill Cline; 'Jason Barrier'; 'John McBride';
John Walton; 'Larry McMillin'
Subject: Re: REQUEST TO REVIEW RECORDS & A
Question
Please inform Ms. Claveloux of the following.
Since she wishes to follow all rules and regulations. See
highlighted items. SC Title 33, Article 16 Code of Law.
SECTION 33‑16‑102.
Inspection of records by shareholders.
(a) A shareholder of a corporation is
entitled to inspect and copy, during regular business hours at the
corporation's principal office, any of the records of the corporation described
in Section 33‑16‑101(e) if he gives the
corporation written notice of his demand at least five business days before the
date on which he wishes to inspect and copy. Shareholders holding at
least one percent of any class of shares are entitled to conduct an inspection
of the tax returns described in Section 33‑16‑101(e)(8)
under the same conditions.
(b) A shareholder of a corporation is
entitled to inspect and copy, during regular business hours at a reasonable
location specified by the corporation, any of the following records of the
corporation if the shareholder meets the requirements of subsection (c) and
gives the corporation written notice of his demand at least five business days
before the date on which he wishes to inspect and copy:
(1) excerpts from
minutes of any meeting of the board of directors, records of any action of a
committee of the board of directors while acting in place of the board of
directors on behalf of the corporation, minutes of any meeting of the
shareholders, and records of action taken by the shareholders or board of
directors without a meeting, to the extent not subject to inspection under
Section 33‑16‑102(a);
(2) accounting records
of the corporation; and
(3) the record of
shareholders.
(c) A shareholder may inspect and
copy the records described in subsection (b) only if:
(1) his demand is made
in good faith and for a proper purpose;
(2) he describes with
reasonable particularity his purpose and the records he desires to inspect;
and
(3) the records are
directly connected with his purpose.
(d) The right of inspection granted
by this section may not be abolished or limited by a corporation's articles of
incorporation or bylaws.
(e) This section does not affect:
(1) the right of a
shareholder to inspect records under Section 33‑7‑200 or,
if the shareholder is in litigation with the corporation, to the same extent as
any other litigant;
(2) the power of a
court, independently of Chapters 1 through 20 of this Title, to compel the
production of corporate records for examination.
HISTORY: Derived from 1976 Code Section 33‑11‑250 [1962
Code Section 12‑16.25; 1962 (52) 1996; 1981 Act
No. 146, Section 2; Repealed, 1988 Act No. 444, Section 2], and Section
33‑11‑260 [1962 Code Section 12‑16.26; 1962 (52)
1996; 1981 Act No. 146, Section 2; Repealed, 1988 Act No. 444,
Section 2]; 1988 Act No. 444, Section 2.
