The Wedgefield Examiner, provides the following
information, to the best of my ability, after listening to the tape of the WPA
October Board Meeting, at The Wedgefield Times. The WPA has not provided
meeting tapes at their own website for the last 3-4 months. Please listen
to the tape yourself, to verify the information.
As stated in Part I of
the October WPA Board Meeting, the Legal Report was brief, and lacked complete
information. We are approaching the Annual Meeting. As usual,
residents have the opportunity to propose by-law changes, and if reviewed for legality,
and they meet that standard, they can be placed on the ballot for a vote by the
membership. In the past, after the by-law changes were submitted for
consideration, we were informed how many had been submitted, their content, and
if they didn't meet the legality standard, we were informed why, usually during
the Legal Report, during a board meeting.
This year, during the August Board
Meeting, we were advised that there were 2 by-law submissions presented for
consideration. One requiring the board hire a CPA to oversee our bookkeeping,
suffered some humor from the board table, because it has met the legality
check, but been presented, more than one time. It should be noted that
there is nothing in the governing documents that prohibit repeated submission
of the same by-law change to a vote of the membership.
The second by-law submission required a
vote of the membership for another canal dredging to take place.
At the September Board Meeting, Legal
Chair Garrison, stated that the board attorney had not provided his legal
opinion on the by-law submissions.
During the October meeting, he simply
stated that there would only be one by-law change to vote on. More important, is why like previous years,
we have not been presented the information - legal opinion, as to why one of
them, won't be voted on. Slip of mind by our Legal Chair? I don't
think so. Go back to the October edition of the WRAGG, and our Legal
Chair/Vice President provides a lengthy article about the annual meeting
and voting. He just states that there will be one by-law amendment to
vote on. He does spend a lot of time discussing the proposed COVENANT
change. Leave that alone for a moment, and ask yourself why it might be
important that we have the information on the legal opinion, as to why one of
the by-law changes won't be placed on the ballot.
It is important for consistency.
We've been informed in the past. We lack consistency in the
presentation of pertinent fact, on too many levels with this board.
Additionally, when a resident follows procedure, puts themselves out, and submits a change they feel should be considered, they deserve open legal
opinion, as to why it won't be presented. We, as members deserve to know
what in the legal governing documents, prevented a fellow member from being
heard. It may help us develop our own recommendations for change, and
consideration of a vote by the membership.
As to the COVENANT vote, after the
behavior on so many levels, of this board, and others, I fear for our
association and the power this change will bring. The COVENANTS protect
us. The fact that it would take a 100% vote to change them, has kept freewheeling
boards from doing further damage to our by-laws, and policy. While
our Legal Chair didn't have the time to address the reasons the second
by-law amendment won't be voted on, he had plenty to say about the COVENANT
change in the WRAGG.
"There are two items on the
ballot this year. One is a proposed by law change, the other is a
proposed COVENANT change. Currently, covenants can only be amended by a
100% vote of the membership, and inherently impossible requirement imposed by
the original developer of Wedgefield to ensure that he (the developer)
maintained total control over the plantation. This antiquated requirement
needs to be changed in order to allow the members of the WPA to govern
themselves in a more pro-active manner. If a 100% vote (that would be 576
yes votes) is impossible, why are we bothering to place this on the ballot?
Answer: Simply to prove the point. The board knows this will
not pass, but in order to obtain a court ruling (by declaratory judgment) to
change, this we need to establish that an attempt has been made to do
so. ONCE THIS IS DONE, WE will be in a position to petition the court to change this
requirement to a more achievable number. IF AND WHEN THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED, THEN THE WPA WILL
BE IN A POSITION TO CHANGE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE COVENANTS TO REFLECT MORE ACCURATELY THE NEEDS
AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSOCIATION."
The WE, is nine board members who have operated inconsistently, and
until now, couldn't change the covenants, and gather their individual short
sighted, tainted constituency, to ram through what they want with an annual
meeting vote. We all ought to be afraid of what is next. Up until
now, this is the one portion of our governing documents, a board and their
constituency, couldn't touch. The 100% requirement insured that
protection. I have difficulty allowing this board to manipulate
this critical corner stone of our governing documents. They already
do enough harm through the policy manual, and by-laws. They ignore, and
fail to live according to the covenants as they are currently written.
We'll consider something simple.
Last year, during the annual meeting, a resident asked the board about
the burning policy published by the board, which stated “NO BURNING, NO
EXCEPTIONS”. I stated that a board
member, on my street was burning in a big ugly pot, which was left on his
vacant lot, with other equipment for weeks.
Board member, Cline stated, from the board table, that that nothing
could be left standing on vacant lots (covenant). The offending board member stated that he had
been busy. Nothing was removed from his
vacant lot, so several weeks later, I wrote the board with pictures of the
mess. In a letter to me dated
12/7/14,Legal Chair Garrison wrote, “I see no violation of “burning pots” as
they are clearly not stored per your letter, but rather have been in use. In any event, defining what shall be
allowable relative to burning related to Covenant #7 is as you know under
review by the board. I will tell you
that I believe the proposed change now having had first reading is insufficient
in definition and allowance will be reviewed restructured, and that the present
policy change up for second reading in December be rejected. If the boat and
trailer are indeed on the vacant (as in unbuilt) lot it does indeed need to be
moved in accordance with Section V-2-2.03 and the property owner will be
notified.”
We won’t spend much time on the
discussion of this particular incident, but it is an example of how this board
will play hide and seek to please each other’s agenda, at the expense of our
governing documents. In this case, your
board, during resident questioning, at an annual meeting, gave a pass to a
board member who ignored “NO BURNING, NO EXCEPTIONS”, ignored a fellow board
member, who stated from the board table that nothing could be left on a vacant lot,
and our Legal Chair ignored his own writing (and the pictures presented by a
resident of the boat & trailer) that referred to a covenant. What has happened on that board member’s
unbuilt lot, is that the pot, chairs, swing, etc. has sat for a full year, often for
months, unused. The board in their
turning a blind eye to the covenants, has given wings to the deviant
vacant lot owner/board member. He has
since added a flagpole, a sign that says “MYRTLE MANOR #1, ROAD KILL COOKOUT
FRIDAY NITE, YEE-HAW!”, and taken dock debris found floating in the river, and
stacked it there (been there at least 6 months).
I would assume, that you bought property
in an HOA for the protection provided to property maintenance standards,
expressed in the covenants, and governing documents, and expected appropriate
enforcement. This board, in this
incident, and so many others, continue to ignore, beat around the bush, and do
what they want. Why would you allow them
to spend our money to go to court to gain a declaratory judgment to run wild
with our covenants?
As residents, our fatal flaw has been
that we just sat back, didn’t call the board on it, and now have created a
monster/speeding train that we can’t stop.
What do I mean? Residents, this move, by this board, is one
for the playbooks. Your board can’t lose
this one. You couldn’t vote it away, if
you tried. The board wins, whether you
vote, or not, because the lethargy that has been growing for years here, is
going to be the winner. Now, your board
deviously, has positioned themselves to go into court and use your lethargy to
“BE IN A POSITION TO CHANGE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE COVENANTS” ! God help us!
For just a moment, let’s put the board
member with the burning pots, river salvage, flagpole, sign, etc. in the vacant
lot adjacent to your home. Realize the
board has left him in defiance of some covenants, and miscellaneous governing
documents. Perhaps, for convenience of
his “pot burning fires”, he’ll add a port-a-pot, and leave it there forever,
because "it is in use". This is
what you may get, when your board goes to court. Perhaps the most honest thing the pot burning
board member, and your board has allowed, is that one year ago, he put our
future in WRITING, on the sign that has stayed on his lot, for over a
year. P.S. According to our governing documents, you
couldn’t have his sign, or any other sign, without seeking their approval. HERE IS THE SIGN:
