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.
