UPDATE TO: "Does The Board's Creativity Count When It Replaces Honesty and Failed Promises of Open Governance?"

Please read, "Does The Board's Creativity Count When It Replaces Honesty and Failed Promises of Open Governance?"  You'll note that it includes a notice of another closed Executive Board Meeting, concrete quotes of legal opinion, a motion, a pledge, minutes from a Board Meeting - all regarding the issue of closed meetings.  In fact, they all state that these meetings should be open to resident attendance.  Additionally, I included a letter I sent to the Board regarding the issue.  I believe I stated my case to the Board with fact and respect, but you get to decide because I provided it. 

This issue is important.  We have lived through years of secret meetings which led to leaks of information, court battles, board member suing board member, scathing newspaper articles, harmed reputations, and a community worn out and divided by speculation.  As residents we should take the time to research, attend meetings, and get the facts for ourselves.  Do you know how many times, after the real facts came out, I was told, "that isn't what I heard and I wouldn't have been part of that if I knew the truth"?   Attending these meetings, allows us to see our Board at work dealing with the issues.  When the facts are on the table for all of us to see, misconception and half truths will be greatly reduced, as we look at how we are governed.  We'll be able to decide for ourselves and not listen to one sided questionable facts, from leaks. 

I received one response from a Board Member I respect, who copied the entire Board.   I was told, " I can see why the community liaison does not wish to deal with your correspondence.  Before posting to your blog, a simple call to verify the purpose would suffice"  The purpose of the meeting was stated.  Another statement, "I'm sure you have access to all emails sent by the office."  Finally, "We as  new board are trying our best to conduct and conclude business in the best interest of the plantation.  You are welcome to volunteer to serve personally.  I am spending 30 to 40 hours per week trying to improve our situation and business practices."

I can't hold my tongue regarding the statement about the Community Liaison.  I encourage the Board to go and review the correspondence file and note Board Member Barrier's rare answers.  They could hardly be called that.  He has never answered a question.  He has insulted me as a writer (and others), criticized me as a resident, in a public Board Meeting criticized my role as a grandparent, and never once bothered to answer a question backed up with quotes from by-laws, covenants, policy or legal opinion.  

I responded to the Board:

First, Thank you for your response.  I have always had respect for you in your
volunteer capacities in our community and the larger community surrounding us. 
I'm well aware that there are times that we don't agree.

The announcement on the WPA website indicated the purpose of the meeting.

I'm not sure what you are referring to in regard to my access to office email. 
I have the same access as any resident if all communication is placed in the
correspondence file.

I will continue to share my correspondence on my blog.  As a resident, I've
experienced hidden meetings and agendas since July 2010.  I take Board motions,
attorney opinion, and Board Member pledges seriously. I don't believe the Board
should block member attendance at these meetings on the premise that the meeting
will be lengthy and tedious.  It is our right to decide for ourselves, based
upon legal opinion. The Board should not remove my right and determine whether I
sit through a lengthy process.

A simple call to the office doesn't do it.  It is my understanding that
concerns, complaints, and questions should be in writing and a copy placed in
the file.  I will continue to share my correspondence and observations on the
blog.  There have been two many secrets.  When a resident is answered, the Board
Member answering, speaks for the Board, and the answer should apply to anyone
asking the same question.   Additionally, current and former Board Members have
sent my correspondence to the Board, throughout the community.  I have no trust
in the current system.

I know the job is difficult.  I have donated many hours to committees and Board
activities.  Thank you again, this is one of those times when we don't agree.

Respectfully,

-------------------------

I didn't receive emails from anyone else on the Board.  I did run into a couple of Board Members who told me they had no problem with residents attending the meeting.  I hate rumor but here it is, I've heard that when all was said and done the Executive Board uninvited the other Board Members.  Perhaps you'd like to write the Board and ask.

Once again, open governance is what we were promised, legal opinion encourages it, etc.  Three closed Executive Meetings between December and the end of January doesn't meet the pledge, legal opinion, etc. 

The meeting scheduled was about the contract for the management group.  A vote will be taken at the Board table soon.  I endorse having a management committee, as long as the contract provides critical services.  I'd like to know what they are.   What is the total amount of the contract, under consideration?   Just some of the questions on this important issue.  

I've had over 25 years of experience serving on non profit boards or working as an executive reporting to a Board.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard a board member say that they (their constituents or individuals to be provided a service) don't know or understand.  Those boards had a problem because they weren't open enough, thereby causing speculation and distrust. 

As for the blog, I will continue to write and post.  You'll note that I provide documentation and if it is rumor I tell you that's what it is.  

Do you have an opinion?  Email it to:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com.  Be sure and note whether you want your name to appear with it.

DOES THE BOARD'S CREATIVITY COUNT WHEN IT REPLACES HONESTY AND FAILED PROMISES OF OPEN GOVERNANCE?

Every member of the current Board, with the exception of Adam Anderson (newly appointed), has failed to follow their promise of open government.  In fact, since the election in November we have been taken back down the trail of closed meetings.  I drove past the office and noticed a sign informing us that there will be another closed meeting.  HERE IS THE NOTICE FROM THE WPA OFFICIAL WEBSITE:

"Secretary for the Board ;of Directors is calling a Executive Board Meeting for Monday January 30th, 2012 @ 7:00 pm at the Wedgefield office.  This will be closed meeting to discuss the Management Contract.  All Board Members are invited."

-------------------------

When were the promises made and who made them.  Well let's start with the following motion (May 2011 Minutes), approved by the Board, with Garrison, Barrier, Walters, McMillin, Walton and McBride present and voting. 

"Motion to post announcement of any and all executive and special meetings of Board to website and posting of sign at entrance to notify." 

Here's a portion of the Legal Report from the same meeting, presented by then Legal Chair, McBride:

"There were several inquiries regarding open and closed meetings of the WPA Board. Mr. Robert Moran, our Attorney, has presented his opinion on this subject several times and that is for the Board to refrain from conducting business in executive session and/or closed session. Members may be prevented from participating in the meeting, but should be given the opportunity to attend. To the extent any business is ever conducted in executive session, the results of the meeting needs to at least be re-affirmed in open session. The only two reasons for closed meetings are to discuss employee issues and litigation."

Here is what McBride, Cline, DeMarchi, and McMillin pledged in their campaign literature:

"Insist on open, above-board dealings and transparency in every aspect of managing the affairs of the Plantation.  In particular we will:  Hold no closed "executive" meetings except those required by law"

One more time to cover our bases, here is what the Board Attorney of Record wrote:

The following quote is taken from a letter from Attorney Moran to John McBride, Legal Chairman and Jackie Walton, President, dated April 11, 2011:"It is my understanding that a meeting is being held pursuant to a request from one or more of your Board Members for the purpose of reorganization of the Board.  Initially I reiterate my advice to the Board to refrain from conducting business in executive session.  There are very few purposes of conducting meetings which are not open to the Membership. Members may be prevented from participating in the meeting, but they should be given the opportunity to attend.  This includes the organizational meeting conducted at the conclusion of the Annual meeting and, by implication, any subsequent re-organizational meeting.    To the extent any business is ever conducted in executive session the results of the meeting needs to be re-affirmed in open session."

-------------------------

This Board, as individual members, and collectively appear to be willing to ignore their own pledges, motions, and legal opinion to do their work behind closed doors!  Why? What don't we know?  We don't know whether individual Board Members have spoken out against this, or not.  If they have since they've not only closed the door to us, they've locked their lips!  These actions leave them looking like career politicians, rather than dedicated residents who said they wanted to change the tone of our leadership.

I've sent the following inquiry to the Board:

"I've read your announcements regarding a Executive Board Meeting to be held on January 30th.  Why is it a closed meeting?  When you decided to scheduled it, did any Board Members express concerns about another closed meeting?  If so, please identify them.  Board Members if you opposed this meeting and the Board Community Liaison won't respond, will you as individual Board Members tell me if you opposed it and why?

You are all aware of the Board Attorney of Record's opinion on this matter.  If not, here it is:

The following quote is taken from a letter from Attorney Moran to John McBride, Legal Chairman and Jackie Walton, President, dated April 11, 2011:"It is my understanding that a meeting is being held pursuant to a request from one or more of your Board Members for the purpose of reorganization of the Board.  Initially I reiterate my advice to the Board to refrain from conducting business in executive session.  There are very few purposes of conducting meetings which are not open to the Membership. Members may be prevented from participating in the meeting, but they should be given the opportunity to attend.  This includes the organizational meeting conducted at the conclusion of the Annual meeting and, by implication, any subsequent re-organizational meeting.    To the extent any business is ever conducted in executive session the results of the meeting needs to be re-affirmed in open session."

The meeting is in regard to the management group.  If approved, it impacts every resident.  What is it that you think you have a right to see or hear that I don't?  I don't understand your continuing need to block residents from viewing you at work making decisions for the community I live in.

You are ignoring the advice of the attorney.  To McMillin, McBride, DeMarchi, and Cline, you pledged the following when you were running for office:  "Insist on open, above-board dealings and transparency in every aspect of managing the affairs of the Plantation.  In particular we will:  Hold no closed "executive" meetings except those required by law"

I've printed this letter and additional information on the subject at http://thewedgefieldexaminer.blogspot.com/.  When the Board won't follow legal advice and individual Board Members break their promises, our residents should be informed about it. "

-------------------------

Will the Board answer?  Probably not.  Will individual Board Members answer?  Probably not.  Will you vote for Board Members who promise openness and fail to produce it?  I hope not, but remember, we are less than a year away from voting again.  Will you write the Board about these closed meetings?

If you have an opinion send it to: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com.  Remember to note whether you want your name included or not. 



BOARD VOTES TO APPOINT A RESIDENT TO THE LEGAL COMMITTEE - IS THIS APPOINTMENT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS OF WEDGEFIED PLANTATION ASSOCIATION?

During the January 17th WPA Board Meeting, Legal Chair Bob Garrison nominated resident Bob Nichols to serve on the Legal Committee.  The motion passed.  Was this action in the best interests of Wedgefield Plantation Association?   Personally, I don't think so, but it goes deeper than the appointment of a resident to that particular committee.  As long as we are covering the subject, we might as well address genuine concerns on the complete subject and start with the appointment of Garrison, by President Walton, as Legal Chair.

For over two years we experienced board leadership under dueling lawsuits.  Real day to day governance was set aside while we existed with most of the Board, on one side of one of the lawsuits, trying to remove, diminish, or get control of legal.  Thankfully, with the November 2011 election and  the settlement of the lawsuit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas the majority of the Board members are not involved in a suit, one against the other.  We now only have two involved in the counter suit - Garrison and McMillin.

If you remember, the Legal Chair appointment was so important to the Concerned Citizen element of the 2011 Board - Wilson, Thomas, Huggins, Barrier, and Walters that they removed Walton as President, made Wilson president, and named Huggins Legal Chair.  In October 2011 they passed a motion to have Board Attorney Moody, begin to investigate legal action on some of the aspects contained in the Zieske, Wilson, Thomas lawsuit.  They were prepared to use our association funds to continue their battle.  Why, the Board entity had been removed from the lawsuit during the summer of 2011?  Additionally, under this legal regime resident access to many  records including legal, invoices, letter of engagement, etc. were cut off.

Garrison has a long recorded history with the Concerned Citizens.  He was one of the Board organizers of the 2010 recall, spoke at public meetings of having fellow board members arrested for bank fraud, was part of the Board that publicly humiliated and attacked two female Board Members with threats of arrest - who were cleared of their unfounded accusations, and was one of the authors of a 2010 letter to residents recommending they put their $175.00/yr. and if applicable their $5,000 assessments in an escrow account. 

In fairness, at later points in recent history it can appear that he has moved more to the middle, but just when you breathe a sigh of relief, he goes the other way.  What do I mean?  Most recently he wrote Board Members and told them they should follow the board attorney's advice and open the 2012 Reorganization Meeting to the membership.  When residents appeared, he said he was surprised they were there and took a vote that closed the meeting. 

In the least, he is still under a lawsuit brought by some residents in the community (former Board Members sued during the Zieske, Wilson, Thomas lawsuit), and a fellow Board Member.  President Walton's appointment of Garrison, with a field of "untouched by the lawsuits" Board Members makes no sense.

If you didn't feel that way before, what is one of Garrison's first official moves?  He nominates Bob Nichols, fellow co-author of the 2010 letter to residents recommending putting assessments in escrow. 

We needn't spend more time here.  Beyond these observations, there is one that is more significant.  The Concerned Citizens, fall to this phrase when all else fails, "it is precedent".  In regard to the Legal Committee, precedent is that until the appointment of two residents by McBride to the Legal Committee in 2011, there were no residents on the Legal Committee.  At one time there was somewhat of a subcommittee who assisted the Legal Chair, in a clerical function, comparing WPA individual property records to county records.  They did not have access to the Board Attorney, or attend meetings with the attorney. 

Why should a resident, with the same status as you and me, be allowed to have preview of legal information and advice, that you and I don't.  Why, should any individual, who we as a body, haven't elected, have that privilege?

We will never move forward if we continue to build bridges to lawsuits, hide information from the public, and make suspect appointments that interfere with good, sound governance.  One more thought for the Board - two Board Members should attend every meeting with the Board Attorney.

DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?    Email wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Note whether you want your name printed with you comment.

RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS SPEAKS AT THE DECEMBER 17TH WPA BOARD MEETING REGARDING THE "SETTLED" CANAL DREDGING LAWSUIT

BACKGROUND

Resident Jude Davis spoke at the WPA monthly Board Meeting last evening.  She has provided The Wedgefield Examiner a copy of her presentation, which is provided below.  Her presentation provides information to the Board and residents on the settled dredging lawsuit brought by Zieske, Thomas, and Wilson. 

George Wilson spoke on the same subject during the December Board Meeting.  You can read his transcribed presentation in the report titled, "WILSON INSTRUCTS THE BOARD ON THEIR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY AS IT RELATES TO THE "SETTLED" LAW SUIT", at this site.

HERE IS JUDE DAVIS' PRESENTATION:

-------------------------

"Thank you for letting me speak tonight.  I hope to clear up some of the misconceptions that seem to be floating around the Plantation.  The lawsuit filed in October, 2009 by Carol Zieske, Fred Thomas, and George Wilson was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE on November 16, 2011 by order of Judge Larry Hyman.

I have provided each of you with a copy of the signed order and would like to call your attention to a few salient points.  I have highlighted and numbered each point.

1. DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE  A dismissal with prejudice is dismissal of a case on merits after adjudication.  The plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim.  Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgement.  Since Carol, Fred and George brought this case 'on behalf of Wedgefield Plantation Association,' this means that all members of WPA are barred from bringing any other suit using the information presented in this case.  This dismissal precludes additional supplemental lawsuits.

The second point that I would like to call your attention to is on page two.

      2.  "The State, Plaintiffs, and other named Defendants acknowledge that this order is no way

            addresses any rights, duties or obligations of the Board of Directors for Wedgefield

            Plantation Association regarding, the maintenance, dredging, or any other activity

            pertaining to the canal and, therefore, this order in no way addresses or rules upon those

            rights, duties, or obligations."

The defendants in this suit pushed to resolve this canal issue once and for all.  We wanted to have the court rule on responsibility.  Our lawyer, Mike Smith, approached Turner Perrow, the plaintiffs' lawyer about resolving, once and for all, the canal issues.  Mike was prepared to argue on behalf of the defendants that we had a responsibility to maintain the canals, however, Turner informed Mike that his clients 'were not interested in going there.' Why not?  After two years, they weren't interested in pursuing the charges THEY brought.

And finally, look at page three.

     3.  "The Defendants specifically deny any wrongdoing associated with the votes for the

          dredging of the canals, the financing of the canals and the collection of assessments

           from the members of the Wedgefield Plantation Association and for other acts allegedly

          performed by these defendants and more fully described in the complaint and, therefore,

         this Order, in no way, finds or establishes any wrongdoing by the Defendants."

According to THIS ORDER, the defendants did no wrong.  This includes the assessments and the bank loan.  Collect the supplemental assessments without worry of legal prosecution.  Carol, Fred and George AGREED on behalf of Wedgefield Plantation that there was no wrong doing.

I heard George say that the Board had started legal proceedings against the bank.  I do not know if Mr. Moody had a copy of this order before he made inquiries about possible action, but, hopefully, he has stopped any inquiries.  When did the Board vote to sue the bank?  I seem to have missed that action.  The bank DID do their homework.  At the August, 2009 Board of Directors Meeting, the Funding Committee recommended a plan to finance the dredging including the terms of the loan and the supplemental assessments.  (This was one of four plans that the Funding Committee presented to the entire Board the night before and was the one that the Board felt was the most reasonable).  According to the written minutes of this meeting, the entire Board VOTED to accept this plan by a vote of 7-2.  Fred is yelling about wanting his money back.  He needed to think about that before he signed the dismissal order.  He lost his, and the WPA's, opportunity.

The two checks for $7500 from the insurance company were a cheap way for them to remove themselves from this suit, not an admission of the merits.  They are no longer involved with Wedgefield.

The original suit was dismissed, yet the counter suit remains.  As some of you have come to realize, unsubstantiated charges of wrongdoing are actionable in a court of law."

PLEASE NOTE:  I have retyped Jude Davis' presentation.  If there are typing errors, poor alignment, etc. they are my deficiencies, not hers.

-------------------------

Jude Davis provided each Board Member with a copy of the final order.  She also provided one to The Wedgefield Examiner.  The blog program will only accept pictures of documents or jigs.  I have typed the portions of the doucment that she has numbered or highlighted.  The document is on file here and should be in the WPA office.  Here they are:

# 1.  "ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS"

# 2.  "The State, Plaintiffs and other named Defendants acknowledge that this Order in no way
         addresses any rights, duties or obligations of the Board of Directors for Wedgefield
         Plantation Association regarding the maintenance, dredging or any other activity
         pertaining to the canals and, therefore, this Order, in no way addresses or rules upon
         those rights, duties, or obligations. " 

# 3.  "The Defendants specifically deny any wrongdoing associated with the votes for the
        dredging of the canals and the collection of assessments from the members of the
        Wedgefield Plantation Association and for any other acts allegedly performed by these
        defendants and moe fully described in the complaint and, therefore, this Order, in no
        way, finds or establishes any such wrongdoing by the Defendants."  

-------------------------

DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?   Send them to wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com.  Be sure and specify whether you want your name used.  





UPDATED---- A WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE BOARD, WILL YOU WAIT FOR AN ANSWER WITH ME?

THERE WAS A DECISION AND I GOT TO SEE THE FILES!

Here's what happened.  I went to the WPA Board Meeting on the 17th.  Barrier referred to my correspondence (left my name off as he should) and Al DeMarchi announced in one of his reports that the written request would be honored and that the resident could review the files at 9:00 AM on the 18th, as requested.

When I arrived at the office everything was ready for my review.  Al DeMarchi provided me with a list of checks from 7/1/10 through December 31, 2010 and had all the associated folders laid out.  As he sat with me I selected checks from the list and he went to the folder and provided them to me.  I felt that he was providing access to exactly what I had asked for.  He was cooperative, didn't rush me, and answered any questions I presented to the best of his ability and knowledge.  On a scale of 1-10, ten being served well, I would give DeMarchi a 10 for his role as a Board Member in accommodating a resident.  Thank you Board Member DeMarchi.

WHAT DID I DISCOVER?

If you haven't seen the 2010 Audit Management Letter, see "THE WPA 2010 AUDIT", at this site.  Here is the quote that caused me to write the Board with the request to view files:

-------------------------

"A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis.  A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or a combination of control deficiencies that adversely affects the Organization's ability to initiate, authorize, record, process or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the Organization's financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the Organization's internal control.  We consider the following deficiencies to be significant deficiency in internal control:

During our audit we discovered that several invoices were paid without proper back up and authorization.  The auditor will review these during our audit conference."

-------------------------

The quoted, underlined phrase above, initially led me to believe that I would find copies of checks that lacked receipts, invoices, etc.  That was not the case.  DeMarchi sat while I selected checks for vendors and then we would pull the file.  There were proper invoices and receipts. 

I did see in the case of one vendor that two invoices, from the same vendor were issued on the same date.  It appeared to me to be an attempt to circumvent a Board vote.  There wasn't a contract, no request for proposal (The vendor was paid over $1,000 for drainage work in a short period of time.  The policy manual encourages a bidding process, and contract award for expenditures over $1,000.). 

My next thought was that perhaps the auditor was thorough and back tracked to determine whether expenses were approved starting with a Board vote, adherence to policy, a proper bidding process, contract award, etc.  If you read the entire management letter you'll note that it states these items will be addressed when the auditor meets with the Board.  It seems to me that the meeting with the Board might have given us more insight than the files do.

I asked DeMarchi (who wasn't on the Board at the time) if he knew who did attend the meeting.  He wasn't certain (honest answer).    We may never know what the auditor was talking about.  I was on the Board when the very same auditor performed the audit for 2008.  His discussions with the officers of the Board were complete and detailed. He had followed the payments back to Board votes for approval, etc.  I wish someone from the current Board who attended the meeting for the 2010 audit would enlighten us, so we could understand the issues related to the underlined statement.

DID THE REVIEW OF RECORDS ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING?

Yes, it did.  I don't have all the answers, but I was able to confirm for myself that there were proper invoices and receipts for the checks I reviewed with my random sampling.  What was more important was the fact that I was allowed to review the materials (as I believe I should have been), and the Board had taken my request seriously.

Al DeMarchi is well known to most of us in the community as a neighbor.  I had the opportunity to view him in his Board Member role, interacting with a resident, and in this instance, I was pleased as to how he fulfilled that role.  Notice, the qualifier - in this instance?  Just as in life, we take one step at a time, as we evaluate how our new Board Members are serving in their new capacity, we take it one instance at a time.   P.S.  It wasn't because they said yes.

DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?    You can email The Wedgefield Examiner at the following address: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com.  Be sure and note whether you would like your names posted with your comment. 

UPDATE: Please read the article below.  I respectfully wrote the Board a week and a half ago, and asked to view records on the 18th.  I asked for a date, after this months Board Meeting because I know the office gets busy, the week prior to the meeting.  I respectfully asked for a response.  Well it is 4:00 PM on the 17th and I haven't received an answer.  Why?  It must depend on whether you are a person of favor with the Board.  I pay my assessments, on time, every time.  In the least, I deserve an answer.  I deserve an answer in a timely fashion.  I've held that date for over a week.  Do they think I have nothing else to do?  Last November, didn't many of those Board members running for election, or re-election, pledge to answer residents?  It appears that not a lot has changed.

HERE IS MY WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE BOARD:

Please distribute to the Board and place a copy in the correspondence file.


Board,


I was concerned when I read the 2010 audit report.  It stated that during the
last six months of 2010 there were checks issued for payment, without
appropriate back up.  As a resident I'm interested in reviewing the
disbursements and back up documentation from July through December 2010.  I
would like to come to the office on January 18th to review those files.  Please
respond and confirm my appointment.


Additionally, there have been times I have been allowed to make copies at no
charge, have been allowed to make copies for a charge, and at times haven't been
allowed to make copies at all.  Please send me a statement regarding the current
policy.


I'll appreciate a response.  In regard to responses to residents, please extend
an apology from one resident to two others for Board Member Barrier's December
Community Report.


Best Regards, 

---------------COMMENTS---------------

Why do I want to see these documents?  I believe it is important to follow the actions of our leadership, past and present, so the same mistakes are not made again.  I personally do not believe in a hidden agenda, rights removed rather than added to residents in a community, and the abuse of power.  We should all have to abide by the same rules.

As a resident I would like to know what we paid in unsupported checks.  Was it $5.00 or $500.00?  Who submitted the the request for payment and who approved it?  As recent as this week we have a former Board Member, Fred Thomas telling us our finances are a wreck.  He was Legal Chair  during the period, from July 2010 through December 2010.  Is he credible at all in telling us anything about our finances?  He has launched a campaign encouraging residents to put their assessment payments in an escrow account, or withhold them completely.

George Wilson, former Board President (during same period of time) wants the Board to use our funds and settle issues that were settled in the judge's order regarding the Zieske, Thomas, Wilson lawsuit.  Didn't he, Zieske, and Thomas settle the suit? 

The judge signed the order - he spoke, and you spoke when you didn't re-elect Wilson and Thomas. 

Will you follow George and Fred?  Do you want it to all go away?  I don't believe we know what ALL is.  If a judge's order to their suit, doesn't let it rest, what will?  I'd like it to go away, but they don't.  In the never ending, end - they won't let it go away.  

I want to review, see for myself, and work toward good governance, open sound governance.  Since July of 2011 the Board has greatly restricted what residents can review.  How can we help fix, when we don't know how deep the problems go?  Granted, we've had changes on the Board, but we still have some seated who were on the Board during the period from July  - December 2010.  We have some on the Board - Garrison and Barrier, who verbally attacked, threatened to put in jail, two female Board Members, for their involvement in a check to a lawyer.

We need to get facts, keep ourselves informed so we know who to follow, who to vote for in the future.

The Board doesn't answer residents.  Barrier gave what he called a "Community Report", during the December Board meeting.  He attacked two nameless residents, but he never wrote and answered them, and he didn't answer them that evening.  I won't hold my breath for a response from Board Member Barrier.  Question for Barrier:  Where was the "community" in that report?

We had an executive meeting in December that was announced, and then Garrison said he was surprised to see us there.  I don't know what the Board is up to now but they are trying a new January "flavor" of the month, and calling a meeting tonight that all Board Members are invited to attend, "a committee meeting", and residents are not allowed to attend.  When all board members meet, at a scheduled time, with a stated purpose, and proper notice, it is an executive session.  Who are they trying to fool?  Why don't they want us there to observe?

It is ridiculous actions like this and an AUDITOR stating that we have unsupported checks, that cause me to stay tuned to what is happening.

In fairness, I did receive a call from one of the new Board Members, asking for clarification.  Thanks, to that Board Member.   I'm told the Board will vote to decide what I can see.  Why don't they just look at the By-Laws and Policies?

Watch this site and I'll share my answer, if and when I get one.  

DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT:  Email:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com.  It is your option, as to whether we use your name or not.  State your wishes.

RESPONSES TO FRED THOMAS EMAIL

PLEASE NOTE:  We have another response for Thomas.  Watch this article as I'll add any other that come in here.  1/12/12:

"If Fred Thomas and the rest of the Concerned Citizens were smart they would......... Never mind"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a response to the Thomas email.  Please see email at this site, titled "Former Board Member Thomas Wants To Take Back Our Community"

Here is a response from a "sound" mind:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:32 PM

To: http://webmail.roadrunner.com/do/mail/message/mailto?to=fredcthomasiii%40yahoo.com

Cc: WPA Office

Subject: Fred's 1/10/12 E-mail re Paying Our "ASSETMENT" (sic)

Kathy: Please place a copy of this e-mail in the WPA Correspondence File, and forward it to all nine Board members for their information.

Fred:

You are so clueless on this subject it is really sad. Did you receive a copy of the Judge’s order from your lawyer?  Did you read it and understand what it says? Just in case you don’t have it at hand, I have taken the liberty of attaching a copy of the complete order for your information. I suggest you print it out and read it carefully, because it addresses most of the issues you raise in your 1/10 e-mail.  If you don’t understand the Order, I suggest you ask your lawyer to explain it to you.

In the meantime, I would like to address each of your comments, and hope to show you that what you are asking for is totally off base. Your comments are in italics, and my responses follow in blue.

THE WPA BOARD DOES NOT SEEM TO WANT TO ADDRESS OUR LEGAL PROBLEMS.

What legal problems do you mean? The lawsuit you and your two co-plaintiffs filed against the WPA was SETTLED by the October 2011 Order, and there are no other suits against the WPA pending at the moment. Furthermore, your suit was settled WITH PREJUDICE, which means that none of the allegations the three of you raised can be brought before a court of law again.  In legal parlance, your “legal problems”  are considered as “res judicata”, a Latin  term meaning “a matter already judged” and not subject to appeal.

Specifically, that means that NO ONE can ever again sue either the individual 2009 Board members, or WPA itself, over any of their actions in respect to the dredging project . In particular, the decisions they made in pursuit of canal maintenance dredging such as hiring contractors, obtaining a loan from the bank to finance the project, AND requiring canal lot owners to pay a supplemental assessment were not found to be improper in any way.  The dredging was proper, the loan was proper, and the method of assessment was proper. When you continue to roil the waters with e-mail such as this, you just give more ammunition to the attorney for the six former Board members who are still pursuing their counterclaims case against you!

You and your co-plaintiffs had an opportunity during the pre-trial process to reach an adjudicated solution to many of the underlying issues WPA faces about FUTURE canal maintenance once and for all, but you wimped out. Yes, we have to agree that SC owns the canal bottoms, but the real issue, i.e. who is responsible for maintenance of one of Wedgefield’s “greatest assets” remains unresolved. Now, thanks to the lack of commitment by you and your two co-plaintiffs, we will as a community have to face this divisive issue all over again five to ten years down the road.

SO SOME OF US ARE PLANING (sic) TO EITHER WITHOLE (sic) OUR PAYMENTS OR PUT OUR PAYMENTS IN AN ESCROW ACCOUNT. THE IDEA IS TO GET THEIR ATTENTION.

The three bobble-heads tried this idea a while back, and it backfired in their faces. You are of course free to withhold (spelled correctly) your assessment (spelled correctly) if you wish, but there will be consequences, no matter whether you put it in escrow or just fail to pay it. First, if your full payment is not received by the last day of February (or January, if you owe anything from earlier years), you will no longer be a member “in good standing”, cannot vote in any regular or special meetings of members, and penalties will begin to accrue. You could in theory be denied entrance to observe monthly WPA Board meetings, but that is not part of a clearly articulated WPA Policy at the moment. For certain, however, if you are in arrears for six months, a lien will be placed on your home. In addition, at the one year period of delinquency, WPA may foreclose on your home.  (All of this as per the current  finance/collection policy approved in October 2011, which YOU VOTED ON as a Board member). You will get some attention for sure, but it won’t be the kind of attention you’d like, and won’t do a darned thing about resolving any issues.

1. DOING NOTHING IS WRONG AND MAY CREATE SERIOUS LEGAL PROBLEMS.

Again, what kind of legal problems do you mean? There is nothing the current WPA Board can do about the past events; the matter is CLOSED. It could and probably SHOULD be thinking 5-10 years ahead and anticipating how it is going to deal with the issue when the next maintenance dredging is needed.  In particular, WPA should establish a restricted reserve fund now, earmarked for that project, so when it becomes necessary, most or all of the funds will be “in the bank”.  This will avoid the need for loans, and greatly reduce or eliminate the need for additional assessments. But it won’t become a “legal problem” until the Board takes an action (or FAILS to take an action) going forward that someone or group feels strongly enough about to file a lawsuit.

2. WE MAY HAVE AN ILEGAL (sic) BANK LOAN.

See the above. The actions of the 2009 Board in obtaining the loan were NOT found to be improper in any way by the Court.  The Bank did due diligence, WPA did due diligence, and the loan was and still is perfectly legal.

3. WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK.

I would like mine back too! By the time the loan is paid off, I will have paid about EIGHT TIMES MORE than you, and I could really use the cash.  But where exactly do you think the money is going to come from? Nationwide Insurance, having paid the $15,000 settlement figure, is done with Wedgefield and won’t be coming up with any more funds.  The nine 2009 Board Members, including Karl and Jude, were found to have done no wrong and are now protected by the “with prejudice” settlement, so you cannot get money from any of them.  The Bank loan and the process of obtaining it were also found to be proper and cannot be reopened thanks to the “with prejudice” settlement, so the money will not be coming from the Bank. 

Any other bright ideas?  I think the answer we all have to live with is that we now have only about three and one-half years left to pay off the dredging loan, and after that, the Board may consider reducing the Annual Assessment back to a figure lower that $625. But my crystal ball is a little fuzzy that far out, so it remains to be seen.

4. WE ARE IN A FINANCIAL MESS, IF WE DON'T ADDRESS THESE PROBLEMS THE WPA WILL NEED A BIG INCREASE IN ASSETMENTS. (sic)

This is just plain malarkey; we are NOT in any sort of “financial mess” and WPA is quite solvent. Are you trying to drum up support for your position with theatrical scare tactics?  I hope you read and understood the 2012 WPA Budget,  because you were on the Board when it was approved. At the current annual assessment of $625 per year, WPA can meet all of its normal 2012 financial obligations, including the dredging loan, with a small amount left over toward reserves. WPA also has adequate reserves to cover  a major storm cleanup or other unplanned expense, should we have the misfortune to need it.

For the near future, then, WPA will NOT need any increases in assessments (spelled correctly).  In fact by 2015, we will likely see a reduction, although that will be for the 2014 Board to decide as they determine the budget for the following year.

IT'S UP TO YOU, WE HAVE TO TAKE BACK OUR COMMUNITY. PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG.

Take it back from whom, and just who is “we” anyway?

I understand your frustration, but please think about the greater, long-term good for our little community.

We have a sitting Board of Directors  that determines how our community is managed.  They are put in place by a “due process” called an election. We voted for five Director positions in November, and you were not re-elected to the WPA Board. Like me, then, you are now just a concerned member of the Association hoping to influence their decisions. Unfortunately,  the “agenda” of your 1/10 e-mail contributes nothing to moving WPA forward and interferes with the healing process.

Please think about what your “take back” wish implies. Do you really want crony contractors to get 60% of WPA’s income without benefit of proper bids and contract award again? Do you want to go back to having mean-spirited bullies who have no qualms about punching out a resident “run” WPA like their personal fiefdom?

I

f you really care about Wedgefield, you will try to find something GOOD and POSITIVE to do for our community instead of continuing to divide and inflame it with bad ideas. Get on a Committee, help with social events, work on road cleanup, start a new special interest club, help with editing and publishing  the Wragg.. there are a lot of GOOD ways to influence policy, but I think you get the idea.

I hope you will take my comments above as positive feedback, and that you will turn you energy into something worthwhile  and productive for Wedgefield.

PS: Please read up on how to use the “blind copy” function in your e-mail program.  By sending your e-mail to a large “open” distribution list, everyone can see everyone else's e-mail address, and some may be concerned about the “privacy” issues that raises.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The writer says it all to Fred Thomas.  Do you have an answer for Thomas?  Send it to: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com

FORMER BOARD MEMBER THOMAS WANTS TO "TAKE BACK OUR COMMUNITY"

FRED THOMAS SENT THE FOLLOWING EMAIL ON JANUARY 10, 2012 AND ASKED RECIPIENTS TO PASS IT ON

Please note that I have typed it as sent.  Here it is:

"THE WPA BOARD DOES NOT SEEM TO WANT TO ADDRESS OUR LEGAL PROBLEMS.

SO SOME OF US ARE PLANNING TO EITHER WITHOLE (Typed as sent.) OUR PAYMENTS OR PUT OUR PAYMENTS IN AN ESCROW ACCOUNT.

THE IDEA IS TO GET THEIR ATTENTION.

1.  DOING NOTHING IS WRONG AND MAY CREATE SEROUS LEGAL PROBLEMS.

2. WE MAY HAVE AN ILLEGAL BANK LOAN.

3.  WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK.

4.  WE ARE IN A FINANCIAL MESS, IF WE DON'T ADDRESS THESE PROBLEMS THE

      WPA WILL NEED A BIG INCREASE IN ASSETMENTS (Typed as sent.).

IT'S UP TO YOU, WE HAVE TO TAKE BACK OUR COMMUNITY.

PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG."

----------------COMMENTS---------------

I didn't count the email addresses, but Thomas sent this to over 50 people.  Many of the individuals on the list are friends.    Did they ever provide Thomas with their email address so he could communicate with them, outside of correspondence from him, from the office, in his official capacity as a Board Member?  He isn't on the Board, didn't answer when he was on the Board.  Did he take an office email list to his home?

Who are the other individuals supporting this effort?  Are there others?  About two years ago, three of the Concerned Citizens, all named Bob, sent mail to residents suggesting the same thing.  What is different now? 

The lawsuit brought by Zieske, Thomas, and Wilson is over.   The judge's final order is in, and yet zealots like Thomas will not let it die.  They continue to harm our community with these types of actions.  Review the article titled, "Wilson Instructs The Board On Their Fiduciary Responsibility As It Relates To The "Settled" Dredging Lawsuit", at this website.  It contains excerpts from the judges signed order.  What are these people thinking?

My first thought was, Fred we had an election, the residents spoke, and you weren't elected, and neither were Wilson or Zieske.  You tried, people followed, and the court ruled.

What are my fears? I fear that they will never let us restore, grow, and move on.  The WPA has never had the assessment collection problems we've experienced over the last 2 years, in the history of the association. Once again they suggest that you put your property and your community in jeopardy, and hold your payment.  In most of business, if you don't pay, you don't get served.  It doesn't work that way here.  All it does is add strife and take our community down.

Recently, I was asked why I continue to write and follow these things?  The person asking just wants to move forward.  In most instances if we don't know the history, don't stay on our toes, based on the history, we make bad decisions.   

Don't help Fred and company jeopardize our community, or your home.  Remember ignoring them doesn't make them go away.  It emboldens them. Not sure, remember a court order from a suit they brought doesn't make them stop.

DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?    email the blog - wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com

WILSON INSTRUCTS THE BOARD ON THEIR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY AS IT RELATES TO THE "SETTLED" DREDGING LAWSUIT

WILSON SPEAKS IN THE RESIDENT SPEAKER SLOT AT THE DECEMBER BOARD MEETING

I've transcribed Wilson's talk from a tape of the December Board Meeting to the best of my ability.  I encourage each of you to listen to the tape on The Wedgefield Times. Wilson is quoted in blue.  Here it is:

"I'm here to present to the WPA on behalf of the membership, a check from Nationwide Insurance Company in the amount of $7,500.  I can only construe  that this is to represent a acknowledgement on the part of Nationwide, that this check is in repayment of a check issued to Attorney Gene Fulton that was not properly authorized."

COMMENT:  Wilson can ONLY construe .  Did a document accompany the check detailing Nationwide's intention?  I doubt it, but George if it did, please provide a copy to The Wedgefield Examiner and I'll be happy to print it.  Otherwise, this is the world according to Wilson and his Concerned Citizen agenda. 

"In addition I would like to state that another $7,500 was paid by Nationwide Insurance to the Concerned Citizens for their attorney's fees.  In our opinion,  Nationwide would not have agreed to do this settlement without realizing that the Concerned Citizens had a proper and rightful claim to this suit, otherwise it would never have gotten its attorney fees."

COMMENT:  Now Wilson states, "in OUR opinion".  Who is OUR - Wilson, Zieske, and Thomas?   Once again did Nationwide state what he says in writing?  Doubtful!  Again, send it and we'll print it for all the world to see.  It is about time, after the grief, stress, damage to people's reputations and to our community, that there was some real foundation and truth to what those three and  their cohorts have dragged us through.  This was the team that were going to fight to the end and give everyone their dredging assessments back.  They settled for $7,500!  Where's the million plus?

"Everyone should know that Carol Zieske, Fred Thomas, as well as myself, were advised to drop our charges against the individuals named in that suit in order to get the final stipulation that the true owners of the canals is the State of South Carolina."

COMMENTS:  The three were advised "to drop our charges against the individuals named in that suit " .  They are following legal advice now!  They filed their suit in late 2009, what took them so long?  On August 25, 2010, their legal guru, Attorney Moran wrote the following to Thomas, "Finally, we need to get individuals out of lawsuits.  There is generally no reason to sue an individual director for actions taken or not taken by the Board.  It is bad precedent and bad practice.  Individuals are free to sue one another for any number of reasons, suing individuals for their behavior on a board is, in most instances, simply not proper."  If they were going to follow advice, why not before they extended the grief and heart ache another year?  Why not follow the advice of the attorney they forced on us, saying he was the be all and know all on legal issues, as it related to Wedgefield? 

The issue was not about who owned the canals but responsibility for maintaining them.  If I were the insurance company I'd give them a total of $15,000 to get this thing done with.  The important thing is what did the court say.  Notice, George didn't speak to that,  because he doesn't get to construe or give opinion !

"Now that we do not own the canals, the fact is that the WPA collected numerous dollars from its residents to pay for dredging even though the WPA was advised to wait and see.  They chose not to wait and now he WPA has a problem since the WPA has no obligation what so ever to pay and approve something it does not own.  The last Boards....(couldn't hear a few words) legal action to seek remedy from First Federal because they believed the loan was not appropriately documented with due diligence.  If the bank had performed its proper and usual due diligence it would have read our covenants and by-laws and realized that it required a vote of the entire Board to authorize the President and Vice President to sign for that loan, not so called members of the officers, unless it was mislead as part ..... (couldn't hear a few words).I am advising you that it is your fiduciary duty to continue to pursue this action to determine if the rights of its members have been compromised,  not their wallets. 

COMMENTS:  "The WPA was advised to wait and see."   Yes, I was on the Board in 2009, and after being allowed to CONSTRUE and gather the OPINION of the Concerned Citizens, GEORGE advised the Board,  with all his legal prowess, to wait and see! 

"Then there is the issue of special assessment and how those violated our conditions, by-laws, covenants and restrictions.  You have to settle that issue too.  Filing leans on properties that opposed the special assessments could and would probably expose the association to further legal suits at a cost to our membership.  Again ....your duty to do this.  Do not take fiduciary duty lightly.  You can be held personally responsible for failure to do your fiduciary duty.  Please move forward and get a final resolution to these issues. " 

---------------GENERAL COMMENTS---------------

FACT:  As stated earlier, South Carolina does own the bottom of the canals.  The issue was always about responsibility to maintain the area we dug, allowed homes to be built and sold as water front property, had dredged previously, and to protect a community amenity.  Here is what the court order said:   "The State, Plaintiffs and other named Defendants acknowledge that this Order in no way addresses any rights, duties or obligations of the Board of Directors for Wedgefield Plantation Association regarding the maintenance, dredging or any other activity pertaining to the canals and, therefore, this Order, in no way, addresses or rules upon those rights, duties, or obligations."

FACT:   Regarding the loan, assessments, and any future claims regarding these issues, this is what the court order said:  "The Defendants specifically deny any wrong doing associated with the votes for the dredging of the canals, the financing of the dredging of the canals and the collection of assessments from the members of the Wedgefield Plantation Association and for any other acts allegedly performed by these defendants and more fully described in the complaint and, therefore, this Order, in no way, finds or establishes any such wrongdoing by the Defendants."

"Based upon the foregoing, it is

ORDERED  that the State of South Carolina is the owner of the beds of the canals n Wedgefield Plantation Association Community of Georgetown County which are the subject of this suit, and that the state is dismissed with prejudice as a party to this action; it is

FURTHER ORDERED  that the settlement of the Plaintiffs' claims described above is hereby approved and shall be the Order of this Court, thereby dismissing with prejudice any and all claims that arise out of the facts and matters alleged in the complaint of the Plaintiffs, as members of and on behalf of the Wedgefield Plantation Association against the remaining Defendants, and it is SO ORDERED.

November 16, 2011, LARRY B. HYMAN, JR.,  Judge,Fifteenth Judicial Circuit"

What was Wilson trying to do when he spoke at the December WPA Board Meeting?  Did he even read the order?  Should the Board take his advice when it appears to be contrary to the very order that resolved the lawsuit that he, Zieke, and Thomas brought?  You be the judge, but Wilson should remember a real judge spoke and ORDERED.

COMMENTS:   The Wedgefield Examiner will be happy to publish all comments, with or without your name (please advise).  Send them to:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com                               

  

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER CELEBRATES 2,000 HITS

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER'S TOP DOG IS PLEASED!

Brady can't believe that The Wedgefield Examiner has had over 2,000 visits in three months.  Please keep reading.  There is a lot going on in our community.  Brady stays right by my feet as I type every new blog entry.  He won't allow anything to get by us!





BOARD MEMBER BARRIER ADVISES THE BOARD REGARDING OPEN VERSUS CLOSED, EXECUTIVE MEETINGS

BACKGROUND



Briefly, the 2012 newly elected Board held their reorganization meeting on December 5th.  Residents were notified of the meeting on the official WPA website and a sign was posted near the front gate.  Garrison appeared surprised that several residents were seated in the room as the meeting opened.  He was up to tricks.  To update yourself, if you haven't read the following articles, please take time to do so now:

"THE WPA REORGANIZATION MEETING - THE PUBLIC MEETING THAT WASN'T"

"GARRISON KNOWS WHAT IS RIGHT AND FAILS TO FOLLOW THROUGH"

During the meeting Garrison suggests that the Board might want to take a vote to determine if the meeting will be open or not.  McBride refers to Attorney Moran's opinion on the subject.  Barrier says he sent everyone an email regarding the subject.  Here's the email:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM:          Jason Barrier

SENT:          Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 9:50 PM

TO:               Garrison, McMillin, Walton, Walters, McBride, Huggins, DeMarchi, Cline

SUBJECT:   Reorg Meeting

Bob,

There are very few of us left on he Board who were present when Mr. Moran advised us of his position regarding executive sessions, so I think it is important to revisit the subject.  Mr. Moran, who had served as Board attorney under previous Boards, never expressed any disagreement with holding closed executive session throughout all of his previous encounters with the Board.  My understanding of the circumstances that led him to that conclusion is that he made that statement in response to the previous Boards decision to hold executive sessions without the knowledge of all Board members.  They made decisions and voted on issues illegally and carried out those decisions without their (typed as written) ever having been a public discussion.  Specifically, he had been in discussion with the Legal Chair at the time regarding the illegality of the loan for canal dredging, in which not all members (indeed, not even a quorum) were allowed to enter into debate because they were unaware of the meeting.  Additionally, a late vote was accepted via e-mail.  Nothing in the By-laws could possibly be interpreted to allow this sort of action.  Mr. Moran's statement was a response to the secret action of a select few individuals in a position of power on the Board.  He advised that, should an executive session be held, the vote should not be held as binding until i could be properly voted on at the next regular meeting.  Since these are held in open forum at regularly scheduled times, it would be legal and binding,   This precludes roguish action by a few in power.

Non of the preceding has anything at all to do with an Organizational Meeting, however.  In executive session, proposals are debated and the outcome likely will affect the membership in some way.  In almost every case, money will be appropriated for some causes and every member has a stake in how our funds are disperse.  In an Organizational Meeting, there is no chance that any action will b taken that directly or indirectly affects the membership.  It is simply the act of placing officers in their positions and assigning committee chairs.  The membership may be interested in the outcome, but have no stake in who is selected for a position.  Unlike in other executive sessions, they cannot be materially injured by the outcome.  This is not to be taken as a denouncement of my first paragraph, only a distinction between the characteristics of the two types of meetings.  Kathy is fully capable of having the results available on the website on Tuesday for all who are interested.  I believe it is a mistake to break decades of precedent in this case and to allow the membership to attend this meeting.

Sincerely yours,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS

Barrier has one of several possible problems, either he is forgetful, doesn't think for himself and blindly follows the advice of one of his Concerned Citizen leaders (???), or he is blatantly untruthful.  Attorney Moran covered the issue of open executive meetings, including reorganization meetings, several times.  It was addressed in April 2011 when Wilson, Thomas, Huggins, Walters, and Barrier were calling meetings to reorganize and replace than President Walton.  Once again, here is his opinion:

The following quote is taken from a letter from Attorney Moran to John McBride, Legal Chairman and Jackie Walton, President, dated April 11, 2011:"It is my understanding that a meeting is being held pursuant to a request from one or more of your Board Members for the purpose of reorganization of the Board.  Initially I reiterate my advice to the Board to refrain from conducting business in executive session.  There are very few purposes of conducting meetings which are not open to the Membership. Members may be prevented from participating in the meeting, but they should be given the opportunity to attend.  This includes the organizational meeting conducted at the conclusion of the Annual meeting and, by implication, any subsequent re-organizational meeting.    To the extent any business is ever conducted in executive session the results of the meeting needs to be re-affirmed in open session."

Moran's statement had nothing to do with covert meetings for a dredging loan!  It had everything to do with reorganization meetings.  Barrier didn't have to explain, Walton, McBride, McMillin, Barrier, Garrison, and Huggins were all on the Board when Moran issued the April 2010 opinion. Barrier's long diatribe on the difference between regular executive meetings and reorganization meetings had nothing to do with anything!  This is more of - when we don't like what the lawyer we selected says, we'll say it isn't so, and if that doesn't fly we'll call on precedent.  That is one of the favored words of this crew.  

Once and for all, if that is possible Mr. Barrier, the dredging loan was not approved at a secret meeting of some selected Board members.  The dredging and loan were approved with a open vote during the August 2009 Board Meeting!   I was there.  It wasn't a secret vote, infact we each stated our vote for all to hear, on a roll call.   Residents if you haven't read the minutes from the meeting, please go to the official WPA site and read them.  Perhaps you'd like to print them and mail them to Barrier.

COMMENTS:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com