Let's start at the beginning. When I prepared to write this article it was outlined as a piece about correspondence, but it isn't just about correspondence. We'll start there but keep your mind open. During the September meeting President Jacky Walton announced that a committee would be formed to determine how to answer resident questions. Immediately, John McBride volunteered to sit on the committee. He was ignored and DeMarchi and Barrier were appointed to the committee. Additionally, one of the board members leaned over and told President Walton that he could appoint who he wanted. It appeared to support President Walton ignoring McBride.
What is going on? In many cases, residents haven't been answered for months! Why? Who knows for sure? There are rumors that DeMarchi is responsible. We know for sure that Barrier, Community Liaison, responsible for answering residents, doesn't answer at all. He rarely has a report and when he does, it is verbal, nasty, and if the resident isn't in the audience they don't know they have been answered. If they are in the audience, they still really haven't been answered because of unsupported, undocumented information that is often no more than a strike at the individual.
During the September meeting Barrier offered compliments to DeMarchi regarding correspondence. Bottom line is that your President nominated the two board members to the committee to fix a problem caused by one - Barrier, and hindered by rule, after rule, by the other - DeMarchi. What do I mean? DeMarchi chaired the committee that dealt with the policy manual. There are rules in it regarding answering residents. During the July meeting DeMarchi added a new set of rules. Here is a portion of the July Meeting:
The transcription follows. I've transcribed to the best of my ability. As always I recommend that you go to The Wedgefield Times and listen to the section yourself. THANK YOU WEDGEFIELD TIMES!!!
HERE IS A PORTION OF THE SECRETARY'S REPORT:
"Several correspondence have been received at the office and the management company, Mr.LaFrance has been answering the correspondence as rapidly as possible.
Section 12 of the Policy Manual states the Community Liaison has 10 days to acknowledge receipt of the correspondence and 30 days for a final response. Some residents feel they are entitled to immediate responses and it is not always possible since the volunteer Board Members are not always available to respond immediately. A procedure will go into effect in which Mr.La France will receive the correspondence. He will communicate those to the Board Members. The Board Members have 48 hours in which to respond to Mr. La France, at which point he will put together a response to the resident. The Board Member will then receive that final response. If approved, Mr. La France will proceed with sending it out. This should eliminate any conflicts from what Board Members feel is an appropriate response."
Nothing improved, nothing changed as far as response to residents. Residents have written on important issues - to them. They are in good standing. What have they gotten so far? Nothing, except in some cases, abuse from the Board table. We get no answers. Your Board, under the direction of President Walton is inefficient. No one is held to their committee job description. We've added a "scape goat" - the management company. More rules are made and not followed and the answer is more rules designed by the very people who made new rules and ignored them. It is compounded by the whole Board sitting by and calling their RULE cohesive. They pat each other on the back - as in, "I'll wash your back, you'll wash mine", and quite frankly their inaction is just like that bath water - stagnant. Any board member who brings question to the table is ignored, eyes roll, and sometimes they are treated like less than children. In the mean time when things roll to the attention of some board members, at least two of them say they weren't aware because they don't "do email". Really? Could they make an arrangement to have their emails printed off at the office and pick them up? Additionally, your board doesn't share all information with all board members, particularly if they usually ask questions.
Think about it. We had a resident write the Board and update them on the 2011 road fiasco. He included a report from the state that said the road vendor had been fined for issues that the 2011 road chair lied about and said they weren't so. Your Board didn't answer the resident. Your Board didn't report it during the Community Report, or anywhere else. The same resident wrote twice to the Board about the Arbors. Did he get a written response? No! Garrison took him to task during the September Board Meeting. I'm not going to transcribe it. Go to the Wedgefield Times and listen to the Legal Report. Humiliation is a common standard for this cohesive board.
Almost every facet of our governance is being handled this way. We haven't had real complete financial reports in months. Whose fault is it now? The scape goat - the management company. Why aren't residents being answered? The board is making new rules for the management company. We haven't had one road fixed. The board, under the direction of the Drainage Chair is digging "small ditches" (according to a report in September). Our reserves have been assigned by percentages - no one has told us what they are. A new and "better" finance report is being developed by the month. We can't compare them - it is like comparing apples to cucumbers. The Board voted to pay down $81,000 of the canal dredging loan when minutes before they were told that the projected 2013 budget wasn't ready because there was a projected $25,000 short fall. They had to hold another board meeting a week later to approve it. If you've done projected budgets, the next year's budget shouldn't be figured on what your doing today except to look at trends. You balance your projections on income and set your flexible expenses accordingly. We have never been told what the total amount of the management contract is and we aren't allowed to see the contract! We don't have written opinions on major issues from the very attorney we are paying. Your board has failed to deal with unapproved services provided by the attorney to some on the board members who went on a whim to seek advice. That would break cohesiveness. This is cohesive governance? I guess they can call it that. They are making the rules and they are in charge. I call it dysfunctional! When is each board member going to act with their brain, education, work experience and ask the critical questions necessary to making decisions "on behalf of the best interests of Wedgefield Plantation Association"? I'd dare to say it hasn't happened all year and won't be before the Annual Meeting? Could your board led by DeMarchi and Barrier, possibly come up with new rules that would answer all the questions that have been left because your entire Board allowed it, prior to the Annual Meeting? I'm not laughing. The sound you hear is news dog Brady. He is belly laughing.
You have decisions to make. Soon your Annual Meeting packet will arrive. Current Board Members DeMarchi, Walton (John), and Anderson are candidates. None of these men have stood up "on behalf of the best interests of Wedgefield Plantation Association". They have sat back and let things happened. No questions, no comments, and a lot of raising their hands and voting with the flow. The fourth candidate is not a board member. He has never served on the Board. I'm going to vote for Wijthoff and hope that he is elected and will ask questions, make the residents aware of what is going on, and won't cut deals. We have three board seats to fill. Last year, I faced a similar dilemma. I wouldn't vote for the Concerned Citizen candidates and one of the others had lied, covered up, and then went after me for bringing it all out. I refused to use all of my votes. I couldn't bring myself to vote for someone I didn't trust. I refused to vote for someone that I could not respect. I could not vote for someone who wouldn't fight or stand up to what was right. I'll do what I think is best this year but right now I can only support Wijthoff. This statement was not requested or approved by Wijthoff, nor was the article content reviewed or approved by Wijthoff.)
I sent the following to the Board today. I'll update you as to whether I'm answered and if I get to view the documents and have copies if I request some.
Please distribute to the Board, Edmund LaFrance, and place a copy in the
Correspondence File.
Board,
I'd like to visit the office on Wednesday, October 3rd. at 10:00AM to review the
following:
1) Correspondence File
2) Legal Opinions on each of the three proposed by-law amendments
3) Legal Invoices and supporting documentation for billings - if the WPA was
billed for a written legal opinion there should be a corresponding document.
4) Legal opinion on the Arbors
I also would like to be provided copies of the documents that I request a copy
of. In the recent past, I have been taking notes as needed, however, in
reviewing minutes I find that I can have copies.
QUESTION: What is happening with the curb? There was no report in September.
The curb is still there.
Thank you.
Madeline Y. Claveloux
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS WRITES THE BOARD
Dear
Examiner,
I sent the following e-mail to Edmund LaFrance
and the Board on September 19 and am eagerly awaiting replies from almost
everyone. Today, Al and I examined the ditch and pipe in question, not the one
he thought. A deadline for the WRAGG was published as was a date for a meeting
to vote on the budget. I am still waiting for the complete financials from
August.
I requested an opportunity to view the master
deed that was in Bob Garrison’s report. According to Bob’s report. our
attorney, Mr. Moody, examined the master deed. When I went in to the office
this morning, Kathy informed me that she has never seen a master deed in the
office. Kathy also informed me that NO Board member asked her to search for
one! Hmmm! Who’s deed did Mr. Moody examine? Why would he refer to it as a
master deed? Did he examine anything? When are we going to get straight
answers? According to my research, each property in Wedgefield Plantation has
its own deed and they are not identical.
What a snafu!
Jude Davis
All,
Last night was another meeting where little was accomplished and seemed to
be based on anything but fact. The eye rolling and mini-temper tantrums are
unacceptable. It appears that some of you need to reread the code of ethics as
at least four of you violated it last night several times. I am not sure if it is the issues unique to
the WPA, micromanagement from certain members of the Board, or just plain
incompetence, but William Douglas Management does not appear to be
helping. Why does correspondence go unanswered for months? Why
is it, that when something is finally answered, the result seems to be an
opinion based on personal bias and not fact? The financials are a mess. Last
month, in particular, was so off you should have been embarrassed to send it
out.
Janine,
Once again, the financial report was incomplete. Please list the
reserve categories and the amounts of money in them. There is no
excuse for NOT having the complete financials ready. Last months financials
were obviously prepared for another community with different categories. Since
the reports are computer generated, William Douglas should be able to customize
them for our needs. If you are going to take the money to maintain the roads
out of reserves, you could have balanced the budget by reducing the roads amount
to $2500.00 and making a few other minor changes.
Unless Al has changed this in our policy manual, the annual meeting
packet should include an approved budget. How is that going to
happen?
Al,
I have started a photo journal of the standing water in my yard caused in
part by run off from the road but mostly from a pipe installed by the WPA that
allows ALL, not just astronomical, high tides to come in to my yard. You
mentioned that lot 31 has standing water that eventually leads into the
canals. That water, and some from lot 32, flows through a pipe that is on my
property. This pipe does not drain water from my yard, but from other yards and
the street. I have, in the past, paid to have this pipe cleaned twice yearly.
No more! This pipe is no longer my problem.
Jason,
When a resident writes a letter to the Board, a written reply is expected.
The minutes are sanitized and the ramblings of some Board members not completely
reported. I am still waiting for an answer to my request to see Mr. Moody’s
opinion regarding sub-associations.
Bob,
I am eagerly awaiting ANY written response to my letters to the Board
regarding the financing of a sub-association, the opinion of the attorney, and
the negative effect on the value of my property caused by both WPA property and
the WPA policy regarding drain pipes. You were, once again, playing to your
audience when you promise a reduction in assessments.
Jacky,
I wrote in June regarding some ARC issues and have not heard a word. You
informed John McBride to have the complaints sent to the office for response. I
did, to no avail. Yes! let’s form another committee to further the attempts of
this Board to keep the membership in the dark.
Adam,
I am eagerly awaiting a response to my questions regarding the canals and
financing. Is any money included in the 2013 budget for maintenance? What’s
the plan? We should dredge the canals until the spoil site is full, after that
the cost will be prohibitive for all.
Larry,
In 2009, the delinquency policy was changed so that anyone owing
assessments as of July 1 would have a lien placed on their house. You, as
treasurer, changed it to the $2,000 threshold—almost three years assessments.
If you can’t collect at 6 months, the chances of collecting after almost three
years are slim. Perhaps if you had not supported the repayment of $81,000, some
progress could have been made on improving the recreational facilities for
all.
John Walton,
When is the WRAGG coming out? No deadline for articles appeared on the
web-site.
John McBride,
Keep on plugging John. The idea of splitting the $81,000 repayment was a
good one.
Judith Davis
Monday, September 24, 2012
RESIDENT WIJTHOFF WRITES THE BOARD ABOUT URGENT PROBLEM AND REQUESTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ALONG WITH RESIDENT VAUGHAN AT THE SEPTEMBER 26TH BOARD MEETING
Wijthoff's urgent problem is presented in the following document. The second document includes his request to speak, along with resident Vaughan, at the September 26th Board meeting.
DOCUMENT # 1:
DOCUMENT # 2:
DOCUMENT # 1:
DOCUMENT # 2:
Saturday, September 22, 2012
GARRISON ANNOUNCES WHICH BY-LAW AMENDMENTS WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT AND GIVES HIS IMPRESSION OF THEIR IMPACT. AS AUTHOR OF THE TWO THAT WERE APPROVED, I DISAGREE
We will start with transcribing Garrisons's words from the Legal Report presented during the August WPA Board Meeting. I have transcribed to the best of my ability. I suggest you go to The Wedgefield Times, scroll to approximately 30 minutes and listen for yourself. In all cases, Garrison's words will be in black. I will interrupt with my words and the documents I submitted for the by-law amendments in blue.
GARRISON:
"Three by-law proposals were submitted by the members for voting on at this year’s election. Two of these proposals have been accepted for inclusion on the November ballot. The third has been denied on statutory grounds on the attorney’s opinion is on file in the office. The members of the legal committee were only concerned with the legalities of the proposals and whether or not they violate any existing covenants, or restrictions, or statutes. Allowance or denial of those proposals on the ballot should not be considered as an endorsement by the legal committee, either for or against those proposals. The individuals who submitted the proposals have been notified of the decision for two of them in writing. The other one - we only got the opinion in writing yesterday. We will be sending a letter telling why it has been denied and why with the appropriate statutory … Do you want to know what the proposals are as long as we’re at it? (Someone the board say yes.)
Proposal in essence that…You’ll see it on the ballot. It will allow for the Board to place liens on properties for unpaid assessments of any variety. Currently we can only put liens on certain annual assessments. You got somebody that owes us five years of lot mowing, we got no place to go unless…on assessment. Then we can file a lien for the whole amount but we cannot as things are constituted presently file a lien for somebody to just owe for whether it is unpaid for building something, or lot assessments, or lot cutting, or something like that. That’s one of the two." The by-law change I submitted along with my rationale is presented in blue and red below just as I submitted them to the board (except for a change in ink color). What is Garrison trying to do? This by-law amendment is under voting! It never had anything to do with anything else except voting! Additionally, Garrison mixes fees with assessments. Lawn mowing, ARC application, etc., are fees! They have no relationship with this by-law, the amendment, or voting. Personally, I view voting as a privilege, whether national, state, local, or right here in our association. Read my rationale.
BY-LAW CHANGE # 2:
ARTICLE IV, MEMBERSHIP, Section 3: Voting Rights (Now):
On matters submitted to a vote of the membership, members in good standing, who have officially registered with The Association by providing the name and address of the legal owner/s of the property, shall be entitled to one vote for each lot or condominium apartment owned. Members in arrears in payment of their yearly assessment within ten (10) days prior to the Annual Meeting are not in good standing and shall not be entitled to vote.
CHANGE (noted in RED and underlined):
On matters submitted to a vote of the membership, members in good standing, who have officially registered with The Association by providing the name and address of the legal owner/s of the property, shall be entitled to one vote for each lot or condominium apartment owned. Members in arrears in payment of any assessments approved by the Board, within ten (10) days prior to the Annual Meeting are not in good standing and shall not be entitled to vote.
RATIONALE: The Wedgefield Plantation canal lot owners were previously assessed for dredging, under the By-Laws, through Individual Assessment. The assessment, was voted and passed, contracts and loans secured based on the assessment. Members who failed to pay their Individual Assessment, retained their right to vote at the Annual Meeting, which is a privilege, while causing great harm to the ability of the Association to pay its legitimate debt.
BACK TO GARRISON AND THE NEXT AMENDMENT:
"The second one allows for -changes the by-law regarding individual assessments to include individual assessments for canal maintenance and that basically says that in addition to make that inclusive." Read my rationale. I always believed that canal dredging- lot maintenance of any type could be assessed under Individual Assessment. It is legal and ethical, according to our existing by-law. A Concerned Citizen said, "it is for small amounts of money only". Did you see that restriction anywhere in the current by-law? No, but many hung their hat on that person's word and no court upheld that person's word, or struck down the use of Individual Assessment for canal dredging. I hoped that adding canals would aid any board and keep our board out of the courts if the decision had to be made again to dredge.
BY-LAW CHANGE # 1:ARTICLE V, ASSESSMENTS AND PENALTIES, Section 2, Individual Assessments (Now)
Individual Assessments: In addition, individual assessments may be levied by the Board. These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance, or any costs incurred, by The Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-Laws and in the deed “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions.”
CHANGE (noted in RED & underlined):
In addition, individual assessments may be levied by the Board. These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance, including canal maintenance , or any costs incurred, by The Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-Laws and in the deed “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions.”
RATIONALE:The language, as currently written has been applied to canal dredging. As currently written it has not been over turned, in any court. However, considering the historic strife regarding the canals, adding the additional language would remove question, as to the validity of its use, should a Board determine that it was in the best interest of the community to assess periodic maintenance of the canals.
BACK TO GARRISON:
"Both of these have been accepted and will appear on the ballot.
The third proposal is a change in the voting by-law that would limit voting to not one per lot but one vote per owner, regardless of how many lots they owned. That was denied and will not be on the ballot. Reasoning for that is so that we are clear. There is nothing in the covenants that specifically gives the right to vote. The only thing in the covenants regarding lots is you get to pay. Voting isn’t inherent in there. The master deed according to the attorney, does touch on it but doesn’t specifically include voting privileges. Per lot but the statue that regards horizontal regimes which such as the condos very clearly requires that each condo owner get one vote. So to allow this on the ballot would have meant that condo owners, if they own multiple condos would get multiple votes. But if they-law were passed property owners who own multiple properties would not. Consequently it couldn’t be allowed because it would create a discriminatory mess in terms of voting allotment and that is why that one was denied."
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
GARRISON:
"Three by-law proposals were submitted by the members for voting on at this year’s election. Two of these proposals have been accepted for inclusion on the November ballot. The third has been denied on statutory grounds on the attorney’s opinion is on file in the office. The members of the legal committee were only concerned with the legalities of the proposals and whether or not they violate any existing covenants, or restrictions, or statutes. Allowance or denial of those proposals on the ballot should not be considered as an endorsement by the legal committee, either for or against those proposals. The individuals who submitted the proposals have been notified of the decision for two of them in writing. The other one - we only got the opinion in writing yesterday. We will be sending a letter telling why it has been denied and why with the appropriate statutory … Do you want to know what the proposals are as long as we’re at it? (Someone the board say yes.)
Proposal in essence that…You’ll see it on the ballot. It will allow for the Board to place liens on properties for unpaid assessments of any variety. Currently we can only put liens on certain annual assessments. You got somebody that owes us five years of lot mowing, we got no place to go unless…on assessment. Then we can file a lien for the whole amount but we cannot as things are constituted presently file a lien for somebody to just owe for whether it is unpaid for building something, or lot assessments, or lot cutting, or something like that. That’s one of the two." The by-law change I submitted along with my rationale is presented in blue and red below just as I submitted them to the board (except for a change in ink color). What is Garrison trying to do? This by-law amendment is under voting! It never had anything to do with anything else except voting! Additionally, Garrison mixes fees with assessments. Lawn mowing, ARC application, etc., are fees! They have no relationship with this by-law, the amendment, or voting. Personally, I view voting as a privilege, whether national, state, local, or right here in our association. Read my rationale.
BY-LAW CHANGE # 2:
ARTICLE IV, MEMBERSHIP, Section 3: Voting Rights (Now):
On matters submitted to a vote of the membership, members in good standing, who have officially registered with The Association by providing the name and address of the legal owner/s of the property, shall be entitled to one vote for each lot or condominium apartment owned. Members in arrears in payment of their yearly assessment within ten (10) days prior to the Annual Meeting are not in good standing and shall not be entitled to vote.
CHANGE (noted in RED and underlined):
On matters submitted to a vote of the membership, members in good standing, who have officially registered with The Association by providing the name and address of the legal owner/s of the property, shall be entitled to one vote for each lot or condominium apartment owned. Members in arrears in payment of any assessments approved by the Board, within ten (10) days prior to the Annual Meeting are not in good standing and shall not be entitled to vote.
RATIONALE: The Wedgefield Plantation canal lot owners were previously assessed for dredging, under the By-Laws, through Individual Assessment. The assessment, was voted and passed, contracts and loans secured based on the assessment. Members who failed to pay their Individual Assessment, retained their right to vote at the Annual Meeting, which is a privilege, while causing great harm to the ability of the Association to pay its legitimate debt.
BACK TO GARRISON AND THE NEXT AMENDMENT:
"The second one allows for -changes the by-law regarding individual assessments to include individual assessments for canal maintenance and that basically says that in addition to make that inclusive." Read my rationale. I always believed that canal dredging- lot maintenance of any type could be assessed under Individual Assessment. It is legal and ethical, according to our existing by-law. A Concerned Citizen said, "it is for small amounts of money only". Did you see that restriction anywhere in the current by-law? No, but many hung their hat on that person's word and no court upheld that person's word, or struck down the use of Individual Assessment for canal dredging. I hoped that adding canals would aid any board and keep our board out of the courts if the decision had to be made again to dredge.
BY-LAW CHANGE # 1:ARTICLE V, ASSESSMENTS AND PENALTIES, Section 2, Individual Assessments (Now)
Individual Assessments: In addition, individual assessments may be levied by the Board. These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance, or any costs incurred, by The Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-Laws and in the deed “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions.”
CHANGE (noted in RED & underlined):
In addition, individual assessments may be levied by the Board. These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance, including canal maintenance , or any costs incurred, by The Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-Laws and in the deed “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions.”
RATIONALE:The language, as currently written has been applied to canal dredging. As currently written it has not been over turned, in any court. However, considering the historic strife regarding the canals, adding the additional language would remove question, as to the validity of its use, should a Board determine that it was in the best interest of the community to assess periodic maintenance of the canals.
BACK TO GARRISON:
"Both of these have been accepted and will appear on the ballot.
The third proposal is a change in the voting by-law that would limit voting to not one per lot but one vote per owner, regardless of how many lots they owned. That was denied and will not be on the ballot. Reasoning for that is so that we are clear. There is nothing in the covenants that specifically gives the right to vote. The only thing in the covenants regarding lots is you get to pay. Voting isn’t inherent in there. The master deed according to the attorney, does touch on it but doesn’t specifically include voting privileges. Per lot but the statue that regards horizontal regimes which such as the condos very clearly requires that each condo owner get one vote. So to allow this on the ballot would have meant that condo owners, if they own multiple condos would get multiple votes. But if they-law were passed property owners who own multiple properties would not. Consequently it couldn’t be allowed because it would create a discriminatory mess in terms of voting allotment and that is why that one was denied."
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
GARRISON GIVES HIS VERSION OF LEGAL OPINION ON THE FORMATION OF A CANAL SUB-ASSOCIATION
Let's begin with a transcription of this portion of Garrison's legal report. I have transcribed it to the best of my ability. I encourage you to go to The Wedgefield Times and scroll to approximately 26.00 minutes and listen to it. The transcription, Garrison's words, will be provided in black print.
"Questions have been raised regarding the Board attorney's opinion relative to the proposed alternative to the canals that Adam's committee brought to the table. At that time I was asked to approach the attorney on a exploratory basis to find out while in doing this proposal - some regime or canal regime, sub association, whatever term you want to apply to it, would it violate existing covenants or by-laws? As such because it was exploratory no written opinion... was not requested from the attorney, as it was only a preliminary inquiry about feasibility......canals regime as I told the Board I would do.
It was made clear by the attorney that such a regime could not be mandated or imposed upon the canal lot owners by the WPA. It simply cannot happen, nor can it happen, subsequently under change of ownership or property. All right, if this were to ever come about it would have to be something that was agreed upon as voluntary by the canal owners. The cost of establishing that in terms of incorporation, if it were to come about, was also discussed at that time and was some where in the neighborhood of maybe a thousand dollars to do. ...relatively simple and essentially he said he did not believe the establishment of this would violate existing covenants and by-laws so long as it was done voluntarily. It would not impinge on any existing mortgages or deeds because that question also came up and that was what that was about."
So now you have heard Garrison's translation of what the attorney said. I'm not calling Garrison a liar. I am questioning the entire Board for allowing such an important opinion to be provided by word of mouth. He said, she said, they said, doesn't cut it any where, except apparently with Wedgefield Association Boards. Why have we been in newspapers, in courts, had protests both inside and outside of our meetings? The canals. What was the subject of the inquiry? The canals. What did the opposition to the canal dredging seek? All of the legal papers, including written opinions. We have a very bad history of legal chairs telling other board members and our resident membership what the attorney said. Often, when you dug far enough and obtained emails etc., sent to the legal chair, the writings did not match what the legal chair had stated. Why set yourself, and us, up for that?
Let's start at the beginning and review what Garrison said. First this is not the proposal Adam's committee brought to the table to discuss. I was at the meeting. Our committee brought a by-law change proposal to the table. Garrison brought the canal sub association thought to the table. Garrison said if approved, it would be coupled with a by-law change proposal that would include a percent of annual assessments going to the new canal regime. There was agreement it would go forward and he would ask the board to pay for an opinion on the feasibility of a sub association. Quite frankly, one down, more options to be considered after. There is no after. It appears the intention is to drag this out as long as possible without really looking at feasibility. Rumor is that Anderson himself doesn't believe this is a possibility because not all of the canal owners will buy it. In August we were told they would survey canal lot owners. No mention was made of it in September.
This is the motion your board voted on at the May 15, 2012 board meeting. "A motion was made by Bob Garrison and 2nd by Adam Anderson to approach the attorney to investigate a long term solution for canal funding. Motion passed unanimously." Where does that motion state any of the following? "At that time I was asked to approach the attorney on a exploratory basis to find out while in doing this proposal - some regime or canal regime, sub association, whatever term you want to apply to it, would it violate existing covenants or by-laws? As such because it was exploratory no written opinion was not requested from the attorney, as it was only a preliminary inquiry about feasibility......canals regime as I told the Board I would do." This just looks like more of your board's under the table hand shake agreements that hold no weight in common sense, sound business, legal, or fiscal management. I believe about a year ago after Legal Chair Thomas sought opinions off the cuff that your board had to pay twice, once for Thomas' chat and then to have the opinions put in writing after. Additionally, this very board ignored a report regarding this attorney that McBride read at the December 2011 board meeting, and then wouldn't include his report in the minutes. Here (in red) is a statement from McBride's report. "All of Mr. Moody's communications were either verbal or via personal Email. Company Emails were not generally used or if they were, Board members did not have the opportunity to see them. It seems to me that our Attorney failed to use due diligence during his tenure. When I asked about how he verified the Board wishes, he had no answer which means he did nothing. He was told when he was interviewed for the position of backup Attorney that at least some Board Directors had questionable honesty and he was told during the summer of 2011 that his work was not being shared with the Board. It is my opinion that minimum due diligence would be to make some Board contact to assure his work was approved by the Board and not just a personal agenda. As it turns out more than $5000 of work was done and paid for and none was ever approved by the Board. Mr Garrison, prior to this meeting, was asked if he knew of these meetings. He answered by saying he might have known about some of the meetings, and then later clarified the answer by saying, yes, he probably knew about the meetings. Why did Mr. Garrison not let the rest of us know what was going on, or object to unauthorized work? Who was at the meeting described in red? Attorney Moody, McBride, DeMarchi, Garrison, McMillin, and Barrier. Who else was at the meeting when your Board wouldn't allow McBride's report to be entered into the minutes, after he had read it in a meeting? Add Anderson and Jacky Walton. Since then some of these Board Members in an attempt to discredit McBride, have held conversations here, there, and everywhere , except the board table, stating that McBride lied. To those I ask you to consider one of McBride's questions. He basically says, "why didn't the board object?"
Here's my answer. This Board has cut some deals amongst themselves. If you listen in this community, you'll hear the canal board members say things like "Garrison's a good guy and he is going to help the canal owners. Listen again, and you'll hear others say, "Garrison will never let it happen on his watch (canal dredging)." Well they are all riding a fence counting on one another to keep the rotten posts up. Where is the sanity of this board accepting a verbal opinion on anything from the attorney that isn't written after our history and after this uncontested -AT THE BOARD TABLE REPORT?
I, and others, have sought opinions on the regime. If Garrison's stated opinion differs, and it does, then remember that's why we have court rooms and judges. Do you really want Garrison to build the case, in representation of your association, when a lawsuit regarding the canal related issues comes? Apparently, Walton, Garrison, DeMarchi, Cline, Anderson, Barrier, Walton (John), and McMillin do? Why? Because of this "I'll wash your back, you wash mine board". Stay tuned because Garrison presents more verbal legal opinions during the September Board Meeting.
NOTE: THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER IS IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING CANDIDATE/ BOARD MEMBER ACTION AND VOTES. CONSIDER THE FACTS REGARDING THE CANAL SUB ASSOCIATION VERBAL OPINION, THE DELAYS IN MOVING FORWARD, THE LACK OF OBJECTION TO ACTIONS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE, AND DETERMINE WHETHER YOU CAN VOTE FOR Adam Anderson, Al DeMarchi, or John Walton. Don't forget to consider voting for Taco Wijthoff. He pledges to represent all of us, answer all of us, and stop under handed dealings! (This statement was not requested or approved by Wijthoff, nor was the article content reviewed or approved by Wijthoff.)
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
"Questions have been raised regarding the Board attorney's opinion relative to the proposed alternative to the canals that Adam's committee brought to the table. At that time I was asked to approach the attorney on a exploratory basis to find out while in doing this proposal - some regime or canal regime, sub association, whatever term you want to apply to it, would it violate existing covenants or by-laws? As such because it was exploratory no written opinion... was not requested from the attorney, as it was only a preliminary inquiry about feasibility......canals regime as I told the Board I would do.
It was made clear by the attorney that such a regime could not be mandated or imposed upon the canal lot owners by the WPA. It simply cannot happen, nor can it happen, subsequently under change of ownership or property. All right, if this were to ever come about it would have to be something that was agreed upon as voluntary by the canal owners. The cost of establishing that in terms of incorporation, if it were to come about, was also discussed at that time and was some where in the neighborhood of maybe a thousand dollars to do. ...relatively simple and essentially he said he did not believe the establishment of this would violate existing covenants and by-laws so long as it was done voluntarily. It would not impinge on any existing mortgages or deeds because that question also came up and that was what that was about."
So now you have heard Garrison's translation of what the attorney said. I'm not calling Garrison a liar. I am questioning the entire Board for allowing such an important opinion to be provided by word of mouth. He said, she said, they said, doesn't cut it any where, except apparently with Wedgefield Association Boards. Why have we been in newspapers, in courts, had protests both inside and outside of our meetings? The canals. What was the subject of the inquiry? The canals. What did the opposition to the canal dredging seek? All of the legal papers, including written opinions. We have a very bad history of legal chairs telling other board members and our resident membership what the attorney said. Often, when you dug far enough and obtained emails etc., sent to the legal chair, the writings did not match what the legal chair had stated. Why set yourself, and us, up for that?
Let's start at the beginning and review what Garrison said. First this is not the proposal Adam's committee brought to the table to discuss. I was at the meeting. Our committee brought a by-law change proposal to the table. Garrison brought the canal sub association thought to the table. Garrison said if approved, it would be coupled with a by-law change proposal that would include a percent of annual assessments going to the new canal regime. There was agreement it would go forward and he would ask the board to pay for an opinion on the feasibility of a sub association. Quite frankly, one down, more options to be considered after. There is no after. It appears the intention is to drag this out as long as possible without really looking at feasibility. Rumor is that Anderson himself doesn't believe this is a possibility because not all of the canal owners will buy it. In August we were told they would survey canal lot owners. No mention was made of it in September.
This is the motion your board voted on at the May 15, 2012 board meeting. "A motion was made by Bob Garrison and 2nd by Adam Anderson to approach the attorney to investigate a long term solution for canal funding. Motion passed unanimously." Where does that motion state any of the following? "At that time I was asked to approach the attorney on a exploratory basis to find out while in doing this proposal - some regime or canal regime, sub association, whatever term you want to apply to it, would it violate existing covenants or by-laws? As such because it was exploratory no written opinion was not requested from the attorney, as it was only a preliminary inquiry about feasibility......canals regime as I told the Board I would do." This just looks like more of your board's under the table hand shake agreements that hold no weight in common sense, sound business, legal, or fiscal management. I believe about a year ago after Legal Chair Thomas sought opinions off the cuff that your board had to pay twice, once for Thomas' chat and then to have the opinions put in writing after. Additionally, this very board ignored a report regarding this attorney that McBride read at the December 2011 board meeting, and then wouldn't include his report in the minutes. Here (in red) is a statement from McBride's report. "All of Mr. Moody's communications were either verbal or via personal Email. Company Emails were not generally used or if they were, Board members did not have the opportunity to see them. It seems to me that our Attorney failed to use due diligence during his tenure. When I asked about how he verified the Board wishes, he had no answer which means he did nothing. He was told when he was interviewed for the position of backup Attorney that at least some Board Directors had questionable honesty and he was told during the summer of 2011 that his work was not being shared with the Board. It is my opinion that minimum due diligence would be to make some Board contact to assure his work was approved by the Board and not just a personal agenda. As it turns out more than $5000 of work was done and paid for and none was ever approved by the Board. Mr Garrison, prior to this meeting, was asked if he knew of these meetings. He answered by saying he might have known about some of the meetings, and then later clarified the answer by saying, yes, he probably knew about the meetings. Why did Mr. Garrison not let the rest of us know what was going on, or object to unauthorized work? Who was at the meeting described in red? Attorney Moody, McBride, DeMarchi, Garrison, McMillin, and Barrier. Who else was at the meeting when your Board wouldn't allow McBride's report to be entered into the minutes, after he had read it in a meeting? Add Anderson and Jacky Walton. Since then some of these Board Members in an attempt to discredit McBride, have held conversations here, there, and everywhere , except the board table, stating that McBride lied. To those I ask you to consider one of McBride's questions. He basically says, "why didn't the board object?"
Here's my answer. This Board has cut some deals amongst themselves. If you listen in this community, you'll hear the canal board members say things like "Garrison's a good guy and he is going to help the canal owners. Listen again, and you'll hear others say, "Garrison will never let it happen on his watch (canal dredging)." Well they are all riding a fence counting on one another to keep the rotten posts up. Where is the sanity of this board accepting a verbal opinion on anything from the attorney that isn't written after our history and after this uncontested -AT THE BOARD TABLE REPORT?
I, and others, have sought opinions on the regime. If Garrison's stated opinion differs, and it does, then remember that's why we have court rooms and judges. Do you really want Garrison to build the case, in representation of your association, when a lawsuit regarding the canal related issues comes? Apparently, Walton, Garrison, DeMarchi, Cline, Anderson, Barrier, Walton (John), and McMillin do? Why? Because of this "I'll wash your back, you wash mine board". Stay tuned because Garrison presents more verbal legal opinions during the September Board Meeting.
NOTE: THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER IS IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING CANDIDATE/ BOARD MEMBER ACTION AND VOTES. CONSIDER THE FACTS REGARDING THE CANAL SUB ASSOCIATION VERBAL OPINION, THE DELAYS IN MOVING FORWARD, THE LACK OF OBJECTION TO ACTIONS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE, AND DETERMINE WHETHER YOU CAN VOTE FOR Adam Anderson, Al DeMarchi, or John Walton. Don't forget to consider voting for Taco Wijthoff. He pledges to represent all of us, answer all of us, and stop under handed dealings! (This statement was not requested or approved by Wijthoff, nor was the article content reviewed or approved by Wijthoff.)
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
THE SEPTEMBER 18TH WPA BOARD MEETING
I'm running this morning so I'll provide a few brief bullets about the meeting. More will follow over the next week. The meeting started promptly at 7:00 PM. All Board members except McMillin and Barrier were present. They would enter later in the meeting. Highlights follow:
*THE PRE, PRE-MEETING SHOW: I had barely sat down in my spectator seat when I am approached by Secretary DeMarchi who hands me a letter, says I must have missed it in the correspondence file, and that I had written that he responded immediately and it wasn't so. The letter relates to the issue of Thomas' inquiry regarding Wijthoff's right or ability to vote his 31 lots. I told DeMarchi I stood by what I had written. The fact was that he jumped within hours of receiving Thomas' letter to calling Wijthoff. More to follow later. When has he taken this kind of quick action to answer the rest of the "writing" residents?
*THE PRE-MEETING SHOW: As we settled in our seats seven board members were discussing various items amongst themselves. McBride attempted to ask Cline about something. She admonished him and sent him back to his seat to read. It could be heard throughout the room. It took me back to the days of irate teacher and least favored student atmosphere. It was unpleasant and uncalled for. Unfortunately most of your board has thrown out the signed Code of Ethics. Obviously, not worth the paper it is written on. More behavior like this, perpetrated by other board members follows throughout the meeting. At points residents are treated in similar manner during the reports.
THE MEETING:
*Garrison announces that a resident has withdrawn from the Election Committee. He names the resident. Three more residents are approved to sit on the committee. McBride asks if they have enough volunteers? Answer they barely have. Could it be because of the document volunteers must sign?
*Treasurer's Report: Cline covers a number of areas. The handout is another new style document. She proposes paying down the canal loan by $81,000. A motion is made and the Robert's Rules duel holds the vote while we proceed to other reports and your board members read the rules. Later the motion to pay down $81,000 is passed. It will be paid today! We don't have an approved 2012 budget. That is a problem. How will they mail out our annual meeting packets? More to follow.
*Garrison reports; on 3 properties in Magistrate's Court, goes after a resident who wrote on the Arbors (unnamed), discusses three proposed amendments to by-laws and which will appear on ballot, discusses bids on surveys for WPA properties that abut canals and private resident property. He totally messes up explanation on the two approved by-law amendments for the ballot. Was it on purpose? Much more to follow.
*The Welcome Committee Is Changing: Board will provide governing documents at a meet and greet at the office, quarterly. New residents may get a cookie when they attend. Please!
*Drainage - DeMarchi: tells resident who has complained of standing water that they don't have standing water in their yard. Oh yes, more to follow. Reports they are digging small ditches. More to follow
*Roads - Anderson: Provides info on securing services of an arborist.
*New Committee Formed To Determine Guidelines For Answering Resident Correspondence: You just know there will be more on this! How many revisions does this make? McBride volunteers to sit on committee and is ignored. At some points during this meeting they mention call the board, drop in the office, write the board, etc. Could we get it straight please? Could we receive answers when we do write?
*Garrison Discusses Verbal Canal Option Legal Opinion: Don't make me go there now. More to follow.
*Resident Comments: First there is a new rule. What rule book will this be in? Will it have to be read twice, voted on, and then where does it go. We will cover resident comments later.
That's all I have time for now. Each meeting makes me more and more concerned. Your board rules. I'm not talking about governance. I'm talking about more rules, upon rules, changing their own rules, and failing to represent good sound governance, business sense, or you!
Listen to the tape at The Wedgefield Times. I will be. If I've missed something, we'll get to it over the next week or so.
*THE PRE, PRE-MEETING SHOW: I had barely sat down in my spectator seat when I am approached by Secretary DeMarchi who hands me a letter, says I must have missed it in the correspondence file, and that I had written that he responded immediately and it wasn't so. The letter relates to the issue of Thomas' inquiry regarding Wijthoff's right or ability to vote his 31 lots. I told DeMarchi I stood by what I had written. The fact was that he jumped within hours of receiving Thomas' letter to calling Wijthoff. More to follow later. When has he taken this kind of quick action to answer the rest of the "writing" residents?
*THE PRE-MEETING SHOW: As we settled in our seats seven board members were discussing various items amongst themselves. McBride attempted to ask Cline about something. She admonished him and sent him back to his seat to read. It could be heard throughout the room. It took me back to the days of irate teacher and least favored student atmosphere. It was unpleasant and uncalled for. Unfortunately most of your board has thrown out the signed Code of Ethics. Obviously, not worth the paper it is written on. More behavior like this, perpetrated by other board members follows throughout the meeting. At points residents are treated in similar manner during the reports.
THE MEETING:
*Garrison announces that a resident has withdrawn from the Election Committee. He names the resident. Three more residents are approved to sit on the committee. McBride asks if they have enough volunteers? Answer they barely have. Could it be because of the document volunteers must sign?
*Treasurer's Report: Cline covers a number of areas. The handout is another new style document. She proposes paying down the canal loan by $81,000. A motion is made and the Robert's Rules duel holds the vote while we proceed to other reports and your board members read the rules. Later the motion to pay down $81,000 is passed. It will be paid today! We don't have an approved 2012 budget. That is a problem. How will they mail out our annual meeting packets? More to follow.
*Garrison reports; on 3 properties in Magistrate's Court, goes after a resident who wrote on the Arbors (unnamed), discusses three proposed amendments to by-laws and which will appear on ballot, discusses bids on surveys for WPA properties that abut canals and private resident property. He totally messes up explanation on the two approved by-law amendments for the ballot. Was it on purpose? Much more to follow.
*The Welcome Committee Is Changing: Board will provide governing documents at a meet and greet at the office, quarterly. New residents may get a cookie when they attend. Please!
*Drainage - DeMarchi: tells resident who has complained of standing water that they don't have standing water in their yard. Oh yes, more to follow. Reports they are digging small ditches. More to follow
*Roads - Anderson: Provides info on securing services of an arborist.
*New Committee Formed To Determine Guidelines For Answering Resident Correspondence: You just know there will be more on this! How many revisions does this make? McBride volunteers to sit on committee and is ignored. At some points during this meeting they mention call the board, drop in the office, write the board, etc. Could we get it straight please? Could we receive answers when we do write?
*Garrison Discusses Verbal Canal Option Legal Opinion: Don't make me go there now. More to follow.
*Resident Comments: First there is a new rule. What rule book will this be in? Will it have to be read twice, voted on, and then where does it go. We will cover resident comments later.
That's all I have time for now. Each meeting makes me more and more concerned. Your board rules. I'm not talking about governance. I'm talking about more rules, upon rules, changing their own rules, and failing to represent good sound governance, business sense, or you!
Listen to the tape at The Wedgefield Times. I will be. If I've missed something, we'll get to it over the next week or so.
Monday, September 17, 2012
NEWS DOG BRADY ENDORSES CANDIDATE WIJTHOFF
Brady has been laying low and keeping his thoughts to himself. Now, he is ready to announce his support for candidate Wijthoff. He feels Wijthoff will keep his campaign pledges. He also feels his home, his neighborhood, can only benefit with Wijthoff on the Board. Don't forget to read Wijthoff's pledge at the very end of this article.
Brady says, "don't forget Wijthoff's pledge. He is a man of his word." Here is his pledge.
Brady says, "don't forget Wijthoff's pledge. He is a man of his word." Here is his pledge.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
PROPOSED BY-LAW AMENDMENTS APPROVED BY THE BOARD TO GO ON BALLOTS
Today, I received written notification from the Board that the following by-law amendments will be included on the ballots.
I hope you will give these amendments consideration, and vote to remove some of the strife in our community. HERE THEY ARE:
BY-LAW CHANGE # 1:ARTICLE V, ASSESSMENTS AND PENALTIES, Section 2, Individual Assessments (Now)
Individual Assessments: In addition, individual assessments may be levied by the Board. These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance, or any costs incurred, by The Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-Laws and in the deed “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions.”
CHANGE (noted in blue & underlined):
In addition, individual assessments may be levied by the Board. These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance,
including canal maintenance , or any costs incurred, by The Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-Laws and in the deed “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions.”
RATIONALE:The language, as currently written has been applied to canal dredging. As currently written it has not been over turned, in any court. However, considering the historic strife regarding the canals, adding the additional language would remove question, as to the validity of its use, should a Board determine that it was in the best interest of the community to assess periodic maintenance of the canals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BY-LAW CHANGE # 2:
ARTICLE IV, MEMBERSHIP, Section 3: Voting Rights (Now):
On matters submitted to a vote of the membership, members in good standing, who have officially registered with The Association by providing the name and address of the legal owner/s of the property, shall be entitled to one vote for each lot or condominium apartment owned. Members in arrears in payment of their yearly assessment within ten (10) days prior to the Annual Meeting are not in good standing and shall not be entitled to vote.
CHANGE (noted in blue and underlined):
On matters submitted to a vote of the membership, members in good standing, who have officially registered with The Association by providing the name and address of the legal owner/s of the property, shall be entitled to one vote for each lot or condominium apartment owned. Members in arrears in payment of
any assessments approved by the Board, within ten (10) days prior to the Annual Meeting are not in good standing and shall not be entitled to vote.
RATIONALE: The Wedgefield Plantation canal lot owners were previously assessed for dredging, under the By-Laws, through Individual Assessment. The assessment, was voted and passed, contracts and loans secured based on the assessment. Members who failed to pay their Individual Assessment, retained their right to vote at the Annual Meeting, which is a privilege, while causing great harm to the ability of the Association to pay its legitimate debt.
I hope you will give these amendments consideration, and vote to remove some of the strife in our community. HERE THEY ARE:
BY-LAW CHANGE # 1:ARTICLE V, ASSESSMENTS AND PENALTIES, Section 2, Individual Assessments (Now)
Individual Assessments: In addition, individual assessments may be levied by the Board. These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance, or any costs incurred, by The Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-Laws and in the deed “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions.”
CHANGE (noted in blue & underlined):
In addition, individual assessments may be levied by the Board. These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance,
including canal maintenance , or any costs incurred, by The Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-Laws and in the deed “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions.”
RATIONALE:The language, as currently written has been applied to canal dredging. As currently written it has not been over turned, in any court. However, considering the historic strife regarding the canals, adding the additional language would remove question, as to the validity of its use, should a Board determine that it was in the best interest of the community to assess periodic maintenance of the canals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BY-LAW CHANGE # 2:
ARTICLE IV, MEMBERSHIP, Section 3: Voting Rights (Now):
On matters submitted to a vote of the membership, members in good standing, who have officially registered with The Association by providing the name and address of the legal owner/s of the property, shall be entitled to one vote for each lot or condominium apartment owned. Members in arrears in payment of their yearly assessment within ten (10) days prior to the Annual Meeting are not in good standing and shall not be entitled to vote.
CHANGE (noted in blue and underlined):
On matters submitted to a vote of the membership, members in good standing, who have officially registered with The Association by providing the name and address of the legal owner/s of the property, shall be entitled to one vote for each lot or condominium apartment owned. Members in arrears in payment of
any assessments approved by the Board, within ten (10) days prior to the Annual Meeting are not in good standing and shall not be entitled to vote.
RATIONALE: The Wedgefield Plantation canal lot owners were previously assessed for dredging, under the By-Laws, through Individual Assessment. The assessment, was voted and passed, contracts and loans secured based on the assessment. Members who failed to pay their Individual Assessment, retained their right to vote at the Annual Meeting, which is a privilege, while causing great harm to the ability of the Association to pay its legitimate debt.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
PART IV - THREE CANDIDATES RECORDED ACTIONS AND VOTES
PREFACE: (Repeated with each sub article)
Residents, we are approaching the time when we will vote by proxy, or by ballot at the annual meeting. Three of our candidates currently serve on the Board. Their actions and votes are a matter of record. The Wedgefield Examiner will review the actions and votes at the Board table of each of the candidate board members - Anderson, DeMarchi, and Walton (John). They enter the record at different times. DeMarchi was elected for one year. His record starts in December 2011. Walton (John) and Anderson's appear later in the year as they were each appointed after the resignations of Huggins and Walters. The review of their performance will be reported month by month. Each time a month is reported the article will note which of the candidates were involved. I will publish this preface with each of the monthly reports.
My work has been difficult but I think that it is important to look to the records. At first I thought I could just review minutes. That wasn't possible because in my humble opinion, they have been sanitized. They don't include discussion, or closed executive meetings that are suppose to be open. I've had to go back in time to articles on the blog that include transcriptions of the tapes from monthly meetings, to notes taken at executive meetings - few were open and some closed after residents arrived.
In all cases I have transcribed tapes to the best of my ability. The notes that I have taken "other meetings" where there wasn't a tape, have been taken to the best of my ability, in an effort to report what occurred.
Residents, we are approaching the time when we will vote by proxy, or by ballot at the annual meeting. Three of our candidates currently serve on the Board. Their actions and votes are a matter of record. The Wedgefield Examiner will review the actions and votes at the Board table of each of the candidate board members - Anderson, DeMarchi, and Walton (John). They enter the record at different times. DeMarchi was elected for one year. His record starts in December 2011. Walton (John) and Anderson's appear later in the year as they were each appointed after the resignations of Huggins and Walters. The review of their performance will be reported month by month. Each time a month is reported the article will note which of the candidates were involved. I will publish this preface with each of the monthly reports.
My work has been difficult but I think that it is important to look to the records. At first I thought I could just review minutes. That wasn't possible because in my humble opinion, they have been sanitized. They don't include discussion, or closed executive meetings that are suppose to be open. I've had to go back in time to articles on the blog that include transcriptions of the tapes from monthly meetings, to notes taken at executive meetings - few were open and some closed after residents arrived.
In all cases I have transcribed tapes to the best of my ability. The notes that I have taken "other meetings" where there wasn't a tape, have been taken to the best of my ability, in an effort to report what occurred.
----------------------------------------
MARCH 20, 2012 BOARD MEETING
_________________________
CANDIDATES/BOARD MEMBERS: Anderson, DeMarchi
We'll start with the approved minutes. We start off with a omission of the facts/truth. After the call to order President Jacky Walton names the board members present and those absent. From the minutes, "Attendees: Adam Anderson, Janine Cline, Alan De Marchi, Bob Garrison, John McBride, Jacky Walton, Larry McMillin, Jason Barrier, Absent: Jackie Walters." What is the lie? Jackie Walters is announced as absent, as though she is a board member who is unable to attend. It is true that she isn't there She is no longer a board member. She has resigned. I have reviewed the minutes and there isn't an announcement anywhere that she resigned. Don't you think our Board should have told us that they would be beginning the process to fill another vacant board seat? Our by-laws tell us how to move forward. I blame the entire board for their secrecy but Anderson and DeMarchi are the only two who are running for re-election. Obviously, they didn't feel the need to bring the vacancy to the board table.
Rumor was that some on the board had hoped to talk her out of it. Additionally, the rumor also was that Walters quit because of a motion that Barrier was bringing to the table. She was being pressured to second it. There was more secrecy because your board had received a threatening letter prior to the board meeting that relates directly to the motion. So your board, including Anderson and DeMarchi failed to inform residents of the resignation or the threat.
Here is the threatening letter:
From: Ronald Pietkewicz Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:03 AM
Subject: Forwarded email for all Board members
Board members: Friday afternoon, March 16, I was asked in a phone conversation
to send you the following message under my name. I won't sign it since I didn't
write it. Make no mistake about it, though. I agree with its content. Its
purpose is to ask you to seriously consider the motion that will be put before
you this evening concerning its content. It also points out " that each of you
has a fiduciary duty to vote to have the WPA bring suit as plaintiffs on behalf
of our membership." No response to me is needed! It's for you to digest.
_______________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Dear Board:
It is vitally important that you are aware that a suit will be brought against
Attorney Thomas Winslow and the Bell Law Firm for malpractice in his
representation of the Wedgefield Plantation Association. The most egregious
legal advice pertained to his opinions and counsel concerning the board’s rights
and actions that resulted in using Association funds for the dredging of the
canals at Wedgefield Plantation. What is even more important is that you
realize that each of you have a fiduciary duty to vote to have the WPA bring
that suit as plaintiffs on behalf of our membership.
The Richter Law Firm in Mount Pleasant, SC has been provided with a large amount
of documentation which supports the facts that Attorney Winslow completely erred
in his official opinion regarding the ownership of the canals as well as his
advice that the Board had a legal right to require “special assessments” against
all canal lot owners. This firm is ready and willing to pursue this litigation
and believes we have a very strong case.
There is also another suit that will be filed soon by a group of our members for
“Breach of Contract” resulting from the prior board’s vote to issue a “special
assessment” against the canal lot owners and to determine once and for all
whether maintaining the canals constitutes a “general benefit” to the entire
plantation.
That suit could result in having to return illegal assessments to our
membership. Now, where will the funds come from to meet that requirement? It
should be borne by a suit against Thomas Winslow and the Bell Law Firm who
provided the legal advice that has put this Association in such legal jeopardy.
Each and every one of you must be aware that to vote no on a motion to proceed
with this litigation will place you in jeopardy of being individually sued for
failure to act in the best interests of our membership, in other words, failure
to accept your fiduciary duty and act accordingly.
Why would you not vote to do so? Mr. Winslow acted negligently over and over in
his advice to the Board that has so harmed this community.
If you unfortunately choose to not accept this opportunity to hire the Richter
Law Firm and attempt to recover much needed funds for our Association treasury,
then a group of our residents will go forward and bring that suit. In that
case, when we win, it will be our decision as to how the proceeds of that suit
will be distributed to the membership.
Please consider this decision very carefully. Your vote is very important. You
do not want to place yourself in very personal legal jeopardy. This is
definitely not our desire.
Enter resident Morabit. He spoke in one of the two resident speaker slots in February on "Unification of the WPA" He is back again in March to finish his presentation. It is linked in concept to the threatening letter. There was no unification but recommendations of lawsuits. To read his presentation please scroll to the bottom of the blog to Archives, hit March 2012, and select "The Rest of the Story - Resident Morabit's Full Presentation Document".
Your Board gave resident Morabit the opportunity to use the resident speaker slot two months in a row to cover the same topic. Most of us get one five minute shot.
A motion was offered by Barrier for the Board to adopt at least one of Morabit's objectives - suing the Bell Legal firm regarding Attorney Winslow's supposed incompetence. It failed. You can hear it by going to The Wedgefield Times. it appears about 202.51 minutes into the recording.
Your Board failed to inform you of Walter's resignation, failed to tell you of the threat, and finally failed to report Barrier's motion in the approved March minutes. The three items are intricately linked. DeMarchi and Anderson played a role in it. They must also be of the belief that you don't deserve complete information, because they are in charge. They know best.
Finally, from the March minutes under old business, "Management Company contract was finalized and a motion was made by John McBride and seconded by Janine Cline to proceed and adopt signing a contract with the management company. The motion was passed with a 7-1 vote." Who voted no? How much is the total contract amount. What is the name of the company? More sanitized minutes? I asked the Board to post the contract. They won't. Why protect a vendor to this degree? Remember, in the past we have had contractors with no license or insurance, contracts with no total amount, and "no contract" vendors when there should have been a contract -even under the poorest of business standards. Again, I hold the entire board responsible for the events of the March meeting. DeMarchi and Anderson played their parts and they are running for Board.
Remember, there is a fourth candidate - Taco Wijthoff. He has never served on the Board, has signed a pledge to the residents and is the only candidate who is not tinged by cover ups and sanitized minutes.
Let the record stand, speak for itself. You'll have to decide as we move through the votes and actions of end of 2011 through current 2012, and who you'll vote for. Our fifth article in the series will cover April 2012 - coming soon. Candidate/Board Member John Walton enters in time for the April Meeting. He has been appointed to fill the vacancy left by Walters.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Subject: Forwarded email for all Board members
Board members: Friday afternoon, March 16, I was asked in a phone conversation
to send you the following message under my name. I won't sign it since I didn't
write it. Make no mistake about it, though. I agree with its content. Its
purpose is to ask you to seriously consider the motion that will be put before
you this evening concerning its content. It also points out " that each of you
has a fiduciary duty to vote to have the WPA bring suit as plaintiffs on behalf
of our membership." No response to me is needed! It's for you to digest.
_______________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Dear Board:
It is vitally important that you are aware that a suit will be brought against
Attorney Thomas Winslow and the Bell Law Firm for malpractice in his
representation of the Wedgefield Plantation Association. The most egregious
legal advice pertained to his opinions and counsel concerning the board’s rights
and actions that resulted in using Association funds for the dredging of the
canals at Wedgefield Plantation. What is even more important is that you
realize that each of you have a fiduciary duty to vote to have the WPA bring
that suit as plaintiffs on behalf of our membership.
The Richter Law Firm in Mount Pleasant, SC has been provided with a large amount
of documentation which supports the facts that Attorney Winslow completely erred
in his official opinion regarding the ownership of the canals as well as his
advice that the Board had a legal right to require “special assessments” against
all canal lot owners. This firm is ready and willing to pursue this litigation
and believes we have a very strong case.
There is also another suit that will be filed soon by a group of our members for
“Breach of Contract” resulting from the prior board’s vote to issue a “special
assessment” against the canal lot owners and to determine once and for all
whether maintaining the canals constitutes a “general benefit” to the entire
plantation.
That suit could result in having to return illegal assessments to our
membership. Now, where will the funds come from to meet that requirement? It
should be borne by a suit against Thomas Winslow and the Bell Law Firm who
provided the legal advice that has put this Association in such legal jeopardy.
Each and every one of you must be aware that to vote no on a motion to proceed
with this litigation will place you in jeopardy of being individually sued for
failure to act in the best interests of our membership, in other words, failure
to accept your fiduciary duty and act accordingly.
Why would you not vote to do so? Mr. Winslow acted negligently over and over in
his advice to the Board that has so harmed this community.
If you unfortunately choose to not accept this opportunity to hire the Richter
Law Firm and attempt to recover much needed funds for our Association treasury,
then a group of our residents will go forward and bring that suit. In that
case, when we win, it will be our decision as to how the proceeds of that suit
will be distributed to the membership.
Please consider this decision very carefully. Your vote is very important. You
do not want to place yourself in very personal legal jeopardy. This is
definitely not our desire.
Enter resident Morabit. He spoke in one of the two resident speaker slots in February on "Unification of the WPA" He is back again in March to finish his presentation. It is linked in concept to the threatening letter. There was no unification but recommendations of lawsuits. To read his presentation please scroll to the bottom of the blog to Archives, hit March 2012, and select "The Rest of the Story - Resident Morabit's Full Presentation Document".
Your Board gave resident Morabit the opportunity to use the resident speaker slot two months in a row to cover the same topic. Most of us get one five minute shot.
A motion was offered by Barrier for the Board to adopt at least one of Morabit's objectives - suing the Bell Legal firm regarding Attorney Winslow's supposed incompetence. It failed. You can hear it by going to The Wedgefield Times. it appears about 202.51 minutes into the recording.
Your Board failed to inform you of Walter's resignation, failed to tell you of the threat, and finally failed to report Barrier's motion in the approved March minutes. The three items are intricately linked. DeMarchi and Anderson played a role in it. They must also be of the belief that you don't deserve complete information, because they are in charge. They know best.
Finally, from the March minutes under old business, "Management Company contract was finalized and a motion was made by John McBride and seconded by Janine Cline to proceed and adopt signing a contract with the management company. The motion was passed with a 7-1 vote." Who voted no? How much is the total contract amount. What is the name of the company? More sanitized minutes? I asked the Board to post the contract. They won't. Why protect a vendor to this degree? Remember, in the past we have had contractors with no license or insurance, contracts with no total amount, and "no contract" vendors when there should have been a contract -even under the poorest of business standards. Again, I hold the entire board responsible for the events of the March meeting. DeMarchi and Anderson played their parts and they are running for Board.
Remember, there is a fourth candidate - Taco Wijthoff. He has never served on the Board, has signed a pledge to the residents and is the only candidate who is not tinged by cover ups and sanitized minutes.
Let the record stand, speak for itself. You'll have to decide as we move through the votes and actions of end of 2011 through current 2012, and who you'll vote for. Our fifth article in the series will cover April 2012 - coming soon. Candidate/Board Member John Walton enters in time for the April Meeting. He has been appointed to fill the vacancy left by Walters.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
CANDIDATE WIJTHOFF'S CAMPAIGN PLEDGE TO RESIDENTS
Taco Wijthoff delivered his required papers to the WPA office. Below, they are presented signed by Wijthoff and the office staff secretary.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
DON'T MISS OUT!
Three articles have been added over the last four days. Two are part of a series "The Candidates Recorded Actions and Voting Records". Jude Davis has sent a commentary on the proposed canal sub association.
FINAL THOUGHT: The Wedgefield Examiner has been reviewing the voting records of the three candidates who currently sit on the Board - Anderson, DeMarchi, and Walton (John). THERE ARE FOUR INDIVIDUALS RUNNING FOR BOARD. The fourth is Taco Wijthoff. No one should forget Wijthoff as we prepare to vote and fill three board positions. Wijthoff is the only candidate with a clean record. He hasn't served on the Board. He has lived in our community longer than any of the other candidates. He has given time and many donations to our community. He is known for speaking his mind. Keep him in mind. The Wedgefield Examiner supports candidate Wijthoff. We trust he would bring open discussion and independent voting to the board table.
FINAL THOUGHT: The Wedgefield Examiner has been reviewing the voting records of the three candidates who currently sit on the Board - Anderson, DeMarchi, and Walton (John). THERE ARE FOUR INDIVIDUALS RUNNING FOR BOARD. The fourth is Taco Wijthoff. No one should forget Wijthoff as we prepare to vote and fill three board positions. Wijthoff is the only candidate with a clean record. He hasn't served on the Board. He has lived in our community longer than any of the other candidates. He has given time and many donations to our community. He is known for speaking his mind. Keep him in mind. The Wedgefield Examiner supports candidate Wijthoff. We trust he would bring open discussion and independent voting to the board table.
PART III - THREE CANDIDATES RECORDED ACTIONS AND VOTING RECORDS
PREFACE: (Repeated with each sub article)
Residents, we are approaching the time when we will vote by proxy, or by ballot at the annual meeting. Three of our candidates currently serve on the Board. Their actions and votes are a matter of record. The Wedgefield Examiner will review the actions and votes at the Board table of each of the candidate board members - Anderson, DeMarchi, and Walton (John). They enter the record at different times. DeMarchi was elected for one year. His record starts in December 2011. Walton (John) and Anderson's appear later in the year as they were each appointed after the resignations of Huggins and Walters. The review of their performance will be reported month by month. Each time a month is reported the article will note which of the candidates were involved. I will publish this preface with each of the monthly reports.
My work has been difficult but I think that it is important to look to the records. At first I thought I could just review minutes. That wasn't possible because in my humble opinion, they have been sanitized. They don't include discussion, or closed executive meetings that are suppose to be open. I've had to go back in time to articles on the blog that include transcriptions of the tapes from monthly meetings, to notes taken at executive meetings - few were open and some closed after residents arrived.
In all cases I have transcribed tapes to the best of my ability. The notes that I have taken "other meetings" where there wasn't a tape, have been taken to the best of my ability, in an effort to report what occurred.
Residents, we are approaching the time when we will vote by proxy, or by ballot at the annual meeting. Three of our candidates currently serve on the Board. Their actions and votes are a matter of record. The Wedgefield Examiner will review the actions and votes at the Board table of each of the candidate board members - Anderson, DeMarchi, and Walton (John). They enter the record at different times. DeMarchi was elected for one year. His record starts in December 2011. Walton (John) and Anderson's appear later in the year as they were each appointed after the resignations of Huggins and Walters. The review of their performance will be reported month by month. Each time a month is reported the article will note which of the candidates were involved. I will publish this preface with each of the monthly reports.
My work has been difficult but I think that it is important to look to the records. At first I thought I could just review minutes. That wasn't possible because in my humble opinion, they have been sanitized. They don't include discussion, or closed executive meetings that are suppose to be open. I've had to go back in time to articles on the blog that include transcriptions of the tapes from monthly meetings, to notes taken at executive meetings - few were open and some closed after residents arrived.
In all cases I have transcribed tapes to the best of my ability. The notes that I have taken "other meetings" where there wasn't a tape, have been taken to the best of my ability, in an effort to report what occurred.
______________________________
FEBRUARY 21, 2012 BOARD MEETING
-------------------------------
BOARD MEMBER /CANDIDATES: Anderson, DeMarchi
We'll go straight to the minutes. "Approved December 2011 - motion passed 6 ayes & 1 nay, John McBride requested his report be attached to the minutes, not accepted." First, thank you Secretary DeMarchi for including the ayes and nay. It becomes a little complicated but it is important. During the December meeting McBride read his report, a legal report from a meeting he and other board members attended with the attorney. It should have been read into the minutes, and provided. It is not. The report is important. It speaks to your entire board wanting to cover and not deal with the facts so they can sing joined at the hip - "let there be peace" at the expense of open, honest, governance. McMillin and Barrier are absent. Your board did not want to deal with the facts presented in McBride's document. Residents, this is a lynch pin moment that provides insight into the inner workings of your board. It is a hinge moment that carries and defines their governance model throughout the year. They count on you not attending meetings, not listening to the tapes of meetings, not reading the minutes - such as they are. We all want peace, but not at the expense of good, open, governance. We can have peace and good governance if our board is competent in presenting the detail without threats but plain open, honest discussion and representive voting. We elect nine members of our community as individuals to represent us using their individual knowledge, business sense, common sense, and to bring governance decisions to open discussion and vote as individuals. If they don't have the backbone to stand up and tell us how it is, they don't belong at the board table. Anderson and DeMarchi vote for minutes, excluding McBride's report. They are two of the board that voted in January to send a letter to the attorney noting who has access to the attorney. McBride had said he wanted two board members to be present at all attorney meetings. These two candidates - DeMarchi and Anderson ignored him. Why? Could be they don't want more reports like this. I do. Don't you? I want to know what some are willing to cover up - literally at our expense, using our assessment dollars to pay illegitimate legal fees. The report is provided at the end of this article.
Back to the minutes - the secretary's report (DeMarchi). "The Conflict of Interest & Confidentiality statement are ready to sign." We aren't going to spend a lot of time on this. It becomes more of an issue in reports on other meetings. It should be noted that DeMarchi and Anderson voted on these after two readings. Later we will hear an apology from DeMarchi on the origins of the Confidentiality Agreement. Month after month you will see your board break this agreement. The very agreement they want you to sign as a volunteer or committee member. They break the Conflict of Interest every time they ignore and treat McBride with indifference and ridicule month after month.
As we finish reviewing the February minutes you'll note that a resident asks "A question on what will be done by the Board if the confidential statement is broken by a board member." I have written the board and asked. We have never had an answer. I'll answer. NOTHING! What makes me say that? It has happened every month at the board table and at least once in the Wragg. Nothing happened to them. The great tedious rule and policy makers. The treasurer broke it in a published report provided at the August meeting. When a board member mentioned it she said she would work to change it and then said, "blog away Madeline'. I have and I will continue to. If your next question is what would happen to a committee member or volunteer who broke it, it could go either way with this fickle board. They ignore their errors, cover and hide important detail like McBride's report, but you, they could find issue with you. Candidates Anderson and DeMarchi condoned all this with their votes.
Let the record stand, speak for itself. You'll have to decide as we move through the votes and actions of end of 2011 through current 2012, and who you'll vote for. Our fourth article in the series will cover March 2012 - coming soon.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Let the record stand, speak for itself. You'll have to decide as we move through the votes and actions of end of 2011 through current 2012, and who you'll vote for. Our fourth article in the series will cover March 2012 - coming soon.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
MC BRIDES REPORT PAGE ONE
MCBRIDES REPORT PAGE TWO
Saturday, September 8, 2012
PART II- THREE CANDIDATES RECORDED ACTIONS AND VOTING RECORDS
PREFACE: (Repeated with each sub article)
Residents, we are approaching the time when we will vote by proxy, or by ballot at the annual meeting. Three of our candidates currently serve on the Board. Their actions and votes are a matter of record. The Wedgefield Examiner will review the actions and votes at the Board table of each of the candidate board members - Anderson, DeMarchi, and Walton (John). They enter the record at different times. DeMarchi was elected for one year. His record starts in December 2011. Walton (John) and Anderson's appear later in the year as they were each appointed after the resignations of Huggins and Walters. The review of their performance will be reported month by month. Each time a month is reported the article will note which of the candidates were involved. I will publish this preface with each of the monthly reports.
My work has been difficult but I think that it is important to look to the records. At first I thought I could just review minutes. That wasn't possible because in my humble opinion, they have been sanitized. They don't include discussion, or closed executive meetings that are suppose to be open. I've had to go back in time to articles on the blog that include transcriptions of the tapes from monthly meetings, to notes taken at executive meetings - few were open and some closed after residents arrived.
In all cases I have transcribed tapes to the best of my ability. The notes that I have taken "other meetings" where there wasn't a tape, have been taken to the best of my ability, in an effort to report what occurred.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents, we are approaching the time when we will vote by proxy, or by ballot at the annual meeting. Three of our candidates currently serve on the Board. Their actions and votes are a matter of record. The Wedgefield Examiner will review the actions and votes at the Board table of each of the candidate board members - Anderson, DeMarchi, and Walton (John). They enter the record at different times. DeMarchi was elected for one year. His record starts in December 2011. Walton (John) and Anderson's appear later in the year as they were each appointed after the resignations of Huggins and Walters. The review of their performance will be reported month by month. Each time a month is reported the article will note which of the candidates were involved. I will publish this preface with each of the monthly reports.
My work has been difficult but I think that it is important to look to the records. At first I thought I could just review minutes. That wasn't possible because in my humble opinion, they have been sanitized. They don't include discussion, or closed executive meetings that are suppose to be open. I've had to go back in time to articles on the blog that include transcriptions of the tapes from monthly meetings, to notes taken at executive meetings - few were open and some closed after residents arrived.
In all cases I have transcribed tapes to the best of my ability. The notes that I have taken "other meetings" where there wasn't a tape, have been taken to the best of my ability, in an effort to report what occurred.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JANUARY 17, 2012 BOARD MEETING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANDIDATE/BOARD MEMBERS: DeMarchi, Anderson (Anderson had been appointed to the Board prior to this meeting.)
Today we are able to look back at approved minutes. Normally the minutes from the December meeting would be approved at the January meeting. The December minutes are presented to the board members at the board table. Approval will take place at the February meeting. Advance notice: prepare yourself for our report for February. There are issues. We'll wait until then. It is confusing enough.
The now approved January minutes provide the following quote under the Secretary's Report. "Minutes of the meetings will be brief and reflect the accomplishments the meeting." In the Preface I state that as I was preparing this series of articles that I felt the minutes had been sanitized. This quote provides you the beginning concept of sanitation of the minutes. If you listen to the tape of the January meeting you will find that true discussion is eliminated. You don't know who voted yea or nay. What is worse is that you don't know who stood up, asked questions, and refused to rubber stamp this self called "cohesive board." As we move through month by month it is blatant. I hold all of the Board responsible for this happening. For purposes of review of board member/candidates action I hold DeMarchi responsible. I won't hold Anderson responsible in January because it is his first meeting, but DeMarchi is secretary. I will hold him responsible now because it is an indication of how he has performed throughout his tenure.
The approved, sanitized, minutes state the following. "A motion was made by Al DeMarchi, and seconded by Jason Barrier to send attorney Moody a letter outlining his specific contact with the board." I had to go to the tape to hear discussion. Mc Bride brought a lot of discussion to the table regarding this motion. Briefly he tells the Board that two board members should always meet with the attorney. He feels that it is important that two board members hear what the attorney said. Additionally he feels each board member may have varying questions regarding the subject discussed based on what the attorney says. President Watlton says it is time to trust the board. I'll agree with Walton, but for my own reason. It is time to trust the board to do the right thing, but they can't be trusted because they want to sing "let there be peace". McBride wants to know who will have access to the attorney. It will be the Legal Chair, or a committee member. We'll discuss the committee member later because there is a motion on a new committee member later on. Anderson remained silent. DeMarchi appears to push McBride's suggestion aside. In fact if you listen to the tape no one supports McBride. This is one of the problems of this joined at the hip board. Your sanitized minutes don't even tell you who voted on this motion. The following is another quote from the minutes regarding the motion. "Motion passed. Secretary to draft letter for board approval and signature". We'll go back to "trust the board" later.
The next issue requires the following quote from the minutes. "Bob Garrison made a motion for Bob Nichols to serve on Legal Committee. Al DeMarchi seconded, motion passed." Guess it was unanimous but we don't know. So candidates DeMarchi and Anderson appear to have voted for this. Now remember committee member Nichols could contact the attorney with Garrison's approval. What is the problem?
For over two previous 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. Yes, McMillin is suing Garrison.
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.
Garrison has a long recorded history with the Concerned Citizens. He was one of the Board organizers of the 2010 recall. He 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 Garrison has moved more to the middle, but just when you breathe a sigh of relief, he goes the other way.
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 -McMillin. President Walton's appointment of Garrison, with a field of "untouched by the lawsuits" Board Members makes no sense.
Now in January, as Legal Chair, 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 I, 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.
When Anderson and DeMarchi voted did they serve the best interests of the community? I don't think so.
Let the record stand, speak for itself. You'll have to decide as we move through the votes and actions of end of 2011 through current 2012, and who you'll vote for. Our third article in the series will cover February 2012 - coming soon.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
The approved, sanitized, minutes state the following. "A motion was made by Al DeMarchi, and seconded by Jason Barrier to send attorney Moody a letter outlining his specific contact with the board." I had to go to the tape to hear discussion. Mc Bride brought a lot of discussion to the table regarding this motion. Briefly he tells the Board that two board members should always meet with the attorney. He feels that it is important that two board members hear what the attorney said. Additionally he feels each board member may have varying questions regarding the subject discussed based on what the attorney says. President Watlton says it is time to trust the board. I'll agree with Walton, but for my own reason. It is time to trust the board to do the right thing, but they can't be trusted because they want to sing "let there be peace". McBride wants to know who will have access to the attorney. It will be the Legal Chair, or a committee member. We'll discuss the committee member later because there is a motion on a new committee member later on. Anderson remained silent. DeMarchi appears to push McBride's suggestion aside. In fact if you listen to the tape no one supports McBride. This is one of the problems of this joined at the hip board. Your sanitized minutes don't even tell you who voted on this motion. The following is another quote from the minutes regarding the motion. "Motion passed. Secretary to draft letter for board approval and signature". We'll go back to "trust the board" later.
The next issue requires the following quote from the minutes. "Bob Garrison made a motion for Bob Nichols to serve on Legal Committee. Al DeMarchi seconded, motion passed." Guess it was unanimous but we don't know. So candidates DeMarchi and Anderson appear to have voted for this. Now remember committee member Nichols could contact the attorney with Garrison's approval. What is the problem?
For over two previous 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. Yes, McMillin is suing Garrison.
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.
Garrison has a long recorded history with the Concerned Citizens. He was one of the Board organizers of the 2010 recall. He 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 Garrison has moved more to the middle, but just when you breathe a sigh of relief, he goes the other way.
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 -McMillin. President Walton's appointment of Garrison, with a field of "untouched by the lawsuits" Board Members makes no sense.
Now in January, as Legal Chair, 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 I, 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.
When Anderson and DeMarchi voted did they serve the best interests of the community? I don't think so.
Let the record stand, speak for itself. You'll have to decide as we move through the votes and actions of end of 2011 through current 2012, and who you'll vote for. Our third article in the series will cover February 2012 - coming soon.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS RESPONDS TO "RESPONSE FROM THE BOARD REGARDING CANAL SUB ASSOCIATON LEGAL OPINION"
HERE IS JUDE'S RESPONSE:
I challenge Moody’s report that a sub-association is
viable. Most of the community, including the majority of the canal lot
residents, are unaware of this plan. The polling needed to be done before
viability was discussed! Once again, the cart is before the horse.
Dear Examiner,
I
must congratulate you on your ability to solicit answers from the Board. I sent
a request to see Moody’s written opinion regarding forming a sub committee on
August 20. After the August meeting, Bob told me that he had told Edmund to
inform me that Moody’s opinion was NOT in writing. To date, I’m still
waiting!
I
am amazed that the entire Board is not crying foul with this screw-up. Yes, the
Board can legally form a sub-association until someone challenges it in court!
I would not want to be a member of any Board that must defend its actions based
on a second hand conversation! Adam indicated in his response to you that he
can ‘understand’ why Moody didn’t put his opinion in writing. I can’t. Perhaps,
through the Examiner, Adam can explain the reason why this Board is considering
actions based only on a conversation that they did not hear. What is happening
with this Board that the documentation to support their decisions is not
available? Has documentation fallen into a hole labeled “Can’t be bothered” or
maybe one labeled “Let’s hide this part?”
In addition to asking to see the opinion, I included the following:
I find it interesting that Adam is
proposing that the board contribute about $40-$50 per household as their share.
At $50 per household, the amount comes to $28,850. This amount is supposed to
‘cover’ the 45% of unsecured waterfront the WPA owns as well as the debris
added daily by the drainage system. If we do some backwards math, $28,850 is
45% of $64,111 leaving $35,261 for the canal lot residents to contribute or
about an additional $452 per property. Where did Adam get his figures? What
is the cost of the next dredge? At $64,111 annually when can we do a
maintenance dredge? How much will be dredged?
Jude
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)