NOTE: The Wedgefield Examiner has reviewed the tape of the February 12th meeting and will provide overview and transcription to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape for your own verification. Transcription will be provided in blue, underlined, and in quotation. Comments will be noted as such, and will be typed in RED.
The meeting opened at approximately 7:00PM on February 12th. Nine board members and 2 residents were in attendance. President Walton had called the meeting in behalf of the Legal Committee. He turned the meeting over to Legal Chair, Garrison. He explained that the board had been provided two emails, prior to the meeting. The first email explained the reason for the meeting and contained an attachment from the Supreme Court of SC. This attachment informed us that the law license of our current association Attorney of Record, Moody, had been suspended.
Garrison went on to explain that while we knew Moody had been suspended, we didn't know why. It also was probably the reason that the Maring & Moody Law Firm had been dissolved. The Supreme Court order also named Maring to assume responsibility of the accounts and placed him in charge of protecting the interests of the clients. Here, we'll transcribe what Garrison says. Now, and throughout the transcription you will see ........ if we are unable to hear his exact words on tape. Garrison, "It is the opinion of the Legal Committee that the board should appoint Maring Law Firm to be our Attorney of Record. There are a couple of reasons for that. In order to save a lot of extra money and a lot of extreme time if we were to hire somebody new for the existing cases, at this point, they'd have to get up to speed.........which basically falls backwards in a hurry. Maring already has some familiarity with that. In fact, he got all the files. In fact, we used the guy initially when the board decided to change attorneys, it was originally Maring....the guy who talked to us..... I believe some conflicts of interest that Maring had with individual property owners, in terms of representation. He turned it over to Moody....."
McBride interrupts asking whether conflicts still exist. Garrison says they don't. It appears the second board email included a proposed contract to engage Maring. McBride questions whether he will be the one attorney we go to. Garrison tells him that Maring basically will be the attorney we'll be calling. President Walton and DeMarchi jump in, but it is brief and they can't quite be heard. McBride says that he was involved in the interview with Maring originally. McBride, "He wasn't at all comfortable working for an association. He didn't have experience necessarily in.......How's that......." Garrison, "Well, he had told us....no reservation.....The situation we're in now, compared to situation we were in a year ago" (Note: DeMarchi says something in agreement like yeah.) Garrison resumes, "99% of our legal stuff now is collection. There might be an occasion where we need a legal opinion about something or another, but by and large, what we deal with....collections, something he is entirely comfortable with. HE MAY NOT KNOW AS MUCH ABOUT...ASSOCIATIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF HE DOES, OR DOESN'T"
DeMarchi jumps in and says something about the fact that Maring has represented Heritage Foundation for years. McBride asks about whether he could handle something like "Curb Man" and whether this is the best choice? DeMarchi jumps back in and says something about if there was something he wasn't comfortable with that he would probably hand it to somebody else.
Garrison resumes telling the board that the email containing the proposed contract of representation is not the CORRECT ONE. He says it is mostly corrections in wording. Additionally, they want changes to the pricing on new foreclosures and there is going to have to be more discussion with Maring. McBride asks if they should take the figures out of the contract and Garrisons says no. McBride appears to look over the contract and says, "He can do anything he wants. He can assign anybody, because it says attorneys." Conversation flows between DeMarchi talking about practicality. Walton brings in something about the supreme court. Cline is heard laughing in the background.
Garrison makes his motion. DeMarchi seconds it. There is brief discussion. YOUR ENTIRE BOARD VOTES TO HIRE MARING. I don't hear any no votes, or abstentions.
COMMENTS:
First, I believe I heard correctly. Every member of this board sat by and voted yes for an attorney that has stated that he doesn't have experience with associations. The Wedgefield Examiner quoted the discussion that included the fact that your board's main concern is collection of past due accounts. The board members are encouraged by our legal chair, one of the very people who caused problems, in writing to residents in the past, WITH COLLECTIONS. The Board Attorney of Record is to be there to provide opinion and legal guidance in the general administration of the association, to assist in the board making decisions that govern us legally and ethically according to our governing documents and within the law. As a board member, I would want to be on the record as voting no, to protect myself and the association, if and WHEN, lawsuits occur.
Think about it. Garrison, as Legal Chair, isn't "inclined" to get opinions in writing. Your board can't read an opinion for themselves before they vote. There were other options. The Supreme Court of SC didn't say Maring becomes our attorney. His letter to clients and the Supreme Court document make him the holder of records and funds and tell you to pick them up. Most would agree that he should have a contract to complete ACTIVE CASES ONLY. This board voted for a contract that wasn't complete or correct.
When will this board act in behalf of the entire association, rather than because of the deviants? In this case the non and late assessment payers. If you are presented with an immediate need, especially due to your own poor choices (Board selection under very unusual circumstances of the previous attorney of record), but the likely source (Maring) doesn't meet the long term and overall requirements of the association, you fill the immediate need with an interim specifically to get you through CURRENT, IN PROCESS CASES, and search for the right attorney to fill the long term. Where is solid, concrete, creative thinking, in behalf of all the people you serve? This could be viewed as a move for people who have alternative, unstated, motives. The object of a board is to have a number of individual thinkers, elected to vote in behalf of the membership to be served, with clear, informed, independent, researched, thought, rather than individual agenda. That didn't happen on Wednesday, Feb. 12th.
