NOTE: This is the first article pertaining to the January WPA Board Meeting. As background, 7 board members are in attendance, as McMillin and Cline are absent. 9 members are in attendance at the meeting. As I was listening to the tape, provided at The Wedgefield Times, the Legal Report brought questions and concerns.
I have transcribed the report to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape yourself for verification. Garrison, Legal Chair, provides the report. At times he comes across almost in conversation tone. Perhaps the board should go back to providing the individual speakers with a microphone, to provide quality in the recording. Direct quotes will be underlined and in quotation. We'll call our attorney, attorney "M".
We begin with Garrison stating that there will need to be decisions about our current legal representation. "The law firm we have been engaged with may not exist. I think (believe the following word is correct) dissolved on January 10th. (Can't understand a few words) ......."M" gone off on his own. At this point, I don't know where his office is, or if he even has one. " He then says something about not necessarily changing attorneys but, we might have to get a new contract with him. Later he begins to speak about the legal collections in progress and says he has a spread sheet of some of these ongoing foreclosures and "stuff". Still later, he says, "defendants in the canal assessment, that's still dragging on and gee, it has only been 3 years"
President Walton asks about a court date this month and whether our attorney will be representing us? I believe, (could be wrong) the answer comes from DeMarchi, who says something about the fact that he's assured him that he's prepared to take care of those cases.
McBride, "I think....reason for this law firm to dissolve as it did.....I think this board needs to understand some of that before we just agree that yes, we'll proceed with the same attorney that we have. Was it some sort of missing funds that caused this problem? What was it? These things don't just happen for some good reason."
President Walton jumps in and says that they don't know the reason and are just going to have to wait and find out what's going on.
McBride says they need to find out the reason.
Garrison, "I don't think it is the board's, or anyone else's business, what a private entity does if they elect to dissolve.......My understanding, from what little I was told was that "M" decided to go out on his own. I've only heard one piece of it from one side of it. When I called (He names the firm.) office and asked what was going on, the only answers I got was, I don't know. Unless the guy lost his law license, or is under indictment, or something, and that was the cause of it, why they elected to do this, my feeling from what (Names attorney by first name.) told me was that it was his decision, but I don't know that for a fact. I'm not going to pretend that I do. Our job is to decide who you want to have as an attorney. I don't .....not really concerned what their feelings are.....maybe their wives don't get along, didn't like each other, or whatever. I have no idea and frankly I don't care."
During the report Garrison also informs the group the by-law change passed at the 2013 meeting has been legally registered.
COMMENTS:
This appears to be a real nonchalant attitude by our Legal Chair in both the discussion about a key element in the board's responsibility and his criteria - not indicted, hasn't lost his law license. He states he doesn't know where the attorney is, why the firm, or partnership was dissolved and he personally isn't inclined to find our why. Yet, he or someone else speaking at the board table, has spoken to the attorney and been reassured that he'll meet some upcoming court dates. No one on the board questions, but for one. They just move on.
Remember, this particular attorney came to us under unusual circumstance. Moran was attorney of record and gave a WRITTEN legal opinion regarding the 2011 recall effort. Then board members, Huggins and Wilson, went off on their own without the approval of the board, and sought the advice of attorney "M", who we're told didn't agree with Moran. At the time, Garrison said the board would not pay for the opinion and Huggins said they wouldn't be charged. In the end, not only were they charged, but there was also an accumulation of approximately $5,000 in fees from this attorney, such a meetings with one of the chief female Concerned Citizens (not a board member). Garrison sat on the board that paid those fees. Additionally, from the beginning Garrison and attorney "M" have not put most (very few - count on one hand) legal opinions in writing, so that board members could review opinions for themselves, before they vote on issues.
The current contract is with a firm, a entity, which if it doesn't exist any more cancels the contract and diminishes credibility. There should have been a vote by the board to determine whether attorney "M" should proceed at all and bill. Surprised? I'm not. This board, in general does what they want, when they want, and just keeps going. Should we continue with an attorney who has this history??????
You'll note Garrison all but laughs at the state of collection on the $5,000 canal collection progression. Again, should he be Legal Chair when he and one of the Legal Committee members told our residents in writing, to put those monies in escrow? Our president seems oblivious. At the end of the report, he says, "Thank you Bob."
SOMETHING NOT SO SURPRISING????? I could have bet on this! Close friends will tell you that I said it would be the case. Garrison announced that the 2013 by-law change that passed at the 2013 annual meeting, has been legally registered. Some have said the by-law amendment was his. He did get a legal opinion in WRITING, from this attorney. He is the same Legal Chair who ignored even verifying whether the 2011 by-law change was registered, for a year and a half. President Walton, where are you? Don't you see these things? As important, because your board named Walton PRESIDENT, AND HE KEEPS NAMING THE SAME LEGAL CHAIR, where was your board when they voted to keep Walton as president?
