The Wedgefield Examiner provides the following to the best of their ability. We suggest that you go to the WPA website, or The Wedgefield Times, to listen to the tape of the meeting, or start attending board meetings, and watch this board in action. The actions of the meeting will be provided in BLUE, and comments will be noted as such, and printed in RED.
Legal Chair, Garrison, starts the report stating that while they continue to pursue past due accounts, that there is nothing new to report. COMMENT: What about the lawsuit regarding the canal lot owner who refused to pay his $5,000. Your board reported last October that they were settling it (Not their words, but when a board has to vote on an outcome, it is a settlement.) It has been 7 months. Why haven't we had a report on the case? Not surprising, from this "no report, hide the facts", board. Several of the previous resolved lawsuits have been reported on, and some resulting court orders, published. It smells fishy.
Next, "I'm not inclined to seek a legal opinion", Legal/Compliance Chair Garrison, begins his conversation regarding seeking legal opinion on two issues. COMMENT: Surprise! Surprise! First, your President Walton, appointed Garrison, as chair to these committees. It is a conflict of interest, because under any standard ethical board, these two committees would seek the advice of the other, and serve as an ethical questioner, of the other. Real conflict of interest, as exhibited by Legal Chair Garrison, in the past, has not been a problem to him, as it relates to our President's company. When your board awarded the President's company a contract to fix the gatehouse, one board member repeatedly asked Garrison to seek a legal opinion, and Garrison wasn't "inclined to do that" for about 6 months. Each and every one of those board members had signed a "Conflict of Interest" document, that basically said they couldn't earn one dollar. About 6 months later, when Garrison did seek a legal opinion, the board was in conflict, each and everyone one of them who voted to give President Walton's company the contract, was in conflict of interest of the document they each had signed. Perhaps, the appointment of Garrison as chair of both the committees, is more of this President and board's "I'll wash your back, if you'll wash mine", mode of operating in their own behalf, rather than ours.
Garrison states that he will be asking the attorney for an opinion in the following two areas.
1) The ability to place liens, on residents in areas, on items other than the annual assessment. Previous attorneys said the only place liens can be placed, is on the annual assessments. He says that we have a fine schedule, but have no teeth to collect, so why put something in place that you can't enforce with real meaning. COMMENT: First, your board has failed to fine residents in numerous areas, particularly if the failure to adhere to governing documents, is one of their own. Additionally, while Garrison has been altering the policy manual, he has added new fine schedules (burning). Now, he wants to put teeth in the collection, when your board has ignored those on the books?
2) He would like the attorney to investigate being able to AMEND THE CCR'S (COVENANTS). He'd like the attorney to see if it is possible to get a covenant before a judge who would agree that some are archaic. He reminds the board that currently, the CCR's can only be changed if approved by 100% vote of approval by the residents. He says for instance, that maybe instead of 100% approval to change, maybe it could be 3/4, or 2/3 to approve, if we could get rid of that. Maybe, we could get one shot, in a hearing before a judge, for illegal, out dated stuff, like antennas. COMMENTS: If you believe these examples are all that Concerned Citizen, Garrison is trying to pull off here, there is a bridge in NY I'd like to sell you. If Garrison, "I'm not inclined to seek legal opinion?", was able to come up with this suggestion now, where was it, when he was pushing for a canal lot owner sub association which would have required a 100% vote of the canal lot owners? No suggestion then of seeking a legal opinion.
Garrison then makes a motion to seek legal opinion on these items, with the cost not to exceed $1,000.
COMMENT: After reading this article regarding Garrison's motions as Legal Chair. Then go back to his first readings for policy manual changes, as Compliance Chair, at this very same meeting. Your President, has given Garrison, the power of this dual role, when he continues to demonstrate that his agenda, disregards the policies, and governing documents, that should be there to protect us, WPA assets & funds, and to serve in the best interests of our quality of life, and maintenance of our property values. This cohesive (They call themselves that.) board is buttering their own bread, while real governance starves.
