The September WPA Board Meeting was called to order at 7:00pm, with all nine board members in attendance. 12 members were present. For the most part, the board flew through officer & committee reports, often with "no report", or little content, if presented.
The highlights of these reports follow:
*Secretary's Report:
The board approved 2 more people for the election committee. The second husband and wife team, to the committee. COMMENT: Not sure that should be, but with the conflict of interest issues that hang over this board table, along with poor management, single bids, etc, why raise written questions to this board about integrity, and operating without a hint of impropriety?
The materials for the annual meeting packet will be printed soon. One of the hold ups to moving forward, is the legal opinion on the By-law changes/additions, submitted by residents.
Pastor Justin, has offered to participate with the Wedgefield Rd clean up.
*Treasurer's Report:
We still have $71,000 in past due assessment receivables. 3 more residents have paid their past due accounts.
*Legal Report:
The Legal Chair reported that the board was still waiting for an answer from the attorney, regarding the By-Law change/additions, submitted for a vote on the ballot. He had been trying to reach the attorney for 6-7 days. That was all that was reported, folks. COMMENT: What is with the attorneys this board hires? "WAITING", is the key word, for this attorney, and those who proceed him, hired by this board. You might say, "SO". There are three key items, that we have been waiting for, for way too long, and quite frankly, demonstrated past experience, as key exhibit, in the fairly recent past, is key. I would dare to say, if the item/case, had contained the words "canal dredging", and we were left waiting for answers, the meetings would have been full, and the members in attendance, rioting, and shouting their suspicious comments, including doubting the attorney, and the board. The three items are: (1) the case of the canal lot owner who refused to pay the $5,000 assessment. Your board voted to SETTLE this a YEAR ago, and yet we have no final ruling. Why? (2) The board attorney of record is involved with the two lots that ownership fell to the WPA under foreclosure, after an auction of the lots, overseen by our attorney. At least one resident has written the board about how they will be presented for sale, when the final papers are presented. What is the status? (3) The opinions regarding the By-Law change/additions. One of the proposals, adds the requirement, that the board bring all future dredging to the vote of the full membership. For those who say "the Wedgefield Examiner, can't get past the lawsuits of the last dredging", it would be the pot calling the kettle black. It appears that there are others, on and off the board, that want to use the board, and our governing documents for "their own non dredging agenda." It could appear that this board has furthered that agenda through their handpicked, delaying tactical, non dredging, or answering attorneys.
I have to pause in the report, and stay with this. First, why does our board continue to pay, using our money, inefficient, sometimes almost criminal professionals, to handle our associations legal affairs, time after time? Could we ever have our business conducted legally, ethically, utilizing our governing documents, without intrigue, and a not so silent hidden agenda?
Think that is hard? Well, here's a quick review. Remember, the bulk of this board has been around for most of this, and their righteousness at the table excuses, just doesn't cut it.
In 2010 the board attorney of record was fired, and Lawyer "M" was hired. The lawyer who had previously been here for years. He introduced us crudely, and rudely to state law, passing over our governing documents. He was the greatest, and the best in their world, until he advised the board that the 2011 petitioners, who petitioned under state law, could move forward with a recall of 5 board members. Two board members (both listed to be recalled), unauthorized by the board, went to attorney M #2, who advised them that the petitioners should not be allowed to move ahead. The board advised these two board members, that they would not pay for the advice of attorney M #2. In the end, they did pay him. The president of the board explained that attorney M (first one), was not the attorney he use to be, and made insulting claims about his personal, and professional life, from the board table, and then attempted to have the meeting tapes erased of the evidence.
Attorney M #2, then became the attorney of record, delayed answering the board on many items, including the case regarding the canal lot owner. Attorney M #2 was disbarred, and this board hired his partner, attorney M #3, in the two person office, and he failed to file appropriately in the courts, in regard to the canal case, and failed to respond to the board at all, on many issues. He was fired, and now we have attorney C, who appears to lag on cases, and fail to answer the board on our issues.
P.S. All three attorneys' last names started with M.
This article will have to be published in two parts. Part II will take us to drainage projects, 2016 budget & assessment, and new ARC policy manual first reading. Part II, will be published by end of day, September 17.
Have you ever heard, "a man is as good as his word"? I'd like to leave this article with words spoken at the board table during the September WPA meeting. You'll have the opportunity to see what resulted, after these words were spoken by members of your board.
*In regard to the drainage contract discussions (over $20,000 awarded in contracts).
"Shouldn't the resident have to pay."
"We're not sure who owns that property"
"I could only get one bid"
"We just can't get people to bid"
*In regard to 2016 budget & assessment, and finance meeting the board was invited to attend
"It was the strangest finance committee meeting that I ever went to. Witnessed the committee spending most of the meeting fighting with each other."
"Why did we pay for a reserve study to be done, if we aren't going to follow it?"
Stay tuned.
The Legal Chair reported that the board was still waiting for an answer from the attorney, regarding the By-Law change/additions, submitted for a vote on the ballot. He had been trying to reach the attorney for 6-7 days. That was all that was reported, folks. COMMENT: What is with the attorneys this board hires? "WAITING", is the key word, for this attorney, and those who proceed him, hired by this board. You might say, "SO". There are three key items, that we have been waiting for, for way too long, and quite frankly, demonstrated past experience, as key exhibit, in the fairly recent past, is key. I would dare to say, if the item/case, had contained the words "canal dredging", and we were left waiting for answers, the meetings would have been full, and the members in attendance, rioting, and shouting their suspicious comments, including doubting the attorney, and the board. The three items are: (1) the case of the canal lot owner who refused to pay the $5,000 assessment. Your board voted to SETTLE this a YEAR ago, and yet we have no final ruling. Why? (2) The board attorney of record is involved with the two lots that ownership fell to the WPA under foreclosure, after an auction of the lots, overseen by our attorney. At least one resident has written the board about how they will be presented for sale, when the final papers are presented. What is the status? (3) The opinions regarding the By-Law change/additions. One of the proposals, adds the requirement, that the board bring all future dredging to the vote of the full membership. For those who say "the Wedgefield Examiner, can't get past the lawsuits of the last dredging", it would be the pot calling the kettle black. It appears that there are others, on and off the board, that want to use the board, and our governing documents for "their own non dredging agenda." It could appear that this board has furthered that agenda through their handpicked, delaying tactical, non dredging, or answering attorneys.
I have to pause in the report, and stay with this. First, why does our board continue to pay, using our money, inefficient, sometimes almost criminal professionals, to handle our associations legal affairs, time after time? Could we ever have our business conducted legally, ethically, utilizing our governing documents, without intrigue, and a not so silent hidden agenda?
Think that is hard? Well, here's a quick review. Remember, the bulk of this board has been around for most of this, and their righteousness at the table excuses, just doesn't cut it.
In 2010 the board attorney of record was fired, and Lawyer "M" was hired. The lawyer who had previously been here for years. He introduced us crudely, and rudely to state law, passing over our governing documents. He was the greatest, and the best in their world, until he advised the board that the 2011 petitioners, who petitioned under state law, could move forward with a recall of 5 board members. Two board members (both listed to be recalled), unauthorized by the board, went to attorney M #2, who advised them that the petitioners should not be allowed to move ahead. The board advised these two board members, that they would not pay for the advice of attorney M #2. In the end, they did pay him. The president of the board explained that attorney M (first one), was not the attorney he use to be, and made insulting claims about his personal, and professional life, from the board table, and then attempted to have the meeting tapes erased of the evidence.
Attorney M #2, then became the attorney of record, delayed answering the board on many items, including the case regarding the canal lot owner. Attorney M #2 was disbarred, and this board hired his partner, attorney M #3, in the two person office, and he failed to file appropriately in the courts, in regard to the canal case, and failed to respond to the board at all, on many issues. He was fired, and now we have attorney C, who appears to lag on cases, and fail to answer the board on our issues.
P.S. All three attorneys' last names started with M.
This article will have to be published in two parts. Part II will take us to drainage projects, 2016 budget & assessment, and new ARC policy manual first reading. Part II, will be published by end of day, September 17.
Have you ever heard, "a man is as good as his word"? I'd like to leave this article with words spoken at the board table during the September WPA meeting. You'll have the opportunity to see what resulted, after these words were spoken by members of your board.
*In regard to the drainage contract discussions (over $20,000 awarded in contracts).
"Shouldn't the resident have to pay."
"We're not sure who owns that property"
"I could only get one bid"
"We just can't get people to bid"
*In regard to 2016 budget & assessment, and finance meeting the board was invited to attend
"It was the strangest finance committee meeting that I ever went to. Witnessed the committee spending most of the meeting fighting with each other."
"Why did we pay for a reserve study to be done, if we aren't going to follow it?"
Stay tuned.
