THE WPA OCTOBER BOARD MEETING, PART II - MORE LEGAL???? WHAT WASN'T SAID LEFT ME ASKING WHETHER WE MIGHT END UP WITH A PORT-A-POT ON EVERY VACANT LOT

The Wedgefield Examiner, provides the following information, to the best of my ability, after listening to the tape of the WPA October Board Meeting, at The Wedgefield Times.  The WPA has not provided meeting tapes at their own website for the last 3-4 months.  Please listen to the tape yourself, to verify the information.


As stated in Part I of the October WPA Board Meeting, the Legal Report was brief, and lacked complete information.  We are approaching the Annual Meeting.  As usual, residents have the opportunity to propose by-law changes, and if reviewed for legality, and they meet that standard, they can be placed on the ballot for a vote by the membership.  In the past, after the by-law changes were submitted for consideration, we were informed how many had been submitted, their content, and if they didn't meet the legality standard, we were informed why, usually during the Legal Report, during a board meeting.


This year, during the August Board Meeting, we were advised that there were 2 by-law submissions presented for consideration. One requiring the board hire a CPA to oversee our bookkeeping, suffered some humor from the board table, because it has met the legality check, but been presented, more than one time.  It should be noted that there is nothing in the governing documents that prohibit repeated submission of the same by-law change to a vote of the membership.  


The second by-law submission required a vote of the membership for another canal dredging to take place.


At the September Board Meeting, Legal Chair Garrison, stated that the board attorney had not provided his legal opinion on the by-law submissions.


During the October meeting, he simply stated that there would only be one by-law change to vote on.  More important, is why like previous years, we have not been presented the information - legal opinion, as to why one of them, won't be voted on.  Slip of mind by our Legal Chair?  I don't think so.  Go back to the October edition of the WRAGG, and our Legal Chair/Vice President provides a lengthy article about the annual meeting and voting.  He just states that there will be one by-law amendment to vote on.  He does spend a lot of time discussing the proposed COVENANT change.  Leave that alone for a moment, and ask yourself why it might be important that we have the information on the legal opinion, as to why one of the by-law changes won't be placed on the ballot.


It is important for consistency.  We've been informed in the past.  We lack consistency in the presentation of pertinent fact, on too many levels with this board.  Additionally, when a resident follows procedure, puts themselves out, and submits a change they feel should be considered, they deserve open legal opinion, as to why it won't be presented.  We, as members deserve to know what in the legal governing documents, prevented a fellow member from being heard.  It may help us develop our own recommendations for change, and consideration of a vote by the membership.

  


As to the COVENANT vote, after the behavior on so many levels, of this board, and others, I fear for our association and the power this change will bring.  The COVENANTS protect us.  The fact that it would take a 100% vote to change them, has kept freewheeling boards from doing further damage to our by-laws, and policy.  While our Legal Chair didn't have the time to address the reasons the second by-law amendment won't be voted on, he had plenty to say about the COVENANT change in the WRAGG.

"There are two items on the ballot this year.  One is a proposed by law change, the other is a proposed COVENANT change.  Currently, covenants can only be amended by a 100% vote of the membership, and inherently impossible requirement imposed by the original developer of Wedgefield to ensure that he (the developer) maintained total control over the plantation.  This antiquated requirement needs to be changed in order to allow the members of the WPA to govern themselves in a more pro-active manner.  If a 100% vote (that would be 576 yes votes) is impossible, why are we bothering to place this on the ballot?  Answer:  Simply to prove the point.  The board knows this will not pass, but in order to obtain a court ruling (by declaratory judgment) to change, this we need to establish that an attempt has been made to do so.  ONCE THIS IS DONE, WE will be in a position to petition the court to change this requirement to a more achievable number.  IF AND WHEN THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED, THEN THE WPA WILL BE IN A POSITION TO CHANGE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE COVENANTS TO REFLECT MORE ACCURATELY THE NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSOCIATION."


The WE, is nine board members who have operated inconsistently, and until now, couldn't change the covenants, and gather their individual short sighted, tainted constituency, to ram through what they want with an annual meeting vote.  We all ought to be afraid of what is next.  Up until now, this is the one portion of our governing documents, a board and their constituency, couldn't touch.  The 100% requirement insured that protection.   I have difficulty allowing this board to manipulate this critical corner stone of our governing documents.  They already do enough harm through the policy manual, and by-laws.  They ignore, and fail to live according to the covenants as they are currently written.

We'll consider something simple.  Last year, during the annual meeting, a resident asked the board about the burning policy published by the board, which stated “NO BURNING, NO EXCEPTIONS”.  I stated that a board member, on my street was burning in a big ugly pot, which was left on his vacant lot, with other equipment for weeks.  Board member, Cline stated, from the board table, that that nothing could be left standing on vacant lots (covenant).  The offending board member stated that he had been busy.  Nothing was removed from his vacant lot, so several weeks later, I wrote the board with pictures of the mess.  In a letter to me dated 12/7/14,Legal Chair Garrison wrote, “I see no violation of “burning pots” as they are clearly not stored per your letter, but rather have been in use.  In any event, defining what shall be allowable relative to burning related to Covenant #7 is as you know under review by the board.  I will tell you that I believe the proposed change now having had first reading is insufficient in definition and allowance will be reviewed restructured, and that the present policy change up for second reading in December be rejected. If the boat and trailer are indeed on the vacant (as in unbuilt) lot it does indeed need to be moved in accordance with Section V-2-2.03 and the property owner will be notified.”

We won’t spend much time on the discussion of this particular incident, but it is an example of how this board will play hide and seek to please each other’s agenda, at the expense of our governing documents.  In this case, your board, during resident questioning, at an annual meeting, gave a pass to a board member who ignored “NO BURNING, NO EXCEPTIONS”, ignored a fellow board member, who stated from the board table that nothing could be left on a vacant lot, and our Legal Chair ignored his own writing (and the pictures presented by a resident of the boat & trailer) that referred to a covenant.  What has happened on that board member’s unbuilt lot, is that the pot, chairs, swing, etc. has sat for a full year, often for months, unused.  The board in their turning a blind eye to the covenants, has given wings to the deviant vacant lot owner/board member.  He has since added a flagpole, a sign that says “MYRTLE MANOR #1, ROAD KILL COOKOUT FRIDAY NITE, YEE-HAW!”, and taken dock debris found floating in the river, and stacked it there (been there at least 6 months).

I would assume, that you bought property in an HOA for the protection provided to property maintenance standards, expressed in the covenants, and governing documents, and expected appropriate enforcement.  This board, in this incident, and so many others, continue to ignore, beat around the bush, and do what they want.  Why would you allow them to spend our money to go to court to gain a declaratory judgment to run wild with our covenants?

As residents, our fatal flaw has been that we just sat back, didn’t call the board on it, and now have created a monster/speeding train that we can’t stop.      What do I mean?  Residents, this move, by this board, is one for the playbooks.  Your board can’t lose this one.  You couldn’t vote it away, if you tried.  The board wins, whether you vote, or not, because the lethargy that has been growing for years here, is going to be the winner.  Now, your board deviously, has positioned themselves to go into court and use your lethargy to “BE IN A POSITION TO CHANGE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE COVENANTS” !  God help us!   

For just a moment, let’s put the board member with the burning pots, river salvage, flagpole, sign, etc. in the vacant lot adjacent to your home.  Realize the board has left him in defiance of some covenants, and miscellaneous governing documents.  Perhaps, for convenience of his “pot burning fires”, he’ll add a port-a-pot, and leave it there forever, because "it is in use".   This is what you may get, when your board goes to court.  Perhaps the most honest thing the pot burning board member, and your board has allowed, is that one year ago, he put our future in WRITING, on the sign that has stayed on his lot, for over a year.  P.S.  According to our governing documents, you couldn’t have his sign, or any other sign, without seeking their approval.  HERE IS THE SIGN:

THE WPA OCTOBER BOARD MEETING, PART I: THE LEGAL REPORT

The Wedgefield Examiner, provides the following information, to the best of my ability, after listening to the tape of the WPA October Board Meeting, at The Wedgefield Times.  The WPA has not provided meeting tapes at their own website for the last 3-4 months.  Please listen to the tape yourself, to verify the information.

The Legal Report provided by Legal Chair, Garrison is short, not so sweet, and vague.  It revolves around the litigation regarding the canal lot owner who refused to pay the related canal dredging assessments.  If you aren't a regular meeting attendee, or don't listen to the tapes of the meetings, it might be difficult to determine what litigation he speaks to.  Quite frankly, the report left me uncertain of the outcome.  He says things such as, "waiting for the judge to make a determination", "the judge died", "come to terms", "got our money - at least most of it".  At one point, in this few minutes in time, he states something like it has dragged on 2/3 or 3/4 of forever.  Listen to the tape to see how much time that type of litigation expense gets.  Your board voted to settle this a year ago, at the OCTOBER 2014 BOARD MEETING!  The silence, and initiative by our Legal Chair, and your board, on this litigation, HAS NOT BEEN GOLDEN!  In fact, it has been frustrating, insulting to common sense, abusive to members in good standing, and plain poor governance by all members of the board who sat back and watched it happen, over years, and several boards.

It left me with too many questions.  I've written the board, and I'm going to share the letter with you.  No use spending my time writing the same information twice.  The letter to the board provided below, explains it all.  If after reading the letter, you doubt the events, spend some time reviewing previous documented articles on the subject at The Wedgefield Examiner, or The Wedgefield Times, and listen to the tapes of the appropriate meetings.

HERE IS THE LETTER:

DATE:                       October 27, 2015

TO:                             WPA Board

FROM:                      Madeline Y. Claveloux

RE:                             REQUEST TO REVIEW FILES

Please place a copy in the Correspondence File, and distribute to the board.

I’m requesting an appointment to review files at the WPA office on Thursday, November 5, at 11:00AM.  The request is made according to SC Title 33, Article 16 Code of Law, sent to me by Board Member DeMarchi, on 06/05/13.  I am not requesting copies, as the law states I’m entitled to.  I am requesting review of the following:

1)  In regard to the litigation recently finalized *(see note), concerning the canal lot owner who refused to pay the dredging assessment.  *(Note) I use the term finalized, as I am unsure what would apply after listening to our Legal Chair’s report from the tape of the October WPA Board Meeting.  The documents I would like to review:

*ALL LEGAL INVOICES THAT RELATE TO THIS LITIGATION

*ALL LEGAL OPINIONS, OR CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE WPA ATTORNEY RELATING TO THIS LITIGATION

*ALL LEGAL PAPERS, DOCUMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE OPPOSING ATTORNEYS, OR RESIDENT PARTY, RELATED TO THIS LITIGATION

*ALL ORDERS, JUDGEMENTS, ETC., RELATING TO THE LITIGATION

*ALL PAPERS THAT WOULD INDICATE WHAT THE RESIDENT MEMBER DID HAVE TO PAY WHEN THIS LITIGATION WAS FINALIZED.

REASON FOR REQUEST:  I, as a canal lot owner/member, paid all of my dredging related assessments, as assessed by the WPA, to remain in good standing, and exercise my right to vote at annual meetings, attend monthly meetings, and write the board with expectation of answers afforded to members in good standing, directed by our governing documents.  At times, even as a member in good standing those rights have been denied to me.  Yet, during the history of the dredging related assessments, there were annual meetings, where those who had not paid, were allowed to vote.  In the end, this litigation represents the “last man standing”, as it relates to those who would not pay the dredging assessment.

Additionally, the reports provided at the board table regarding this litigation have been sketchy, incomplete, and caused contentious behavior, by board members, at the board table.  As a resident attending board meetings, I’ve seen at least 3 WPA lawyers come, and go.  One was disbarred!  One failed to act, or even respond to the WPA Legal Chair.  During the meetings terms were thrown around like judge, mediator, no it is a judge, and our lawyers supposed opinions, often said to be “not in writing”, interpreted for us, by our WPA Legal Chair.  It has been a mess.  At one point in the board’s reporting it appeared that this last hold out to the dredging assessments, wasn’t going to have to pay, and some residents who had paid for the dredging assessments, asked for their money back.  The board’s Legal Chair stated that the law time limitations, had run out for us!

I believe that a review of the documents requested  will finally answer my questions as to what this litigation cost in resident funds, and exactly what critical parties said, or didn’t say.  I further believe that the law presented to me by WPA Board Member DeMarchi, allows me to view all of the requested information, and have copies, if I wish to have them.  I reiterate, I’m not requesting copies, at this point.

2)  I’d like to review the Correspondence File, from May 2015 through November 4, 2015.  REASON FOR REQUEST:   At least one resident letter was not reported on during a board meeting, and I’d like the opportunity to review the written board response to the resident letters.

Please confirm in writing, whether I will be permitted to review ALL of the requested information.

Finally, I felt I should note in writing, to the board, that I have not received the annual meeting packet.  I have called the office, received a call back from J. Cline, and will wait until October 30^th to see if it arrives at my home, or is returned to the office.  We vote by proxy each year, whether we attend the meeting or not, and as a member in good standing, would like this resolved as soon as possible.

  

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER PUBLISHES A NEW ARTICLE TIME LINE & THANKS THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES, FOR PROVIDING BOARD MEETING RECORDINGS, WHEN YOUR BOARD HAS FAILED TO DO IT FOR MONTHS

The Wedgefield Examiner, will publish articles immediately following each monthly meeting, and continue with articles each month, until the meeting subjects have been covered.  Once all subjects have been covered, we won't publish again, until the next meeting.

The October articles will begin to be published on October 27th.  We had guests in our home, and I was unable to attend the meeting.  I'm listening to the tape provided on The Wedgefield Times website.  We should all be very thankful, that it is provided at this site, because it has not been available at the WPA website for about 3 months.  Thank you, The Wedgefield Times, you are the only game in town, with meeting recordings.  It doesn't appear to be a WPA Board priority!