WPA BOARD NOTICES THE MEMBERSHIP "OPEN BOARD MEETING, MONDAY FEBRUARY 1ST, 7:00PM". MORE SMOKE AND MIRRORS FROM THIS "OPEN BOARD", WHILE THEY CRY DISINTEREST FROM THE MEMBERSHIP, AND IGNORE THE BY-LAWS. THIS IS LIKE BEING INVITED TO A NON PARTY. THE BOARD HAS GIVEN DATE, AND TIME, AND FAILED TO TELL US WHO CALLED THE MEETING, AND THE SUBJECT OR REASON FOR ANOTHER MEETING, LESS THAN TWO WEEKS SINCE THE LAST MONTHLY MEETING.

As I drove into Wedgefield, I noticed a sign announcing an open board meeting.  Good, we should have notice at the gate.  I decided to go the the risky WPA website to view the meeting information, to ascertain the subject of the meeting.  Earlier, my computer antivirus service blocked my access, and provided the following information about the website:
WEBROOT
This website has been reported as unsafe.  We recommend that you don't continue to this website because it is reported to contain the following threats.


SUSPICIOUS THREAT:  This is a suspicious site.  There is a higher than average probability that you will be exposed to MALICIOUS links or payloads.

Curiosity got the best of me this morning, and I went past the block, and warning, to the WPA new website.  I shouldn't have wasted my time, or risked my computer system.  The only message that was there stated, "OPEN BOARD MEETING, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1ST, 7:00."

ARTICLE VII, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SECTION 7, SPECIAL MEETINGS, critical portion, states, "Not less than three days notice of the meeting shall be given personally or by mail, telephone, or telegraph which said notice shall state the time, place and purpose of the meeting."  Don't you think that the reason for calling the meeting would be noticed so you could decide whether you would take the time to attend?  Don't you think that if they really wanted you - the MEMBERS, at the OPEN meeting, that they would have wanted you to know what the subject was?  I do, if they really, as they claim, wanted more interest, they would have told you what was such an emergency that they didn't handle it at the short January meeting.  You see your board lamented in January that they would like "more interest (14 members at the January meeting.)"  They plowed over a resident's maintenance dredging question in December, saying they had several offers to canal lot members, over a three year period, but the canal lots owners had "no interest", and yet, I reviewed minutes for 3 years, and found that their offers had never been discussed from the board table.

It is nothing less than, hide, distort, lay false claims, and then claim "no interest" by the residents that they select to be on their step child/member list.  Their agendas are the same.  In fact, they appear to be boiler plate, and only in the case of policy manual changes, are their substantive notices.  The policy manual changes reviewed, generally give the board more power to spend without vote, etc.  I would dare to say that if they had noted an agenda, or meeting notice, that they would discuss the forged ruling on Individual Assessment, that there would have been standing room only.  Was it ever noticed?  No!  Was it ever openly discussed at a board meeting?  No!  Go back to their sanitized minutes.  It was never discussed at the board table.

Precedent, a word the board loves, also plays into this.  The by-laws address how the board member who calls the meeting must notify the board.  If you've followed the notices of OPEN meetings, precedent has been to state the subject, or reason for calling the meeting.

I'm tried of their shell game tactics, and would just like some honesty, and integrity in our board's governance of the place we call home.

TWO WORDS NAG - FORGERY & CRIMINAL, CAUSING SERIOUS QUESTIONS, WHY DOESN'T OUR BOARD, OUR LEGAL REPRESENTATION, HAVE QUESTIONS, AND WHY HASN'T IT BEEN REPORTED ANY PLACE? WILL YOU ASK THE BOARD

THE WORDS IN QUESTION:  FORGED, FORGERY, & CRIMINAL

My questions revolve around the fact that we have two rulings, by the same referee (Board called judge.) regarding the canal dredging assessments.  I reviewed both rulings in person, I've had the documents in my hands.  They are both, on review, signed by the same referee.  The first agrees with Individual Assessment.  The second removes Individual Assessment as a legal assessment.  I questioned a board member who was in the office the day of my review, as to why we had a second ruling, when the first answered, and supported the board's collection of the assessments.  The ruling should have been good news to a board making a sincere effort to collect.  I was told that even though the document was signed with the referees name, and delivered to the WPA, that the referee hadn't signed it.  Later, I asked questions from the floor at the annual meeting, and initially our Legal Chair said that he didn't want to talk about it.  I did, and it was publicly acknowledged that they had to go to the second document, ruling, because the referee had not signed the first.  No one knew who signed the first, and yet, your board relied on it, and collected, with fines, from one of the last outstanding canal lot owners, according to the first ruling.  You'll have to go back to documented articles on the blog, if you haven't been following.

The fact that someone signed ruling number one, and your board relied on it, and said nothing to any of us from the board table, and then paid the same referee to work again bothered me off and on, since I discovered it.  This was a BIG ruling for the toxic elephant  in the room, dredging, for Wedgefield.  Today, I didn't feel I needed to, but I got the dictionary out anyway.  Was it possible that forged (signature), and forgery, were words that were too big for the situation?  No, they weren't, and a new word appeared - CRIMINAL.  So here is the definition for FORGERY:  "The CRIME of FALSELY and FRAUDULENTLY making or ALTERING a document, something FORGED."  If the referee didn't sign the first ruling, and that's what we were finally told, and yet his signature (it is his name) it is signed, then it is forged -  signed intentionally, by someone else, and delivered to the WPA, as a legal document.  So here are the questions:

*Why wouldn't a duly elected board not want to know who, and why, someone forged a signature on a legal document carrying the toxic weight of this one?
*Why wouldn't each and every duly elected board member want answers to an action that represents their constituents, carrying words like FORGED, FALSELY, FRAUDULENTLY, ALTERING?  
*Why doesn't our Legal Chair, and Legal Committee want answers to this?  If they aren't afraid of their actions, or who was involved, or who directed this criminal fiasco, don't they want to know who, and what exactly happened?
*At the moment that the referee was informed, why didn't he want to know?
*Why wasn't this reported to the appropriate authorities?
*Why did every board member, our President, and Legal Chair hide all of this from us, and not want to talk about it?
*Our Legal Committee recommended, and our board approved the hiring, and firing of several attorneys during this lengthy legal tango.  The two documents in question were signed about a year and a half apart.  One of the attorneys was disbarred. What kind of attorneys, would knowingly not take this to the proper authorities?
*Whether you are for or against the issues of dredging, why don't you care about our board being involved, or staying silent when the issues are  FORGERY, FRAUDULENT, ALTERING OF A LEGAL DOCUMENT, CRIMINAL, and in my humble opinion - COMPLICIT?

I RECEIVE A WARNING FROM WEBROOT, NOT TO PROCEED TO NEW WPA WEBSITE

Today, after posting a letter to the WPA board, from a resident who wrote the board with questions about the new WPA website, wedgefieldhoa.com, I attempted to visit the website.  When I typed wedgefieldhoa.com into the search engine two options came up on the list.  The first said "home",  The second said "contact info".  I ended up selecting both, as I searched, but as I selected each one, the same, following message, came up for both.

WEBROOT
This website has been reported as unsafe.  We recommend that you don't continue to this website because it is reported to contain the following threats.

SUSPICIOUS THREAT:  This is a suspicious site.  There is a higher than average probability that you will be exposed to MALICIOUS links or payloads.

I'm going to listen to my security system.  I've provided the information as assistance to protecting your computer.  

A resident has shared the following letter to the board about the new WPA website.  As always, I have removed the name of the resident.

WPA Office <wedgeassoc.com@frontier.com>

Subject: The new WPA website

Priority: Normal Date: Monday, January 25, 2016 9:03 AM Size: 7 KB

Ms Kimberly Feagin, please provide a copy of this email to each Board member and the WPA correspondence file.     This email relates to the "creation" of the WPA "new" website which is available on the internet using "http://www.wedgefieldhoa.com".   I applaud its formation, as the "old" website (http://www.wedgefield-plantation.com") was for the most part out-of-date and apparently not maintained directly (or indirectly) by the Board.  And maintenance is a necessary ongoing effort common to all websites that are valuable.   Note: Anyone who has worked with the HTML/CSSS languages used in websites, can view the internal source code and the "old" website needs much maintenance even without the needed updates to its contents!      However, there are many questions that should be asked as the renewal  process goes further.   (1) When was the "old" website deemed renewable? I miss very few monthly Board meetings and certainly the "funding" process needed for the new effort. The monthly meeting and the cost of the effort needs to be published!   (2) How much of the information that was on the "old" website will be transported to the "new" website, given that the "old" website was several months lacking in its content.         (3) Who determines what information is to be transferred?   (4) Who is responsible for maintaining the "new" website, given that the "old" site was allowed to become obsolete?    (5) Regarding the "new" website contents, are the minutes of the "non-monthly" meetings (in contrast to the monthly approved meeting minutes) going to be posted? What about the WPA financial reports (and corrected one, as needed)  (6) Also, Are the WPA members serving on its various committees, going to be posted? These questions are only a few of what could be asked now.    Sincerely

MONDAY, JAN. 25: WE'VE ADDED THE FINAL CHAPTER TO THE ARTICLE REGARDING THE CANAL LOT OWNER'S QUESTION ABOUT DREDGING, AND THE BOARD'S RESPONSE. THE ARTICLE IS 3 OR 4 DOWN, AND THE HEADLINE STARTS WITH "NOTE"

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER HAS ADDED PART III TO THE QUESTION ABOUT DREDGING AT THE DECEMBER 2015 WPA BOARD MEETING, AND THE BOARD'S RESPONSE. PART THREE IS ADDED AT THE END OF THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER HAS ADDED PART II TO THE ARTICLE REGARDING THE RESIDENT QUESTION ON A CANAL MAINTENANCE DREDGE, AND THE BOARD'S RESPONSE. PLEASE LOOK FOR PART II, AND THOSE THAT FOLLOW, ON THE BOTTOM OF THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE

NOTE: JANUARY 25, PART IV HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE END OF THIS ARTICLE. NOTE: PARTS II & III ARE AT THE END OF THIS ARTICLE. -THE TRANSCRIPTION OF THE RESIDENT CANAL DREDGING QUESTION, AND YOUR BOARD'S ANSWER, DURING THE RESIDENT COMMENT SECTION OF THE DECEMBER 2015 WPA BOARD MEETING

I have listened to the tape of the December 2015 WPA Board Meeting, Resident Comments, and transcribed it to the best of my ability.  Go to The Wedgefield Times, and listen to this portion of the tape, (near the end) to verify for your self.  Transcription will be provided in blue type.  Comments will be provided in red type, and noted as such.

The resident who asked the canal dredging question, had three questions.  They asked about work on the gatehouse, and the two lots that were brought into the board hands through collection steps.  Those questions were answered, and they proceeded to the third, which is in the transcription.  It should be noted that I was not at the meeting, therefore, I was not the questioner, and I am providing transcription from the tape.  The transcription begins below, in blue type.

Resident, "I haven't heard anything about a maintenance dredge.  I hear people talking about that is needed."

Garrison, had answered the first two questions, and said that he couldn't answer the third (canal dredging).  President Walton said that no body else could answer either.  DeMarchi, said something about there seemed to be a lack of interest.

Garrison, "I will say that I think that this board has made it clear that there is not going to be a dredge of any kind without the  lot owners that are directly involved, canal lot owners, finding a way to come up with money outside of the WPA funding.  The WPA has assigned funds year to year in reserves for some, but this board has not been inclined, and I think that I speak for everybody on this board, that they are going to fund 100%, under any circumstance that the funding is going to have to be coming from the canal lot owners.  We tried several things over the last couple of years, and....kicking around a couple things about how to do that.  My solution to it is to .....The covenant proposal was on the ballot.  If we get to the point where we, as a group of property owners get to vote to change the covenants with some reasonable number that's less at some point, if that were to happen then we could look at that point of changing the governance of, or the assessments, where we could have differential assessments, canal could be assessed more per year than - that might be a way to fund some of this thing.  Then we would have that money strictly to..... Last time....some said screw it....$9,000, and 4 1/2 years of lawsuits later we're no closer to where we started, other than to have court ruling that says you can't use individual assessment clause to raise that money.  Collection of it was essentially unenforceable, as you all... "

Comments:  When Garrison, notes, and uses the court ruling, he, your President, and every person on that board come with "unclean hands".  What is worse, is they covered up, and never got to the bottom of who FORGED the signature, on the first ruling, that allowed individual assessment, and they relied on that ruling by collecting the money from the first of the last two non paying canal lot owners, let it lay, never said a word to us from the board table as to what had happened, and had the same man, they called a "judge", write up the second one, removing individual assessment, and he can't speak from the grave, he is dead. He was a referee.  I've seen the papers from both rulings.  The one person on the board who questioned at the time your board was about to pay the same "judge" for the second time, for the second ruling, was abused verbally, at the board table.

We'll call this section Part I, and I'll keep adding, as my time allows.  Two things before we leave Part I.  First, you might want to go back and read, "No Real Title For This, Let's Just Call It Injustice At The Hands.....", published on 11/15/15, and "Part II WPA 2015 Annual Meeting - The Mystery Deepens....." published on 11/22/15, on this blog.  The first article has the language from the two rulings, and the second involves what happened when I had questions about this at the annual meeting.  You also might want to write the board, and ask to review the documents for yourself.

Second, I'll say this only once in the article, if you question my motives, and opinions.  As to another maintenance dredging, I do believe that it should be done, for the sake of Wedgefield as a cohesive beautiful community, for the sake of maintaining property values.  As a individual concerned only about me, and my enjoyment in my life time, I really don't care.  I believe that I'll have water behind my house for my, and my husbands life time.  I don't give a rat's behind.  Many of our canal lot owners are in the senior age range,  can let their property like mine, become a problem of their estates.  What drives me then in this issue, and many others here, is that it becomes a matter of principle, and I won't be viewed, as DeMarchi once said, "he was tired of legislating for idiots", as one of those idiots.  This is where my home is.  The board, pulling these stunts, and our sitting back, whether it is conflict of interest, shaky keeping of our financial records, or poor standards of contracting, I'm not one of their idiots.

Stay tuned for Part II, which will be contained in this article.

PART II: WE RETURN TO TRANSCRIPTION WHICH IS TYPED IT BLUE, AND COMMENTS IN RED, NOTED AS SUCH

Garrison resumes speaking, “If it turned out, if we got where we could do that, and you did have somebody who didn’t pay, the board would at least have the same ways of collecting that, that they have for regular assessments, because they in fact, would be regular assessments.  But, that’s years down the road at best.  Right now, unless, or until, there’s some consensus among the canal lot owners, I’m not going to be  pie in the sky, but let’s assume the dredging cost $300,000.  Is that reasonable?”  DeMarchi, “$350,000…… Garrison, So if it cost $300,000, and WPA said this board decided that it would in fact put $100,000 in for a number – I’m not saying non of this is in stone.  The canal lot owners would have come up with $200,000 in that particular scenario.  The two question to come up with…A) Are you willing to do that?  B) How you going to do it?  C) Are you going to cover the people that don’t do it?  I mean, that’s what it comes down to.  If you’re splitting $200,000, or whatever the number is 79 ways, or 50 ways, depending.  We made a number of – sent out a couple of years ago.  22 responses to that 79 people.  Don’t think it was feasible for a number of reasons I suppose, but right there hasn’t been a high level of interest.  John, would you say that is true?

COMMENTS:

First, I did some research.  I believe when Garrison speaks of 79 people, and 22 responses, that he is talking about a survey that was sent by the board to canal lot owners.  This survey was flawed before it was printed.  It basically proposed a sub association for the canal lot owners.  It stated that in order for it to work legally 100% of the canal lot owners would have to agree to it.  It had two questions – YES, or NO.  It didn’t have a sent date, a closing signature – who wrote it, or sent this item to the canal lot owners.  It didn’t even have a place for the responding resident to sign it.  It did not have a return by date, so canal residents could still be thinking about it.  The process was so flawed that 19 canal lot owners’ surveys, were held, and not sent out with the others.  I was one of them, and I have a response from the office that says 19 were held for postage, until the paid staff person could get to the post office.  The most offensive part of the survey was that it wasn’t a genuine offer by this board to solve and issue.  The board attorney had already told them that it would take 100% participation by the canal lot owners, and they already knew they couldn’t collect on a number of the canal lot owners whose back yards – canals, had been dredged, and at least one of them was involved in a legal dispute not to pay.  Just read on, because there are more less than genuine statements – with no fact, that will come our way.  To see the survey, go to the very bottom of the blog, to 2012, then to November, and see the article published November 29, 2012, titled “The Canal Lot Survey”.  I as a canal lot resident, would never agree on a sub association.  I will never put my property maintenance in the hands of an additional board.  I might have early in my move here, but after what has transpired at the very hands of some of these canal residents, who now serve on this board, I wouldn't trust them to represent my property under an additional board.  

We resume transcription with the resident.  “However, this issue is such a furor.  A lot of money was spent.  No decision to take an action, is a decision.  The investment that was put into the dredging that way it was done, it is unconscionable not to make some proposal, and start exploring options available for a maintenance dredge.  I am asking the board to address this issue.  Yes, you can ask for more input from canal people.  You’re trying to get input for luminaries (did happen at this very meeting) for crying out loud.  This board has a responsibility to maintain the canals, maintain the property values of this community, and I think there are options.  I’m not saying there is only one choice, but I think that no action isn’t a decision.  We are looking at weeds.  The property values of everyone in this community, on the canal, or not…. This is a real gold mine.  People that have purchased properties here said they looked up and down the whole coast, that this is the best place to live.  If we let Wedgefield go down the tubes because we sit on our hands, and wait for someone else to bring it up….. The board has a responsibility.  Yes, it would be nice to have letters go out to people.  It could go into the Wragg, but we have too much time aruing over the fence of canal dredging, but to let that turn back to weeds because we just sit on our hands is a tragic shame.”

Garrison, “Let me respond to that.  # 1, You can make that argument if you believe that it was a good investment for folks.  There are a number of them that think that investment – your argument, would hold no water.  #2, as for this board having a responsibility I would respectfully disagree.  You have an agreement that was reached in court after 5 years, or so, where everyone agreed that we don’t own the canals.  So I find it a stretch to say this board has a responsibility.  It has been pretty much unilaterally agreed by all the people involved in the lawsuit, that we don’t own them.  I don’t believe personally, that this board has any legal responsibility to do it, what so ever.  I do believe that the board has a moral responsibility.  I do also agree that it has an effect on the canal lot owners.

COMMENTS:  I’ve stopped the transcription because Garrison has said something valueable.  Call the responsibility what you want.  I often don’t agree with Garrison, nor do I trust him often, but it is times like this, that I’m conflicted.  You may not know it by my writings, but Garrison and I manage to speak about issues in person, more often than not, even though often in disagreement, but with humor.  I stopped at this point, simply because I could partially agree with what he said.

We are stopping here with PART II.  Stay tuned!

PART III, WE CONTINUE WITH GARRISON, WHO WAS CUT OFF IN PART II

Garrison continues, “ I don’t think it makes my property $1 more, or less, whether the canal at your house is dredged, or not, but, again that’s where it is very subjective – differences of opinion – right.  There is, and was a proposed by-law that for this years ballot to prohibit the WPA from spending any money what so ever on canals.  I can promise you it is going to be on the ballot.  The reason it didn’t make it was because it was so poorly worded that it was rejected by the board attorney, and the Legal Committee, but it is going to be rewritten, and it is going to be there.  I don’t want that to happen, but you need to understand that there is .  I can almost guarantee you, and I’m not saying that to scare anybody, or anything else.   I don’t want that to happen, but you need to understand that that is under foot.  There are those that are adamantly opposed to any WPA monies being spent on canals, so as strongly as you believe this board has a responsibility to do something about it, I have an equal number of people out there that think exactly the opposite.”

COMMENTS:  It is moments like this that there is no confliction about Garrison.  If you attend meetings, visit the office to review records, and facts, it is true Garrison, and his apparent  passive aggressive  governance that is his emblem.  I’m of the thought that he has been captaining the ship of the Concerned Citizens since the lawsuit was settled.  One of the Concerned Citizen board members said it best – “It is all about legal.”  Shortly after that Garrison was appointed Legal Chair, and has set sail tacking this way & that in the winds toward the landing of no dredging.  In between, he often lets others look tainted, and dirty, while he says things like” .  I don’t want that to happen, but you need to understand that there is …  I can almost guarantee you, and I’m not saying that to scare anybody, or anything else.   I don’t want that to happen, but you need to understand that that is under foot.”  How else would you explain a Legal Chair serving in the best interests of the association, referring to a ruling, knowing that the first had a forged signature, and moving forward to hire the same referee, using our money, with no apparent need to get answers?

We resume transcription with the resident speaking, “The board’s responsibility is not based on majority.  It’s responsibility is what is in the best interest of this community.  It’s not a matter of majority votes.  If everything was placed on majority votes, a lot of things…There are covenants, and by-laws that say common ground must be maintained.  No finding was found the last lawsuit that there was wrong doing.  You are one person, Bob, and I respect your opinion.  You have one opinion, but there is a whole board here, also with opinions.  So, I’m just saying as time goes on, no action, no mention of canal maintenance dredging is a very costly mistake it goes on, and on.  The board needs to address this issue before it gets so huge, and the cost so out of bounds. It really could be done, probably, at a fairly reasonable, if it is addressed at this time, not two years from now.”

DeMarchi, “ I would like to address this just one time.  Three years ago when this board was presented with the option of putting approximately $30,000 aside each year for the canal.  The board has gone up, and beyond that.  At the same time – ask Larry (board member McMillin), Ed anybody who sat on your canal committee – Ed Wozniak, Jamie Cristello – I talked to these guys over the years to get their butt in gear.  Three years ago when we initiated the $30,000.  If we had taken action, gotten the canal people, we would have donated approximately $180,000 in funds to the community, because we had….This 3 years before the permit expires.  If each canal owner had set aside $30, we would have had enough to dredge the canals.  So don’t lay it on the board, because this proposal has been given to several canal lot owners – Water Amenities Committee, and so on, but the canal lot owners have been atrocious.  The people in this community that resent it, shoved it down our throat, have to reason.  I don’t like it, but you know what it is $50 a year that is going to go into this fund.  It is the canal lot owner responsibility that ….to come up with a viable plan.  We can give one to you, but if you don’t accept it, where does our responsibility end?

COMMENTS:  First, I thank DeMarchi for his ideas, and speaking out now.  He should know that he is wrong in general about the average canal lot owner.  His suggestions have NEVER come to our ears, let alone our front doors.  We have McMillin, Anderson, Walton (John), and Johnson on the board, and they also are canal lot owners.  If you told them, or the other canal lot members you mentioned, they NEVER called a meeting, sent a letter, nothing to us – canal lot owners, involved, or not.  I have always been involved, in fact was sued, and took the associated abuse.  Not one person brought it to me.  I have heard RUMORS – RUMORS that two of the current canal lot owners/board members didn’t feel that they could afford (themselves) to consider any type of dredging.  I have heard RUMORS that one of the canal lot owner/board members would not consider dredging if payment to engineers was involved, because he felt he could design the engineering, and others would not consider dredging without engineering.  A committee of the board, has failed to bring information to 79 residents that could have help settle strife, and bring palatable options to the association.  We’ve been left in the dark by the individuals mentioned, and our entire board.  Why the entire board?  I attend almost all meetings, or listen to the tapes.  I didn’t recall EVER hearing these options, or a call to consideration to 79 canal lot owners.  This afternoon, I went through the minutes of every WPA meeting, from January 2012 – current.  Not once, was there a mention of any of this from Water Amenities.  Not once, did any board member ask why there was nothing to report from Water Amenities regarding the options suggested by DeMarchi.  The Water Amenities Committee, like the board appears to have followed the board’s method of keeping things close to the chest, unless it is part of each individual board, or committee member’s own vision.

Stay tuned for Part IV.

PART IV:

We start again with Garrison speaking.  “I will also point out that in terms of board, or individuals responsibility, I’ll tell you this, I believe it is my responsibility as a board member to be attuned to what the majority of the people that are paying for stuff here, are willing to, and want to do.  That’s how things work. It is not about my opinion, or yours.  Regardless of what my opinion is, if I try to look at the picture of what….community.  We all get elected, so that’s by a majority.  It is only a majority of 214 that vote, which isn’t even a majority of the residents, but I can’t do anything about that, but I believe very strongly, it is my responsibility to look at what the majority want.  As a canal lot owner, you always going to be party on this particular issue, because ……….as a group…..I get that, but regardless I’m not ……fact there needs to be something done out there.  I’m not opposed to that, don’t miss understand me, but as Al said, without the canal…..getting on board…..had opportunity to do so, as John (Walton) said, there hasn’t been a whole lot of interest.

COMMENTS:  I’m not going to spend much time here.  We’ve covered it.  Your Water Amenities Committee, and your board, have failed you, and now your board will blame you.  I told you – you missed your chance canal people. I haven’t seen it at the board table, couldn’t find it in the minutes of the 3 years they said this has been going on.  Please write me at the blog, the email address is at the very top of the page, and let me know if you have been invited to a meeting, received a letter, etc.  Consider writing the board and asking them why, when this topic is so toxic in this community, and they made claims from the board table that weren’t true, when they are going to take the board members, and the silent, have their own agenda, Water Amenities Committee to task, hold an information meeting, and tell the truth.  Ask Water Amenities Chair Walton,  how he could have answered the question about our interest, when he hadn’t even informed us????????

We return to the transcription with the resident speaking. “Put something in the Wragg.  Schedule a meeting.  Everyone who is interested in this topic who would like to have some input.  Don’t leave it just o the canal people, but propose a date.”

Garrison,  “I have offered on numerous occasions to meet with can lot owners as a group.  Is that not so?”  Someone on the board claims that it is so, and there was no interest.  Garrison, “It is not like we are opposed.”

COMMENTS:  Who did they make this offer to numerous times?  Mr. Garrison, and Mr. DeMarchi, it is time to name, names.  Was it our Water Amenities Chair, Walton?  Was it one of the canal lot owners on the board – McMillin, Johnson, Anderson?  If it was, the committee members you mentioned earlier, why would you give them that much power?  Where’s our President?  Why isn’t he, and the rest of these board members, allowing this cover up (nicest word) lay at the feet of our board table, and community?

THE END