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
