We come now to the main character of the headline - legal/compliance chair/vice president, Garrison. The issue at hand relates to the canal dredging, and we have to acknowledge two of his promises - one a threat, - the other a promise- same subject. As a board member, he dared to use the threat/promise to intimidate, and even then he was untruthful as far as what he was actually doing as a board member.
Here is the threat/promise situation. Several months ago, at the end of a board meeting, a canal lot owner asked the board what was being done about a maintenance dredge. Garrison responded that there was no interest indicated by the canal lot owners. He failed, now apparent by the handouts from the canal committee, to acknowledge the fact that at least six board members - go back to the handouts, were real busy - himself included, preparing a dredge proposal - Garrison style. We'll leave that alone for now. Here is the promise threat: Garrison goes on to say that last year there was a by-law change submitted that basically said that no WPA monies could be used for canal dredging. He then stated he could almost promise with some adjustment in the language that it would be on the ballot this year. My observation, and following of Garrison's behavior as a board member, is that that was a promise he intended to keep. Garrison has been dancing to the tune of his own agenda - no WPA monies spent on canals, at the expense our governing documents, manipulation and changing our governing documents, and his constituency's use of a long line of our attorneys, paid for financially by the members.
From what I've been told, that threat/promise was brought up in the back and forth discussions during the recent illegal canal lot meeting. Here is the second promise that he can't keep. I've been told that he stated that that by-law amendment wouldn't be proposed because he had talked the person out of submitting it. Do you believe him? I don't, but we'll get into that later.
Is the threat promise important at all - no WPA monies spent on canals? Absolutely, the implications are far reaching. Instead of reading what I have to say, I'll quote the words of another resident who wrote board member, Anderson regarding the canal lot owners meeting, and asked that his comments be read aloud, or be provided to attendees at the meeting. I'm told that his words weren't read at the meeting, and no one had his letter included in their handouts. (The writer may want to copy the board as they were very involved in the preparation, and ask that the entire board be copied, and a copy placed in the WPA correspondence file for the record.) Here is what the resident said in his letter:
"I have heard rumors about a plan to introduce some by-law language that would release the HOA from ever dealing with canals again. I strongly advise against pursuing this, as it would be extremely detrimental to our community as a whole, and will certainly initiate lawsuits. It would immediately have the unintended effect of also eliminating the HOA's ability to spend monies associated with the golf course (a precedent would be set and the comparison with the canals would be simple and obvious.) I cannot stress enough that following that path will be more costly and divisive than anything Wedgefield has every dealt with. Our money would be better spent directly on our community rather than on very expensive legal battles."
So back to Garrison, and his "I've talked to the person, and it won't be submitted." One of the main concerns here is that if you have followed Garrison's snaking handling of the truth, you don't know whether he indeed talked to another person, or whether he just talked to himself. We don't know who submitted the same faulty language proposal last year. By-law change author information has never been disclosed from the board table, or on the ballot, if it is accepted for a vote. Additionally, Garrison has a large resident bank of co-conspirators, so he knows that if he supposedly talked one of them out of it, he can always call on another. As a board member, let alone all his power titles on the board, Garrison has wielded a lot of power from the board table - most questionable, but even Garrison DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO STOP THE SUBMISSION OF THIS BY-LAW CHANGE. Why? Here is what the by-laws say, about changing the by-laws:
ARTICLE XIIf
AMENDMENTS TO BY-LA WS
Section 1: Proposed alterations, amendments, or proposals to repeal the By-Laws can be made only by WPA members in good standing, and must be submitted to and approved by the Legal Committee prior to being voted on by the WPA Membership. These By-Laws may be altered, amended, or repealed and new By-Laws may be adopted by two-thirds of the votes in good standing present at the Annual Members' meeting either in person or by proxy provided that notice thereof is mailed to the eligible voters not less than twenty days prior to the date of the meeting.
So residents, if you've paid your dues, you get to submit. He can't deny you. Do I think it will be submitted this year? Maybe not, Garrison has his grand plan going quite his way if you reviewed the canal dredging meeting handouts, and you know how long, and hard he has been working toward his true goal, as it relates to Wedgefield and the canals.
Canal lot owners, if you believe that stuff that they handed you at the meeting, and the fact that if only you can get canal lot owners to participate, counting on using the WPA canal reserve, you will begin dredging in the fall of 2017, don't hold your breath. Even if we all did everything these six board members appeared to promise in those documents, Garrison, and his ilk, can submit the amendment next fall, and knock you out of the reserves. Not possible - who'd think all the infractions to the governing documents - in getting you to that meeting, and the promises and commitment of money, WPA name, statement of policy - not -could happen?
Section 1: Proposed alterations, amendments, or proposals to repeal the By-Laws can be made only by WPA members in good standing, and must be submitted to and approved by the Legal Committee prior to being voted on by the WPA Membership. These By-Laws may be altered, amended, or repealed and new By-Laws may be adopted by two-thirds of the votes in good standing present at the Annual Members' meeting either in person or by proxy provided that notice thereof is mailed to the eligible voters not less than twenty days prior to the date of the meeting.
So residents, if you've paid your dues, you get to submit. He can't deny you. Do I think it will be submitted this year? Maybe not, Garrison has his grand plan going quite his way if you reviewed the canal dredging meeting handouts, and you know how long, and hard he has been working toward his true goal, as it relates to Wedgefield and the canals.
Canal lot owners, if you believe that stuff that they handed you at the meeting, and the fact that if only you can get canal lot owners to participate, counting on using the WPA canal reserve, you will begin dredging in the fall of 2017, don't hold your breath. Even if we all did everything these six board members appeared to promise in those documents, Garrison, and his ilk, can submit the amendment next fall, and knock you out of the reserves. Not possible - who'd think all the infractions to the governing documents - in getting you to that meeting, and the promises and commitment of money, WPA name, statement of policy - not -could happen?
