Members, we had over a thousand visits to the blog over a little over 24 hours, between Wednesday, and Thursday. Obviously, the golf course interest is high. I can't imagine that the visits were all from residents - we don't know who is reading - maybe a few of the county people. We also have had letters to the blog from residents, and a couple of letters from a board member who is surprised by some of your opinions. I have not given an opinion on who should buy the golf course. I wanted you to say what you feel, and share it with others. The golf course is important to everyone who lives here because it threads right through every area of our community. It is an asset that left to ruin, is decreasing the value of all of our properties, and everyone of us should be heard. It appears, that only some of us will be heard on the board survey. As a resident, I have deep concerns as to how that survey is constructed, conducted, and managed.
Let's start at the beginning of my concern. During the April meeting, resident - Mr. "A" (I won't use his name. He is a former board member of Garrison's nastiest crew/associates, who has some what been in hiding for years at board meetings.), chair of an adhoc committee to the board for the survey. Your board voted unanimously to approve him. At least that step follows such appointments. I do question their selection. Normally, a committee member list is brought to the board for approval, and a vote. We didn't get that this time. By the discussion during the meeting, it appeared to me, that there is urgency in getting the survey done, and it could be conducted, at least started, before the next meeting. In that event, a group led by Mr. "A", unknown to us will go door to door.
We need to talk about Mr. A's history here, so you can understand my fear of bias in the whole project. Mr. A served on the WPA board during one of the roughest times in our history. He is long associated with Garrison's goals. He conducts himself at meetings much in the way Garrison has demonstrated, but add slamming things on the table, and walking away from the board table, if angered. Much like Garrison, he cares not what you think. It is what he thinks, and he knows all on the subject, and the outcome of discussion is his way, or no way. He resigned the morning after a annual meeting where he and his friends had no less than 5 by-law amendments on the ballot, and none passed. He and Garrison were key players at the board table who bullied, harassed, and threatened two female board members of crimes, threatening them with jail terms, and trying to have them removed from the board. It got so ridiculous that they actually went to a vote, and couldn't name the section of the governing documents they were going to use. The were proven to be public false claims, without any investigation beyond their own set up, with public statements against these two female business owners, who hired attorneys. I've seen the letter from the WPA attorney telling them to stop these accusations, and they just kept going with their agenda. To my recall, board members McMillin, Garrison, and Jacky Walton were all board members at the time. Should Mr. A, with a history like that, be committee chair. Documents, and tape transcriptions of the board meetings where this went on, on file on my computer. I think that some on that board know who the committee members are already who will conduct those surveys, why didn't they announce, and vote on them?
It appeared from what I heard at the meeting, that a talking points sheet had been developed to use on each contact during the survey process, along with a numbered sheet for residents to sign. No one read this important information to us. No one provided copy of it to us. Who developed it, and why don't we know what it says? Some of you have written with suggestions for the talking points used on the survey.
The board blatantly said that not everyone will be surveyed. Why? Will they only survey people that they feel are on the side of the county purchasing the golf course? Set up looks biased to me. Why when we are members in good standing are some of us less than others again? At some point in the discussion from the board table, it was stated that in the discussion with the county, 50-51 percent would give a fair indication. 50-51% of what? 50-51% of the total lot owners, of those surveyed, what?
It all looks poorly constructed, and managed to me. I unlike the board, do not claim to be expert, on all things. While I have had to conduct surveys in my non profit agency, I don't claim to know it all, but the entities who I had to give them to (part of reporting in my contracts) with the federal and state government, gave me high ratings. My board of directors, my bosses, had me report the results at our monthly meetings, and all parties noted above, required access to the actual surveys. Between 17,000 - 20,000 clients - all who attended seminars were asked to fill them out, after every session. During each seminar, in the introduction portion, the process, and use was explained, and a copy was already in their file.
To me, this doesn't look good. You need to write the blog, write the board, and use information provided by a reader to the blog, in their letter. Here is a quote from that letter with the information:
"I am recommending that the residents of Wedgefield write Brian Tucker. Director of Economic Development for Georgetown County, 716 Prince Street, Georgetown, SC 29440... a letter, (immediately) and voice your concerns or call him at (843) 545-3163."
HERE IS THE PRESENTATION:
Residents, follow up, so your opinions will be heard. Who
knows what will be taken to the county, or how they will know what your
concerns are. After all the county hasn't talked to us, and your board
didn't tell them that they must.
Please note: In case you doubt the facts on Mr. "A", adhoc committee chair. I've provided my presentation to the board, in a five minute speaker spot, and my presentation is part of the minutes. I have removed the names of the two female board members, labeling #1 & # 2, to protect them from their names ever appearing again, in regard to this "nasty business".HERE IS THE PRESENTATION:
Statement by Mrs. Madeline Claveloux:
“During, the August Board Meeting, YOU, Wilson, Thomas, Armistead, Barrier, Garrison, and Huggins, submitted and passed a motion to remove(# 1) and (#2), regarding repayment of the $7,500 check written to Attorney Fulton. At times you dispute amongst yourselves, which article it is. I quote, “we will send them a letter advising them that we will intend to invoke Article 7 section..... It’s not article 7 but anyway if there is no return of the $7,500 by the next regular monthly meeting then the Board has already decided we will invoke Article 7 at the regular meeting.”
This follows your public statements during the July Meeting, your recorded words, “We gave this to an attorney to look at and he said this is more than likely a misappropriation of funds. It is $7,500. In the state of South Carolina $5,000 is the cut off point for grand larceny. This could very possibly be a case of grand larceny and 7 1⁄2 to 15 years, if convicted of it. I need say no more.”
By the time we reach the August Meeting your attorney writes to (#1),
Quote, “ “after the meeting I had communicated my advice to the Board’s Legal Chair to cease any further allegations of criminal wrong doing on any Board Members ..........I reiterate that I have never either accused you of criminal activity, accused any Board Member of criminal activity, advised George Wilson or any other Board Member that I believe anyone was guilty of a crime.” SO WHAT LAWYER ADVISED YOU, IF ANY?
So again, in August, it appears you try to change the tune. It is recorded and quoted, “I would like to say that it is disturbing that we can use funds to promote the aspirations of people who are no longer on the Board. That is what Mr. Fulton is doing at this time..... Is he not, I mean I’ve seen the suit filed .”
Finally, one of you gets it right, QUOTE:, “Let’s just get this nasty business over with” Think about it. YOU’VE accused female Board Members of “possible grand larceny” and even spell out their prison terms. SOLICITORS DECIDE CRIMINAL CHARGES! I asked the Board, what solicitor told YOU they could, or would, charge them? YOU never answered! I reviewed the information on the solicitor’s website, which instructed the public to start with a report at the Sheriff’s office. I’ve verified, at the Sheriff’s Office, that, there were NO reports filed.
Both (#1) and (#2), are respected in the our community and town, contribute to quality of life in many arenas, and their families own businesses that could be impacted by your unsubstantiated words!
The statements during Board Meetings will live in the archives of our WPA records forever! These statements, heard by members in attendance, were forever carried out the doors, and to the larger community. None of this can truly be taken back!
How dare you sully their reputations without reason or justification.
The one who called it nasty business got it right, except it was YOUR nasty business. YOU’VE DONE NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS, CAN’T IDENTIFY THE BY-LAW TO REMOVE THEM, BECAUSE THERE REALLY ISN’T
“During, the August Board Meeting, YOU, Wilson, Thomas, Armistead, Barrier, Garrison, and Huggins, submitted and passed a motion to remove(# 1) and (#2), regarding repayment of the $7,500 check written to Attorney Fulton. At times you dispute amongst yourselves, which article it is. I quote, “we will send them a letter advising them that we will intend to invoke Article 7 section..... It’s not article 7 but anyway if there is no return of the $7,500 by the next regular monthly meeting then the Board has already decided we will invoke Article 7 at the regular meeting.”
This follows your public statements during the July Meeting, your recorded words, “We gave this to an attorney to look at and he said this is more than likely a misappropriation of funds. It is $7,500. In the state of South Carolina $5,000 is the cut off point for grand larceny. This could very possibly be a case of grand larceny and 7 1⁄2 to 15 years, if convicted of it. I need say no more.”
By the time we reach the August Meeting your attorney writes to (#1),
Quote, “ “after the meeting I had communicated my advice to the Board’s Legal Chair to cease any further allegations of criminal wrong doing on any Board Members ..........I reiterate that I have never either accused you of criminal activity, accused any Board Member of criminal activity, advised George Wilson or any other Board Member that I believe anyone was guilty of a crime.” SO WHAT LAWYER ADVISED YOU, IF ANY?
So again, in August, it appears you try to change the tune. It is recorded and quoted, “I would like to say that it is disturbing that we can use funds to promote the aspirations of people who are no longer on the Board. That is what Mr. Fulton is doing at this time..... Is he not, I mean I’ve seen the suit filed .”
Finally, one of you gets it right, QUOTE:, “Let’s just get this nasty business over with” Think about it. YOU’VE accused female Board Members of “possible grand larceny” and even spell out their prison terms. SOLICITORS DECIDE CRIMINAL CHARGES! I asked the Board, what solicitor told YOU they could, or would, charge them? YOU never answered! I reviewed the information on the solicitor’s website, which instructed the public to start with a report at the Sheriff’s office. I’ve verified, at the Sheriff’s Office, that, there were NO reports filed.
Both (#1) and (#2), are respected in the our community and town, contribute to quality of life in many arenas, and their families own businesses that could be impacted by your unsubstantiated words!
The statements during Board Meetings will live in the archives of our WPA records forever! These statements, heard by members in attendance, were forever carried out the doors, and to the larger community. None of this can truly be taken back!
How dare you sully their reputations without reason or justification.
The one who called it nasty business got it right, except it was YOUR nasty business. YOU’VE DONE NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS, CAN’T IDENTIFY THE BY-LAW TO REMOVE THEM, BECAUSE THERE REALLY ISN’T
Page 2 of 9
AN APPROPRIATE ONE. Before YOU OPENED YOUR mouths and tinged two fine people’s reputations, and possible incomes, WHAT DID YOU DO - OTHER THAN RUN A FIRST CLASS VENDETTA?
As to whether Attorney Fulton was being paid for the Appeal from the $7,500, please see the attached Letter of Engagement and endorsed, cashed check. You’ll note that these items clearly substantiate, that Jude Davis and Karl Gettmann have secured Fulton’s services for the appeal, legally, ethically, and timely. The appeal was filed on July 22nd, the Engagement Letter signed by Davis and Gettman on June 30th, and a check written by Davis on July 1, which has been cashed by Fulton.
The code you all neglected was:
Board Code of Ethics
“As Directors, having control and responsibility for the property of others, we shall act
with scrupulous good faith and candor. We will avoid even the perception of conflicts of interest, favoritism, and acting out of self- interest.”
You have failed miserably.
AN APPROPRIATE ONE. Before YOU OPENED YOUR mouths and tinged two fine people’s reputations, and possible incomes, WHAT DID YOU DO - OTHER THAN RUN A FIRST CLASS VENDETTA?
As to whether Attorney Fulton was being paid for the Appeal from the $7,500, please see the attached Letter of Engagement and endorsed, cashed check. You’ll note that these items clearly substantiate, that Jude Davis and Karl Gettmann have secured Fulton’s services for the appeal, legally, ethically, and timely. The appeal was filed on July 22nd, the Engagement Letter signed by Davis and Gettman on June 30th, and a check written by Davis on July 1, which has been cashed by Fulton.
The code you all neglected was:
Board Code of Ethics
“As Directors, having control and responsibility for the property of others, we shall act
with scrupulous good faith and candor. We will avoid even the perception of conflicts of interest, favoritism, and acting out of self- interest.”
You have failed miserably.
