Readers, I'm reposting a November 2011 article. As I checked the back pages of the blog, a few people were researching this far back. Right in the middle of this article that discusses the 2011 annual meeting, the by-law that was passed by the residents that year is noted. Here it is: Policy Manual Changes: "A motion to change the Policy Manual must be presented at an open Board Meeting posted on the WPA website for resident comments, and not voted on until the following meeting." Your board has passed many, many, policy manual changes, many of which give them more immediate spending power, without posting the changes between first and second reading, on the WPA website. I asked them at the annual meeting if they were going to rescind all of those actions, until they did the right thing. The board said they were going to look into it. What is to look into? They haven't posted them, and they failed to follow a by-law for years. They didn't even legally register the by-law for a year and a half. The officer of the board who said she/he would be contacting me, said "they didn't know". How could you not know? This person has been on the board for about 9 years!
See you at the meeting tonight!
HERE IS THE ARTICLE FROM 2011:
"The 2011 Annual Meeting - A Look Back In Hope of Moving Forward", published on November 26, 2011
THE ANNUAL MEETING
The Wedgefield Plantation Association Annual Meeting was held on November 19th, at 10:00 AM, at Georgetown High School Auditorium. The Board Members in attendance were Wilson, Walton, McBride, Garrison, and Huggins. Security was hired for the meeting. Huggins certified the mailing, and it was announced that there was a quorum. Nominations from the floor were called for three times. There were no nonimations from the floor.
When it was announced that the ballots would be collected, a dispute developed. A few residents began to call out as they stood in the aisle, stating they weren't going to be allowed to vote. One stated he had driven from North Myrtle Beach and was only a few minutes late. Another resident, wanted to turn in a friend's proxy because the friend had intended to be there, but now had a sick mother and husband. Others complained that their friends had been turned away because they were late, and had left the building. It was stated that there was no time limit printed in the mailing. When all was said and done, those there were provided ballots, those who had left were called and allowed to vote, and the person who had brought a friend's proxy was not allowed to vote. Three important notes: (1) Garrison served as Election Inspector, during a tough meeting and appeared to weigh each concern as they arose during the day, ethically and in the best interests of the community. (2) Residents, elections have been lost and won by one or two votes. Consider using your proxy to get your vote counted. You can still opt to attend the meeting. Too many times, life gets in the way of our opportunity to attend the meeting and vote. (3) Board Members, consider making a file titled "2012 Annual Meeting Preparation" and add a note regarding this issue. This is not a criticism of the Board. Do you realize that the Board Secretary just about has to start from scratch each year, in developing this package?
The counting began by the Election Committee and one of the next orders of business was approval of the 2009 and 2010 Annual Meeting Minutes. That's right, they had to approve two years of minutes. During the 2010 Annual Meeting, when they prepared to approve the 2009 Annual Meeting minutes there were substantial errors. Some wanted the minutes from both meetings read. Those who didn't, scoffed, but they were read. Again, the 2009 minutes had errors. McBride read both sets, despite guff from some in the audience.
A Concerned Citizen wanted an opinion from one of their attorneys regarding the canals added to the minutes. It didn't happen, but this is how far down hill - a slippery slope, we've come to in the recent history of our governance.
Some residents complained aloud that the meeting was more like a monthly meeting, rather than an Annual Meeting. It was disorganized and at times Huggins apologized, as Board Secretary.
At one point in the meeting a Concerned Citizen asked if the declaratory judgement from the October 3rd, 2011 court hearing could be read into the record. It was explained to her that while there was a court ruling, that it was not a declaratory judgement. McBride said that he had a copy and would read it into the record.
"ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS (COUNTERCLAIMS STILL ACTIVE)"
Before we begin a few important "time" details: In the Court of Common Pleas, C/A No.09-CP-22-1675, was signed by Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, on November 16, 2011. It was filed in the court record on November 22, 2011.
Note: If you would like to receive a complete PDF copy, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at the following address and I'll be happy to send it to you. Here is the address: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com.
What does this have to do with the Annual Meeting and the election of Board Members? Plenty! First, the Concerned Citizen candidates ran on a platform that stated they won on October 3rd. They made promises of residents getting their canal assessments back, there were errors in the canal bank loan, etc., right up until the day of the Annual Meeting. They asked for your vote, your support, under false premise. This lawsuit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas, supported by their Concerned Citizen members, has been fought out at our Board table over the last two years. During that time they recalled two Board Members, under SC Non Profit Law, removed a Board President who had received more votes than anyone in the history of the WPA, refused a recall petition brought under the same laws, and held back fact, from members of their own support network.
Here are a few important quotes from the document:
"The parties have stipulated that the State owns the beds to the canals as they are navigable tidal waterways and no statute grants the State's ownership rights to another party. See, State v. Pacific Guano Co., 22S.C .50, 84, 1884 WL 4624, 22 (1884). Because none of the other issues in this involve the State, the parties stipulate that the State may be dismissed as a party to this case. The State, Plaintiff's and other named Defendants acknowledge that this Order in no way addresses any rights, duties or obligations of the Board of Directors for Wedgefield Plantation Association regarding the maintenance, dredging or any other activity pertaining to the canals and, therefore, this Order, in no way, addresses or rules upon those rights, duties, or obligations."
"The Defendants specifically deny any wrongdoing associated with the votes for the dredging of the canals, the financing of the dredging of the canals and the collection of assessments from the members of the Wedgefield Plantation Association and for any other acts allegedly performed by these defendants and more fully described in the complaint and, therefore, this Order, in no way, finds or establishes any such wrongdoing by the Defendants."
Review the article at this site titled, "Where's The Beef". The campaign letter described in the article arrived at my home around November 6th, long after the Oct. 3rd hearing. Review the statements they made in an effort to secure your vote and give them the power to continue on their destructive path, on your assessment dollars. You might say, "well they lost the election". I've heard that the votes were close, which means many of our residents didn't take the time to ask to review records and force these individuals to prove what they were saying. It takes time to write and ask for a response or to review a document, and go to the office to review, but this is where we live, and if we want to move forward we have to get the facts.
Review the article at this site titled, "Where's The Beef". The campaign letter described in the article arrived at my home around November 6th, long after the Oct. 3rd hearing. Review the statements they made in an effort to secure your vote and give them the power to continue on their destructive path, on your assessment dollars. You might say, "well they lost the election". I've heard that the votes were close, which means many of our residents didn't take the time to ask to review records and force these individuals to prove what they were saying. It takes time to write and ask for a response or to review a document, and go to the office to review, but this is where we live, and if we want to move forward we have to get the facts.
THE RESULTS
In the end, our residents spoke. Zieske, Thomas, and Wilson, the very individuals who brought the lawsuit, launched a 2011 campaign to bring it to the Board table at your expense, lost. The winners were: three year terms for McBride, Cline, and McMillin, and one year terms for DeMarchi and Walters.
One By-Law Amendment passed: Policy Manual Changes: "A motion to change the Policy Manual must be presented at an open Board Meeting posted on the WPA website for resident comments, and not voted on until the following meeting."
Our 2011 candidates all had a lot to say. Hold on to their platforms and writings and watch and see if they walk the talk. For those who say, "we won", you won't know that for sure until you follow their actions and votes at the Board table.
A SPECIAL NOTE: Huggins apologized for the lack of organization. Our office secretary was sick a few days prior to the meeting. She couldn't help illness, but those last few days are time intensive. It takes a lot of advance preparation for the sign in, counting, etc. Two people stepped forward to help the effort: Peggy Phillips and Jude Davis. They each deserve a big thank you for all that they did, to help move forward.
DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? YOU CAN WRITE THE EDITOR AT: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. I'll be happy to publish your comments.
