"TALL TALES"
************************************************
Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com. We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it . P.S. If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
***************************************************
Readers, again not a lot of time, but I was thinking about that darned spoil site drama, the promises - contained in hand outs from the 2016 closed canal lot meeting (illegal), and the January 2017 WPA Water Amenities Report. Here we go. Follow the yellow brick road of the actions of this board and committee.
"1. Meet with Army Corps of Engineers and determine what will be expected of us.
We did this on May 10th 2016 and our permit is still valid. We can even modify it to allow our spoil site to hold additional material if needed with a minor verification done by a civil engineer. We have decided to go ahead and do this as to maximize the amount we can dredge so that we can get the most out of this next round of dredging." and put it in perspective with the following discussions from the January 2017 meeting, and you decide if those bids for the spoil site that have over a $200,000 range, are for spoil site MAINTENANCE, or TO ADD TO THE DYKES/WALLS FOR THE DREDGING MATERIAL TO BE INCREASED? THAT WOULD BE A DREDGING EXPENSE, AND NOT MAINTENANCE! Here are my notes from the January 2017 Water Amenities Report:"Garrison suggested that the committee meet, and then come back and the board would look at how it got funded. He went on to say that he felt the board had acknowledged - responsibility for keeping it cut down since the WPA owns it, but this is different since dredging...According to my notes, it appears he was interrupted from finishing his statement. Anderson asked what Garrison's concern was. Garrison responded that it needed another look, and they need to meet and determine how to hash it out. He acknowledged that he remembered hearing a while back that it was around $25,000. John Walton stated that the committee would call for a special meeting prior to the next regular board meeting. Garrison stated that appropriate notice would have to be given for an open board meeting. Another board member on the water amenities committee (believe it was Anderson or McMillin - unsure) said the committee wanted to remind the board that the WPA was responsible for the spoil site."
More tricks for you, me, brought to you by your board and water amenities committee. Could appear that they have so messed this project up with their deals - against the governing documents, that they are either turning on each other, or just staging more games at our expense. Take time to take a look at how all this started.
HERE IS THE AUGUST 2016 ARTICLE:
AUGUST 13 - PART TWO OF THE CANAL LOT OWNERS MEETING HAS BEEN ADDED. SCROLL DOWN IN THE ARTICLE TO READ THE NEW INFORMATION
If you have a comment regarding the following article, whether you agree, or not, or if you'd like to share a letter to the board, The Wedgefield Examiner will remove any identifying information, and share it on the blog. Email:
wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com
I'll report what occurred during the meeting to the best of my ability, according to what I have been told in telephone calls, after. I don't know where you will go to verify the information, because no one has notified me that they had the strength of conviction to tape the meeting. As to whether the board, or committee recorded it, no one has confirmed that the standard practice has been followed - doubtful. If the board did, who would know, as they haven't been posting the tapes of meetings anyway. Surprise! Surprise! Maybe, you'd like to write the board and ask if they have a tape of the meeting, and whether they would provide it immediately, to all of us.
For what I have been told, between 21 - 23 people attended the meeting. Realize, that that does not indicate 21 - 23 canal lots, as some were couples. If reports are correct, 6 - 7 members of the board were present. Some played dual roles as they are both board members, and water amenities committee members. In my not so humble opinion it doubles their duplicity in harming our troubled decaying community, legally, ethically, and against any foundation of strong business practices. A few things should be noted, before we begin.
First, to get around the fact that the board, and committee had failed to properly call the meeting, and open it all members, it was said that the people doing the prep work were not a committee of the board, but VOLUNTEERS. I can't spend a lot of time here, but this was probably the brilliant idea of legal/compliance chair, Garrison, who has been busy with smoke and mirrors for years, at the expense of, and around our governing documents.
Second, I'm told that when frustrated residents asked why the dredging expense would have to be voluntary on the part of the canal lot owners, he mentioned JUDGE, and rulings. I've spent enough time on this, there aren't any rulings, by a JUDGE. So listen up once more. There have been two dredgings. The first more than 25 years ago. Lawsuits followed, and were SETTLED, not adjudicated with a RULING. The 2009-10 dredging and lawsuits were SETTLED, and the SETTLEMENTS published on both The Wedgefield Times, The Wedgefield Examiner, and read aloud at a WPA annual meeting. When a resident stated that there were two REFEREE DOCUMENTS, one forged, legal/compliance/vice president, Garrison said he didn't want to talk about THAT. My sources could not identify who said it, but when someone mentioned the blog (The Wedgefield Examiner) something like it doesn't always get it right, was thrown out there. Am I offended? No, The Wedgefield Examiner tells you when it is informed opinion, provides transcription of their words, and goes to the WPA office, and gets documents, and presents them to you. LOL
Today, I have been provided the handouts from the meeting, and one of the volunteer's written speeches. I have had to retype the main handout because the print is small, and scanning won't do the job - not readable from the blog. I will retype it as written, and INSERT comments in RED, and even note them as comment, so there is no question that is what it is.
We'll start with the top sheet of the HANDOUT.
rights of all members to be present, fails to
vote in behalf of the best interests of
governing documents, fails to represent the
rights of all members to be present, fails to
vote in behalf of the best interests of
Wedgefield.
KEITH JOHNSON - Comment:
board member, ignores our
governing documents, fails to represent the
rights of all members to be present, fails to
vote in behalf of the best interests of
Wedgefield.
JAMIE CRISTELLO - Comment: long standing, not board
member, (voted to committee by the
board)member of the water amenities
committee
CHRIS CARROLL - Comment: long standing, not board
member, (voted to committee by the
board)member of the water amenities
committee
General Comments on This Page: The reason The Wedgefield Examiner took the time to add the comments differentiating between board member status, and volunteer committee member on this sheet, is that these board members have repeatedly failed to research our governing documents, bids, proposals, motions and related justification for motions or enter into any real kind of discussion that would indicate "individual thought and representation of all members of our community, before voting, and following our smoke, and mirrors legal/compliance/ vice president Garrison. I don't have the patience, or the time to go into what this makes president Walton, the man who ignores all, appoints all chairs, etc. Please note: incase you think that The Wedgefield Examiner doesn't know when to capitalize, I learned a lesson a long time ago from a man who resides in this community not to capitalize when the person associated with a title failed to do the job - wasn't fulfilling it.
PS: if you looked at the number of people putting on this show who hold the title of BOARD MEMBER, and the fact that the committee members are voted on by the board, and the group itself, presented themselves as THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE, how can you begin to believe the claim that this was not a FORMAL committee of the board, who requested the boards presence at this meeting, and the board announced it from the BOARD table at the July WPA BOARD MEETING? Where is their any LEGAL, ETICAL, REPRESENTATION OF ALMOST 500 OTHER MEMBERS?
NEXT HANDOUT DOCUMENT typed as written in BLACK, with COMMENTS noted as such and typed in RED.
wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com
I'll report what occurred during the meeting to the best of my ability, according to what I have been told in telephone calls, after. I don't know where you will go to verify the information, because no one has notified me that they had the strength of conviction to tape the meeting. As to whether the board, or committee recorded it, no one has confirmed that the standard practice has been followed - doubtful. If the board did, who would know, as they haven't been posting the tapes of meetings anyway. Surprise! Surprise! Maybe, you'd like to write the board and ask if they have a tape of the meeting, and whether they would provide it immediately, to all of us.
For what I have been told, between 21 - 23 people attended the meeting. Realize, that that does not indicate 21 - 23 canal lots, as some were couples. If reports are correct, 6 - 7 members of the board were present. Some played dual roles as they are both board members, and water amenities committee members. In my not so humble opinion it doubles their duplicity in harming our troubled decaying community, legally, ethically, and against any foundation of strong business practices. A few things should be noted, before we begin.
First, to get around the fact that the board, and committee had failed to properly call the meeting, and open it all members, it was said that the people doing the prep work were not a committee of the board, but VOLUNTEERS. I can't spend a lot of time here, but this was probably the brilliant idea of legal/compliance chair, Garrison, who has been busy with smoke and mirrors for years, at the expense of, and around our governing documents.
Second, I'm told that when frustrated residents asked why the dredging expense would have to be voluntary on the part of the canal lot owners, he mentioned JUDGE, and rulings. I've spent enough time on this, there aren't any rulings, by a JUDGE. So listen up once more. There have been two dredgings. The first more than 25 years ago. Lawsuits followed, and were SETTLED, not adjudicated with a RULING. The 2009-10 dredging and lawsuits were SETTLED, and the SETTLEMENTS published on both The Wedgefield Times, The Wedgefield Examiner, and read aloud at a WPA annual meeting. When a resident stated that there were two REFEREE DOCUMENTS, one forged, legal/compliance/vice president, Garrison said he didn't want to talk about THAT. My sources could not identify who said it, but when someone mentioned the blog (The Wedgefield Examiner) something like it doesn't always get it right, was thrown out there. Am I offended? No, The Wedgefield Examiner tells you when it is informed opinion, provides transcription of their words, and goes to the WPA office, and gets documents, and presents them to you. LOL
Today, I have been provided the handouts from the meeting, and one of the volunteer's written speeches. I have had to retype the main handout because the print is small, and scanning won't do the job - not readable from the blog. I will retype it as written, and INSERT comments in RED, and even note them as comment, so there is no question that is what it is.
We'll start with the top sheet of the HANDOUT.
WATER
AMENITIES
COMMITTEE
JOHN WALTON - Comment: board member, and chair of the
water amenities committee, ignores our
governing documents, fails to represent the
rights of all members to be present, fails to
vote in behalf of the best interests of
Wedgefield.
ADAM ANDERSON - Comment: board member, ignores our
governing documents, fails to represent therights of all members to be present, fails to
vote in behalf of the best interests of
Wedgefield.
ED WOZNIAK Comment: long standing, not board
member, (voted to committee by the
board)member of the water amenities
committee
LARRY MCMILLIN - Comment:
board member, ignores ourgoverning documents, fails to represent the
rights of all members to be present, fails to
vote in behalf of the best interests of
Wedgefield.
KEITH JOHNSON - Comment:
board member, ignores our
governing documents, fails to represent the
rights of all members to be present, fails to
vote in behalf of the best interests of
Wedgefield.
JAMIE CRISTELLO - Comment: long standing, not board
member, (voted to committee by the
board)member of the water amenities
committee
CHRIS CARROLL - Comment: long standing, not board
member, (voted to committee by the
board)member of the water amenities
committee
General Comments on This Page: The reason The Wedgefield Examiner took the time to add the comments differentiating between board member status, and volunteer committee member on this sheet, is that these board members have repeatedly failed to research our governing documents, bids, proposals, motions and related justification for motions or enter into any real kind of discussion that would indicate "individual thought and representation of all members of our community, before voting, and following our smoke, and mirrors legal/compliance/ vice president Garrison. I don't have the patience, or the time to go into what this makes president Walton, the man who ignores all, appoints all chairs, etc. Please note: incase you think that The Wedgefield Examiner doesn't know when to capitalize, I learned a lesson a long time ago from a man who resides in this community not to capitalize when the person associated with a title failed to do the job - wasn't fulfilling it.
PS: if you looked at the number of people putting on this show who hold the title of BOARD MEMBER, and the fact that the committee members are voted on by the board, and the group itself, presented themselves as THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE, how can you begin to believe the claim that this was not a FORMAL committee of the board, who requested the boards presence at this meeting, and the board announced it from the BOARD table at the July WPA BOARD MEETING? Where is their any LEGAL, ETICAL, REPRESENTATION OF ALMOST 500 OTHER MEMBERS?
NEXT HANDOUT DOCUMENT typed as written in BLACK, with COMMENTS noted as such and typed in RED.
DREDGING TIMELINE PLAN
The canal system in Wedgefield is in need of a maintenance dredge. As most of you know, this has historically been a divisive issue. Our bylaws and covenants are very restrictive when it comes assessing in an unequal manner. We have been handicapped by this and it has been the biggest obstacle to dredging. Comment: historically, this is true, and it has been divisive by various members in the community who brought lawsuits that were never SETTLED. The last dredging was completed with unequal assessments both regular, and individual, and the canal lot owners paid the heftier sum of $5,000, plus permit costs (over a total of $160,000) plus the regular assessment of $175/yr for 5 years (planned, voted & approved by the board, under review, and counsel of the board attorney). You should have the lawsuit background down pat by now. It should be noted that legal/compliance/vice president Garrison was speaker to large audiences, contributor to the group that supported the three individuals who sued the board who voted the last dredging according to our governing documents. Mr. Garrison has been on the board driving this train against individual assessment, while we pay the legal fees for his antics, for years, and the board members noted above on the committee, and all those currently at the board table, have voted without question toward his mission, rather than in behave of Wedgefield's best interests.
This is a time line of what needs to occur in order to dredge our canals.
1. Meet with Army Corps of Engineers and determine what will be expected of us.
We did this on May 10th 2016 and our permit is still valid. We can even modify it to allow our spoil site to hold additional material if needed with a minor verification done by a civil engineer. We have decided to go ahead and do this as to maximize the amount we can dredge so that we can get the most out of this next round of dredging. Brief comment: a formal committee of the board, greatly composed of board members, backed by volunteers on the committee approved by the entire board, took this step without ever bringing it to the board table and reporting it to all of us, let alone it ever having opportunity to be taped, or entered into the minutes.
2. Meet with the WPA leadership and garner their support and find out what they expect in order to gain that support.
We did this on May 12th 2016. We met with the president and vice president of the WPA to gather their ideas and support for the project. They were receptive to our ideas. Comments: where in our governing documents is this allowed? But look at the two characters they met with, and remember that because 4 of the members of the water amenities committee are board members, we have 6 of the current board members failing every last one of us let alone our governing documents. The general consensus of this meeting was if the waterfront properties can privately raise the money needed, the WPA will contribute the monies set aside for this purpose in the reserves. Comments: When did these 6 board members get all this power, and get to conduct this high level of business without all present, forget that we never got to see discussion - NOTHING, because these board members are failing to follow our governing documents any place!
Readers, I'm stopping here, not for drama, but I have a life, and will continue to add to the bottom of this article, until we are finished. Stay tuned.
THE FOLLOWING WAS ADDED ON AUG. 13. WE RESUME WITH THE SAME DOCUMENT. DOCUMENT TYPED IN BLACK, COMMENTS IN RED.
The WPA will allow the use of the WPA name, permit and will generally support the project so long as these contingencies are met. The WPA is willing to allocate up to 1/3 of the total cost not to exceed the reserve funding already in place. For the past 5 years the WPA has allocated roughly 15% of its yearly budget for canal dredging. This money is already in place and our plan will NOT cause any rise in assessments or cost ANYONE not living on the canal ANY additional money. We cannot emphasize enough that we have no intention of tearing this community apart again. This plan put the burden on the canal lot owners.
Comment: How can this board have made all of these decisions behind our backs, and against our governing documents (the meeting to make these decisions) without noticing the members (in May), and failing to report it to us at the May, June, or July regular monthly meeting? Since they didn't bother - where is a motion, discussion, and a vote? This is just plain corrupt governance. I don't trust what the board has promised based on how they have proceeded behind our backs, additionally historically we have been down this path of promises. During the period of time - years, that the canal lot owners were paying all the expenses involved in securing the dredging permit for the 2009-10 dredging, and reporting progress through the canal committee, at monthly meetings, and in the Wragg, as we got close to securing the permit, the board threw the canal committee off the structure of the board, removing ability to use WPA name for permit, etc. The canal lot owners had to pay legal fees to stop that board action. A JUDGE, stopped the action of the board, the committee was reinstated as a committee of the board, and the canal lot owners were allowed to proceed to permit. It cost the canal lot owners thousands when a board broke similar promises to those stated above. While Garrison was not on the board at that time, he rose out of the group as a leader in the Concerned Citizens, which grew out of some of the very board members who caused that delay, and expense last time around.
We have learned during the bidding process that for accurate bids we need a hydrographic survey of the canals and a topographic survey of the spoil site. This is needed to accurately determine how much spoils need to be removed, and to determine how much was removed after the work is complete. The bids we have now are preliminary and based on a cost per cubic yard. We have approached 4 engineering firms, 7 land surveyors, and 11 dredging contractors. We have narrowed this list down to 1-2 in each category that we like and feel would be a good fit.
The plan would be raise phase 1 money now and do the engineering and surveying work this fall. Then begin raising phase 2 money and have it collected by spring of 2017 so that dredging can begin in fall 2017.
Comments: Briefly, at a glance the process appears sound, however since it was all done under, the table, violating procurement, and governance documents, why, or how, can we ever verify any accuracy, and truth? No, reporting from the board table. No consideration of the general membership to hear, and evaluate for themselves. This whole mess causes division of our community, and is a walking time bomb for future lawsuits. Having served on a board that voted to fund, and dredge, and was sued by 3 members who Garrison openly supported, I'm not surprised at his illegal actions, but I am surprised that anyone, canal owners, or fellow board members believe him. I sat, and participated in depositions for the lawsuits, and current board member McMillin did also. Even with every step out in the open to the last dredging, we had questions from the other side - then Garrison's opposing, suing team. Garrison knows better than this, and it appears he doesn't care, and is setting this up for failure. We know where McMillin, John Walton, Adam Anderson, Keith Johnson, - all board members, president Jacky Walton, and legal/compliance chair/vice president, Garrison stand because they have been present, and accounted for, in harming our community.
While the exact cost of dredging is not yet unknown, the engineering and surveying cost are approximately $20,000. The rough dredging bids we have range from $210,000 to just over $600,000. We want to raise this money in two phases with the engineering phase first. Our goal is to ask for voluntary contributions of $400 per lot. Once the engineering work is complete, we will know an exact figure for phase 2. The money we raise will be held in an account at Anderson Brothers Bank. The checks will be 2 signee checks and a complete accounting of all incoming and out going funds will be kept with complete transparency. All of these tractions will be reported in depth at the monthly WPA meetings and all bookkeeping will be available to be viewed at any time by any contributor. If for any reason the project is abandoned, the money will returned to the contributor. However, the survey money once contracted, will not be.
The WPA currently has approximately $115,000 earmarked for dredging and by next year that number will be in the $135,000 range. Once we have our funding in place the WPA will contribute their funding earmarked for dredging and then enter into a contract to dredge the canals. All of the permits, contracts, etc. will be in the WPA name. The WPA will be the responsible party. The WPA has been very cooperative and supportive of this plan. We have spent years looking at every conceivable idea imaginable and this is the ONLY way to make this work without forcing the issue on the community and ripping apart old wounds. We know there will be naysayers and those who won't support us but we have spent years researching this and there are certain realities that can not be ignored. Our covenants are not written in a way that allows for differential assessments, and it is unfair to assess equally for dredging for lots off of the canal. In order to set up a separate regime for the canal lots you need 100% participation. There is simply no easy solution. This is the ONLY viable option. We have the WPA Board of Director's support. We have the permits. We want to do this responsibility and peacefully and we need your support. The time is now!
Thank you for your consideration.
Make checks payable to:
Wedgefield Waterfront Property Owners
1284 Georgetown Hwy
Georgetown SC 29440
Comments: First, and foremost this last section has so many twisted facets, that I could barely read it, without genuine sadness as to how misrepresented every member of this association, has been treated by this board. I'm sadden further about the apathy in this community that has lead to the re-election of these board members time, and time again. I quote, "We have the WPA Board of Director's support", we now know they gained it in closed meetings, with no reporting, and most of those who developed the plan are board members. I quote, "Our covenants are not written in a way that allows for differential assessments, and it is unfair to assess equal for dredging for lots of of the canal." The last dredging had what equated to differential assessments, through the use of regular, and individual assessments, under our by-laws. There are no rulings by any JUDGE, and no fault was found in using them in the language of the lawsuit settlements. They are going to deposit the money in Anderson Bank. Make your checks payable Wedgefield Waterfront Property Owners. Who is going to account? Who is going to let you see the books? It is all a sham, brought to you by your board.
Message to the board: When will you quit dividing our community with your illegal antics? Basically, the canal lot owners have spoken loud, and clear to you twice. First when surveyed them a few years ago about that separate regime concept, and only 14 responded out of 79, negatively. I was one of the people who bothered to respond, and if I recall my response was that after my experiences with this WPA board, as a home owner I would NEVER put another board, between me and my property, and expect any ethical representation. The second response came when you scheduled this illegal meeting, and less than 20% of the canal lot owners bothered to attend.
You might ask whether I would like the canals dredged? Absolutely! I will pay whatever my board assesses me, legally, openly, and through proper recognition of our governing documents. I won't participate in any project that fixes my back yard when so much is ignored in every corner, and back yard in Wedgefield. It is about time we looked out for all of Wedgefield, and the only way to do that is through the promise of Wedgefield - our governing documents, and this board, and committee isn't doing that.
THE FOLLOWING WAS ADDED ON AUG. 13. WE RESUME WITH THE SAME DOCUMENT. DOCUMENT TYPED IN BLACK, COMMENTS IN RED.
The WPA will allow the use of the WPA name, permit and will generally support the project so long as these contingencies are met. The WPA is willing to allocate up to 1/3 of the total cost not to exceed the reserve funding already in place. For the past 5 years the WPA has allocated roughly 15% of its yearly budget for canal dredging. This money is already in place and our plan will NOT cause any rise in assessments or cost ANYONE not living on the canal ANY additional money. We cannot emphasize enough that we have no intention of tearing this community apart again. This plan put the burden on the canal lot owners.
Comment: How can this board have made all of these decisions behind our backs, and against our governing documents (the meeting to make these decisions) without noticing the members (in May), and failing to report it to us at the May, June, or July regular monthly meeting? Since they didn't bother - where is a motion, discussion, and a vote? This is just plain corrupt governance. I don't trust what the board has promised based on how they have proceeded behind our backs, additionally historically we have been down this path of promises. During the period of time - years, that the canal lot owners were paying all the expenses involved in securing the dredging permit for the 2009-10 dredging, and reporting progress through the canal committee, at monthly meetings, and in the Wragg, as we got close to securing the permit, the board threw the canal committee off the structure of the board, removing ability to use WPA name for permit, etc. The canal lot owners had to pay legal fees to stop that board action. A JUDGE, stopped the action of the board, the committee was reinstated as a committee of the board, and the canal lot owners were allowed to proceed to permit. It cost the canal lot owners thousands when a board broke similar promises to those stated above. While Garrison was not on the board at that time, he rose out of the group as a leader in the Concerned Citizens, which grew out of some of the very board members who caused that delay, and expense last time around.
3. Obtain bids for the dredging.
The plan would be raise phase 1 money now and do the engineering and surveying work this fall. Then begin raising phase 2 money and have it collected by spring of 2017 so that dredging can begin in fall 2017.
Comments: Briefly, at a glance the process appears sound, however since it was all done under, the table, violating procurement, and governance documents, why, or how, can we ever verify any accuracy, and truth? No, reporting from the board table. No consideration of the general membership to hear, and evaluate for themselves. This whole mess causes division of our community, and is a walking time bomb for future lawsuits. Having served on a board that voted to fund, and dredge, and was sued by 3 members who Garrison openly supported, I'm not surprised at his illegal actions, but I am surprised that anyone, canal owners, or fellow board members believe him. I sat, and participated in depositions for the lawsuits, and current board member McMillin did also. Even with every step out in the open to the last dredging, we had questions from the other side - then Garrison's opposing, suing team. Garrison knows better than this, and it appears he doesn't care, and is setting this up for failure. We know where McMillin, John Walton, Adam Anderson, Keith Johnson, - all board members, president Jacky Walton, and legal/compliance chair/vice president, Garrison stand because they have been present, and accounted for, in harming our community.
4. Solicit contributions from the canal lot owners.
5. Go to the WPA board of directors and present our funding and bids.
Thank you for your consideration.
Make checks payable to:
Wedgefield Waterfront Property Owners
1284 Georgetown Hwy
Georgetown SC 29440
Comments: First, and foremost this last section has so many twisted facets, that I could barely read it, without genuine sadness as to how misrepresented every member of this association, has been treated by this board. I'm sadden further about the apathy in this community that has lead to the re-election of these board members time, and time again. I quote, "We have the WPA Board of Director's support", we now know they gained it in closed meetings, with no reporting, and most of those who developed the plan are board members. I quote, "Our covenants are not written in a way that allows for differential assessments, and it is unfair to assess equal for dredging for lots of of the canal." The last dredging had what equated to differential assessments, through the use of regular, and individual assessments, under our by-laws. There are no rulings by any JUDGE, and no fault was found in using them in the language of the lawsuit settlements. They are going to deposit the money in Anderson Bank. Make your checks payable Wedgefield Waterfront Property Owners. Who is going to account? Who is going to let you see the books? It is all a sham, brought to you by your board.
Message to the board: When will you quit dividing our community with your illegal antics? Basically, the canal lot owners have spoken loud, and clear to you twice. First when surveyed them a few years ago about that separate regime concept, and only 14 responded out of 79, negatively. I was one of the people who bothered to respond, and if I recall my response was that after my experiences with this WPA board, as a home owner I would NEVER put another board, between me and my property, and expect any ethical representation. The second response came when you scheduled this illegal meeting, and less than 20% of the canal lot owners bothered to attend.
You might ask whether I would like the canals dredged? Absolutely! I will pay whatever my board assesses me, legally, openly, and through proper recognition of our governing documents. I won't participate in any project that fixes my back yard when so much is ignored in every corner, and back yard in Wedgefield. It is about time we looked out for all of Wedgefield, and the only way to do that is through the promise of Wedgefield - our governing documents, and this board, and committee isn't doing that.
