The meeting was promptly called to order at 7:00PM, with all board members in attendance. Seven residents were in the audience. The treasurer was the only officer with a report. There were few committee reports, two items - second readings for policy manual changes - old business, and no new business. There were no resident comments. The meeting adjourned after about 45 minutes.
Adam Anderson, Community Liaison, reported that there were three letters received from residents. According to his report, the residents had received answers. Congrats to Anderson for fulfilling his role as Community Liaison. This is a big deal. Residents hadn't received answers, or a report given at the board table, for over a year.
During the Grounds' Report we were told that the company contracted by the board for storm clean up, is RS. Your board has approved up to $8,000 for the work. There were some questions as to why it was taking so long. McMillin reported that he had attempted to contact them this week at 10:00AM and they weren't on site yet. McBride stated that he took a drive out to the staging area at 2:00PM one afternoon and no one was there. DeMarchi said they had been clearing a lot for a new build and were trying to get that done, FIRST. DeMarchi reported that RS was staging in the Enclave, so there should be no questions as to why they were there first (No comment on that as this is just a report. He did seem a bit defensive).
We were provided with ANOTHER newest and greatest financial report from DeMarchi's "accounting function" group.
That's all. No comments, just a short run down. Articles and comments, are sure to follow.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Saturday, February 15, 2014
PART I: FEBRUARY 12 WPA OPEN MEETING - LEGAL
NOTE: The Wedgefield Examiner has reviewed the tape of the February 12th meeting and will provide overview and transcription to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape for your own verification. Transcription will be provided in blue, underlined, and in quotation. Comments will be noted as such, and will be typed in RED.
The meeting opened at approximately 7:00PM on February 12th. Nine board members and 2 residents were in attendance. President Walton had called the meeting in behalf of the Legal Committee. He turned the meeting over to Legal Chair, Garrison. He explained that the board had been provided two emails, prior to the meeting. The first email explained the reason for the meeting and contained an attachment from the Supreme Court of SC. This attachment informed us that the law license of our current association Attorney of Record, Moody, had been suspended.
Garrison went on to explain that while we knew Moody had been suspended, we didn't know why. It also was probably the reason that the Maring & Moody Law Firm had been dissolved. The Supreme Court order also named Maring to assume responsibility of the accounts and placed him in charge of protecting the interests of the clients. Here, we'll transcribe what Garrison says. Now, and throughout the transcription you will see ........ if we are unable to hear his exact words on tape. Garrison, "It is the opinion of the Legal Committee that the board should appoint Maring Law Firm to be our Attorney of Record. There are a couple of reasons for that. In order to save a lot of extra money and a lot of extreme time if we were to hire somebody new for the existing cases, at this point, they'd have to get up to speed.........which basically falls backwards in a hurry. Maring already has some familiarity with that. In fact, he got all the files. In fact, we used the guy initially when the board decided to change attorneys, it was originally Maring....the guy who talked to us..... I believe some conflicts of interest that Maring had with individual property owners, in terms of representation. He turned it over to Moody....."
McBride interrupts asking whether conflicts still exist. Garrison says they don't. It appears the second board email included a proposed contract to engage Maring. McBride questions whether he will be the one attorney we go to. Garrison tells him that Maring basically will be the attorney we'll be calling. President Walton and DeMarchi jump in, but it is brief and they can't quite be heard. McBride says that he was involved in the interview with Maring originally. McBride, "He wasn't at all comfortable working for an association. He didn't have experience necessarily in.......How's that......." Garrison, "Well, he had told us....no reservation.....The situation we're in now, compared to situation we were in a year ago" (Note: DeMarchi says something in agreement like yeah.) Garrison resumes, "99% of our legal stuff now is collection. There might be an occasion where we need a legal opinion about something or another, but by and large, what we deal with....collections, something he is entirely comfortable with. HE MAY NOT KNOW AS MUCH ABOUT...ASSOCIATIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF HE DOES, OR DOESN'T"
DeMarchi jumps in and says something about the fact that Maring has represented Heritage Foundation for years. McBride asks about whether he could handle something like "Curb Man" and whether this is the best choice? DeMarchi jumps back in and says something about if there was something he wasn't comfortable with that he would probably hand it to somebody else.
Garrison resumes telling the board that the email containing the proposed contract of representation is not the CORRECT ONE. He says it is mostly corrections in wording. Additionally, they want changes to the pricing on new foreclosures and there is going to have to be more discussion with Maring. McBride asks if they should take the figures out of the contract and Garrisons says no. McBride appears to look over the contract and says, "He can do anything he wants. He can assign anybody, because it says attorneys." Conversation flows between DeMarchi talking about practicality. Walton brings in something about the supreme court. Cline is heard laughing in the background.
Garrison makes his motion. DeMarchi seconds it. There is brief discussion. YOUR ENTIRE BOARD VOTES TO HIRE MARING. I don't hear any no votes, or abstentions.
COMMENTS:
First, I believe I heard correctly. Every member of this board sat by and voted yes for an attorney that has stated that he doesn't have experience with associations. The Wedgefield Examiner quoted the discussion that included the fact that your board's main concern is collection of past due accounts. The board members are encouraged by our legal chair, one of the very people who caused problems, in writing to residents in the past, WITH COLLECTIONS. The Board Attorney of Record is to be there to provide opinion and legal guidance in the general administration of the association, to assist in the board making decisions that govern us legally and ethically according to our governing documents and within the law. As a board member, I would want to be on the record as voting no, to protect myself and the association, if and WHEN, lawsuits occur.
Think about it. Garrison, as Legal Chair, isn't "inclined" to get opinions in writing. Your board can't read an opinion for themselves before they vote. There were other options. The Supreme Court of SC didn't say Maring becomes our attorney. His letter to clients and the Supreme Court document make him the holder of records and funds and tell you to pick them up. Most would agree that he should have a contract to complete ACTIVE CASES ONLY. This board voted for a contract that wasn't complete or correct.
When will this board act in behalf of the entire association, rather than because of the deviants? In this case the non and late assessment payers. If you are presented with an immediate need, especially due to your own poor choices (Board selection under very unusual circumstances of the previous attorney of record), but the likely source (Maring) doesn't meet the long term and overall requirements of the association, you fill the immediate need with an interim specifically to get you through CURRENT, IN PROCESS CASES, and search for the right attorney to fill the long term. Where is solid, concrete, creative thinking, in behalf of all the people you serve? This could be viewed as a move for people who have alternative, unstated, motives. The object of a board is to have a number of individual thinkers, elected to vote in behalf of the membership to be served, with clear, informed, independent, researched, thought, rather than individual agenda. That didn't happen on Wednesday, Feb. 12th.
The meeting opened at approximately 7:00PM on February 12th. Nine board members and 2 residents were in attendance. President Walton had called the meeting in behalf of the Legal Committee. He turned the meeting over to Legal Chair, Garrison. He explained that the board had been provided two emails, prior to the meeting. The first email explained the reason for the meeting and contained an attachment from the Supreme Court of SC. This attachment informed us that the law license of our current association Attorney of Record, Moody, had been suspended.
Garrison went on to explain that while we knew Moody had been suspended, we didn't know why. It also was probably the reason that the Maring & Moody Law Firm had been dissolved. The Supreme Court order also named Maring to assume responsibility of the accounts and placed him in charge of protecting the interests of the clients. Here, we'll transcribe what Garrison says. Now, and throughout the transcription you will see ........ if we are unable to hear his exact words on tape. Garrison, "It is the opinion of the Legal Committee that the board should appoint Maring Law Firm to be our Attorney of Record. There are a couple of reasons for that. In order to save a lot of extra money and a lot of extreme time if we were to hire somebody new for the existing cases, at this point, they'd have to get up to speed.........which basically falls backwards in a hurry. Maring already has some familiarity with that. In fact, he got all the files. In fact, we used the guy initially when the board decided to change attorneys, it was originally Maring....the guy who talked to us..... I believe some conflicts of interest that Maring had with individual property owners, in terms of representation. He turned it over to Moody....."
McBride interrupts asking whether conflicts still exist. Garrison says they don't. It appears the second board email included a proposed contract to engage Maring. McBride questions whether he will be the one attorney we go to. Garrison tells him that Maring basically will be the attorney we'll be calling. President Walton and DeMarchi jump in, but it is brief and they can't quite be heard. McBride says that he was involved in the interview with Maring originally. McBride, "He wasn't at all comfortable working for an association. He didn't have experience necessarily in.......How's that......." Garrison, "Well, he had told us....no reservation.....The situation we're in now, compared to situation we were in a year ago" (Note: DeMarchi says something in agreement like yeah.) Garrison resumes, "99% of our legal stuff now is collection. There might be an occasion where we need a legal opinion about something or another, but by and large, what we deal with....collections, something he is entirely comfortable with. HE MAY NOT KNOW AS MUCH ABOUT...ASSOCIATIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF HE DOES, OR DOESN'T"
DeMarchi jumps in and says something about the fact that Maring has represented Heritage Foundation for years. McBride asks about whether he could handle something like "Curb Man" and whether this is the best choice? DeMarchi jumps back in and says something about if there was something he wasn't comfortable with that he would probably hand it to somebody else.
Garrison resumes telling the board that the email containing the proposed contract of representation is not the CORRECT ONE. He says it is mostly corrections in wording. Additionally, they want changes to the pricing on new foreclosures and there is going to have to be more discussion with Maring. McBride asks if they should take the figures out of the contract and Garrisons says no. McBride appears to look over the contract and says, "He can do anything he wants. He can assign anybody, because it says attorneys." Conversation flows between DeMarchi talking about practicality. Walton brings in something about the supreme court. Cline is heard laughing in the background.
Garrison makes his motion. DeMarchi seconds it. There is brief discussion. YOUR ENTIRE BOARD VOTES TO HIRE MARING. I don't hear any no votes, or abstentions.
COMMENTS:
First, I believe I heard correctly. Every member of this board sat by and voted yes for an attorney that has stated that he doesn't have experience with associations. The Wedgefield Examiner quoted the discussion that included the fact that your board's main concern is collection of past due accounts. The board members are encouraged by our legal chair, one of the very people who caused problems, in writing to residents in the past, WITH COLLECTIONS. The Board Attorney of Record is to be there to provide opinion and legal guidance in the general administration of the association, to assist in the board making decisions that govern us legally and ethically according to our governing documents and within the law. As a board member, I would want to be on the record as voting no, to protect myself and the association, if and WHEN, lawsuits occur.
Think about it. Garrison, as Legal Chair, isn't "inclined" to get opinions in writing. Your board can't read an opinion for themselves before they vote. There were other options. The Supreme Court of SC didn't say Maring becomes our attorney. His letter to clients and the Supreme Court document make him the holder of records and funds and tell you to pick them up. Most would agree that he should have a contract to complete ACTIVE CASES ONLY. This board voted for a contract that wasn't complete or correct.
When will this board act in behalf of the entire association, rather than because of the deviants? In this case the non and late assessment payers. If you are presented with an immediate need, especially due to your own poor choices (Board selection under very unusual circumstances of the previous attorney of record), but the likely source (Maring) doesn't meet the long term and overall requirements of the association, you fill the immediate need with an interim specifically to get you through CURRENT, IN PROCESS CASES, and search for the right attorney to fill the long term. Where is solid, concrete, creative thinking, in behalf of all the people you serve? This could be viewed as a move for people who have alternative, unstated, motives. The object of a board is to have a number of individual thinkers, elected to vote in behalf of the membership to be served, with clear, informed, independent, researched, thought, rather than individual agenda. That didn't happen on Wednesday, Feb. 12th.
Friday, February 14, 2014
THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER WILL PROVIDE A REPORT AND TRANSCRIPTION OF THE OPEN MEETING ON fEBRUARY 12TH, REGARDING HIRING A ATTORNEY OF RECORD. THE ARTICLE WILL BE PUBLISHED BY END OF DAY ON FEBRUARY 16TH.
BEFORE PRESENTING THE INFORMATION, THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER ASKS THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
DID THE BOARD ACTING AS A PRUDENT PERSON WOULD, EVER CONSIDER THE WORD INTERIM?
WHY WOULD YOU HIRE AN ATTORNEY OF RECORD WHO HAS TOLD YOU IN THE PAST, THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY ASSOCIATION EXPERIENCE?
Finally, it is too bad that I'm not a betting person. We could have had our Valentine's Day dinner on my winnings. A BIG THANKS TO R. Vaughan for taping the meeting. Be sure and visit The Wedgefield Times for tapes of the WPA monthly meetings and his comments. When you and I can't, or are not inclined to be at the meetings, he is!
DID THE BOARD ACTING AS A PRUDENT PERSON WOULD, EVER CONSIDER THE WORD INTERIM?
WHY WOULD YOU HIRE AN ATTORNEY OF RECORD WHO HAS TOLD YOU IN THE PAST, THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY ASSOCIATION EXPERIENCE?
Finally, it is too bad that I'm not a betting person. We could have had our Valentine's Day dinner on my winnings. A BIG THANKS TO R. Vaughan for taping the meeting. Be sure and visit The Wedgefield Times for tapes of the WPA monthly meetings and his comments. When you and I can't, or are not inclined to be at the meetings, he is!
A THANK YOU TO THE WPA BOARD, A NOTICE, AND QUESTIONS
A BIG THANK YOU TO THE BOARD
Wednesday's storm brought down literally tons of limbs and branches. Your board acted quickly to arrange for services to clean up the debris and notified residents regarding the service. THANKS!!!!!!
A NOTICE
The Wedgefield Examiner had hoped to attend the open board meeting on Wednesday evening, regarding legal. With branches and limbs falling throughout the day, I felt I should stay in. We'll have to wait for the legal report at next Tuesday's regular monthly meeting to see if the board met and what decisions they made.
QUESTIONS
The membership will have to wait for a grounds report at the February board meeting. Did the board honor the terms of the grounds contractor contract, when they hired a contractor to clean up the debris from the storm. In the past, that hasn't always been the case. The Wedgefield Examiner doesn't have any information, and is not making an accusation, just posing a question.
Who is our new attorney of record?
Attend the meeting next Tuesday to find out.
Wednesday's storm brought down literally tons of limbs and branches. Your board acted quickly to arrange for services to clean up the debris and notified residents regarding the service. THANKS!!!!!!
A NOTICE
The Wedgefield Examiner had hoped to attend the open board meeting on Wednesday evening, regarding legal. With branches and limbs falling throughout the day, I felt I should stay in. We'll have to wait for the legal report at next Tuesday's regular monthly meeting to see if the board met and what decisions they made.
QUESTIONS
The membership will have to wait for a grounds report at the February board meeting. Did the board honor the terms of the grounds contractor contract, when they hired a contractor to clean up the debris from the storm. In the past, that hasn't always been the case. The Wedgefield Examiner doesn't have any information, and is not making an accusation, just posing a question.
Who is our new attorney of record?
Attend the meeting next Tuesday to find out.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
President Jacky Walton, has called an OPEN Board Meeting for Feb. 12 at 7:00PM. The agenda is to discuss THE ATTORNEY OF RECORD. WILL PERTINENT QUESTIONS BE ASKED BY THE BOARD AND ANSWERED BEFORE A VOTE IS TAKEN ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD, OR WILL THIS JUST BE ANOTHER SILENT RAISING OF THEIR HANDS?
To date, The Wedgefield Examiner has been unable to locate the accusations brought against our current Attorney of Record - Moody, that caused the Supreme Court of South Carolina to place him on temporary suspension and appoint a Special Receiver. While these recent actions may have put our association in a bad place, we were there already.
During the January WPA board meeting, when it was announced that Moody had split from the law firm of Maring and Moody, Garrison said he didn't know where Moody was, and when asked the reason for the split, said he didn't care. Yet, someone at the board table stated that they had talked to him, and he would cover upcoming court dates. Did your board care so little that while one of them had him on the phone that they didn't question why the split, or even ask where his new office was? That's pretty elementary. No one on that board, except for McBride, asked any pertinent questions in behalf of the association. They just sat there, including our president. According to the Supreme Court Order, Moody won't be representing us any where soon.
As Special Receiver , Maring sent a letter to Moody's clients, advising them to pick up their files. Any files left in his possession at the termination of his appointment will be turned over to the Commission on Lawyer Conduct in Columbia. Call it my suspicious mind, but I forecast that this board will turn our records over to Maring and ask him to pick up our case load. That would be the easy way out and may not be in our best interests. Why?
Up until recently these two attorneys were a membership of two, in the firm. The firm has accepted payment for services that our now Legal Chair, said as a board member, we wouldn't pay because two other board members had sought the firm's services, without board approval. The firm met with a Concerned Citizen private resident, charged, and were paid. There were other questionable charges that were paid. VERY few legal opinions have been put in writing so that each board member may read and weigh the matter discussed, before a vote. It could be called an unhealthy relationship. Now, there isn't a paper trail where board members, or residents, can go back and review opinions, now that the association is placed in this situation. Legal Chair, Garrison has stated at times that he "wasn't inclined to pay for written opinions" (go back to tapes of the meetings). Moody's apparent acceptance of this could be indication of the then firm's failure to recognize the needs of the entire board.
Our own Wedgefield situation regarding legal is questionable. A few years back, Jacky Walton was removed as president by the board because he wouldn't fire his appointed legal chair( A very responsible legal chair.). At that time, then board member, Huggins, said, "it was all about legal." Walton has been elected by this board twice, as president. Each time, he has named Garrison as legal chair. During each of these appointments, Garrison has been working with the attorney of record to collect on assessments, he previously put in writing, to put in escrow and not pay. Is Walton retaining his presidency because once again, it is all about legal? In the mean time, most of these board members take the easy way out to retain their own dukedom, and fail to serve in our best interests. I'm not a betting person, if I was I'd wager that on Thursday morning, Maring will be our attorney of record.
Will you attend the meeting?
During the January WPA board meeting, when it was announced that Moody had split from the law firm of Maring and Moody, Garrison said he didn't know where Moody was, and when asked the reason for the split, said he didn't care. Yet, someone at the board table stated that they had talked to him, and he would cover upcoming court dates. Did your board care so little that while one of them had him on the phone that they didn't question why the split, or even ask where his new office was? That's pretty elementary. No one on that board, except for McBride, asked any pertinent questions in behalf of the association. They just sat there, including our president. According to the Supreme Court Order, Moody won't be representing us any where soon.
As Special Receiver , Maring sent a letter to Moody's clients, advising them to pick up their files. Any files left in his possession at the termination of his appointment will be turned over to the Commission on Lawyer Conduct in Columbia. Call it my suspicious mind, but I forecast that this board will turn our records over to Maring and ask him to pick up our case load. That would be the easy way out and may not be in our best interests. Why?
Up until recently these two attorneys were a membership of two, in the firm. The firm has accepted payment for services that our now Legal Chair, said as a board member, we wouldn't pay because two other board members had sought the firm's services, without board approval. The firm met with a Concerned Citizen private resident, charged, and were paid. There were other questionable charges that were paid. VERY few legal opinions have been put in writing so that each board member may read and weigh the matter discussed, before a vote. It could be called an unhealthy relationship. Now, there isn't a paper trail where board members, or residents, can go back and review opinions, now that the association is placed in this situation. Legal Chair, Garrison has stated at times that he "wasn't inclined to pay for written opinions" (go back to tapes of the meetings). Moody's apparent acceptance of this could be indication of the then firm's failure to recognize the needs of the entire board.
Our own Wedgefield situation regarding legal is questionable. A few years back, Jacky Walton was removed as president by the board because he wouldn't fire his appointed legal chair( A very responsible legal chair.). At that time, then board member, Huggins, said, "it was all about legal." Walton has been elected by this board twice, as president. Each time, he has named Garrison as legal chair. During each of these appointments, Garrison has been working with the attorney of record to collect on assessments, he previously put in writing, to put in escrow and not pay. Is Walton retaining his presidency because once again, it is all about legal? In the mean time, most of these board members take the easy way out to retain their own dukedom, and fail to serve in our best interests. I'm not a betting person, if I was I'd wager that on Thursday morning, Maring will be our attorney of record.
Will you attend the meeting?
Saturday, February 8, 2014
WHEN BOARD MEMBER MC BRIDE QUESTIONED THE LEGAL CHAIR DURING THE JANUARY WPA BOARD MEETING, HE WAS IGNORED. OUR LEGAL CHAIR WAS UNCONCERNED. OUR PRESIDENT SAT BY AND NEGLECTED TO SPEAK OUT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF OUR ASSOCIATION. THE MAJORITY OF YOUR BOARD SAT BY. MC BRIDE WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO DID THE RIGHT THING. THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER SAID YOUR BOARD AND PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR WEREN'T IN OUR BEST INTERESTS
Please take a few minutes and read the article just prior to this one, regarding the January Legal Report. The Wedgefield Examiner has removed the inside address of the document presented below to protect the identity of the resident (non board member), who provided it to the blog. President Walton, isn't it time that you removed Garrison as Legal Chair? Isn't it time that you and the rest of the board began to consider the questions of Mc Bride? Isn't it time that you acted in our behalf, at least questioned what any prudent person would? Perhaps this board will consider the value of WRITTEN opinions now. Otherwise, we are left with what one board member called "hear say". Now our association is left with nothing to refer to in writing to verify, or review. Here is the letter regarding our board attorney of record.
THE FOLLOWING IS THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORDER
Thursday, February 6, 2014
THE JANUARY 21 WPA LEGAL REPORT. WHERE EXACTLY IS OUR BOARD ATTORNEY OF RECORD? SHOULD THE BOARD BE LOOKING FOR A NEW LAWYER? SOMETHING NOT SO SURPRISING
NOTE: This is the first article pertaining to the January WPA Board Meeting. As background, 7 board members are in attendance, as McMillin and Cline are absent. 9 members are in attendance at the meeting. As I was listening to the tape, provided at The Wedgefield Times, the Legal Report brought questions and concerns.
I have transcribed the report to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape yourself for verification. Garrison, Legal Chair, provides the report. At times he comes across almost in conversation tone. Perhaps the board should go back to providing the individual speakers with a microphone, to provide quality in the recording. Direct quotes will be underlined and in quotation. We'll call our attorney, attorney "M".
We begin with Garrison stating that there will need to be decisions about our current legal representation. "The law firm we have been engaged with may not exist. I think (believe the following word is correct) dissolved on January 10th. (Can't understand a few words) ......."M" gone off on his own. At this point, I don't know where his office is, or if he even has one. " He then says something about not necessarily changing attorneys but, we might have to get a new contract with him. Later he begins to speak about the legal collections in progress and says he has a spread sheet of some of these ongoing foreclosures and "stuff". Still later, he says, "defendants in the canal assessment, that's still dragging on and gee, it has only been 3 years"
President Walton asks about a court date this month and whether our attorney will be representing us? I believe, (could be wrong) the answer comes from DeMarchi, who says something about the fact that he's assured him that he's prepared to take care of those cases.
McBride, "I think....reason for this law firm to dissolve as it did.....I think this board needs to understand some of that before we just agree that yes, we'll proceed with the same attorney that we have. Was it some sort of missing funds that caused this problem? What was it? These things don't just happen for some good reason."
President Walton jumps in and says that they don't know the reason and are just going to have to wait and find out what's going on.
McBride says they need to find out the reason.
Garrison, "I don't think it is the board's, or anyone else's business, what a private entity does if they elect to dissolve.......My understanding, from what little I was told was that "M" decided to go out on his own. I've only heard one piece of it from one side of it. When I called (He names the firm.) office and asked what was going on, the only answers I got was, I don't know. Unless the guy lost his law license, or is under indictment, or something, and that was the cause of it, why they elected to do this, my feeling from what (Names attorney by first name.) told me was that it was his decision, but I don't know that for a fact. I'm not going to pretend that I do. Our job is to decide who you want to have as an attorney. I don't .....not really concerned what their feelings are.....maybe their wives don't get along, didn't like each other, or whatever. I have no idea and frankly I don't care."
During the report Garrison also informs the group the by-law change passed at the 2013 meeting has been legally registered.
COMMENTS:
This appears to be a real nonchalant attitude by our Legal Chair in both the discussion about a key element in the board's responsibility and his criteria - not indicted, hasn't lost his law license. He states he doesn't know where the attorney is, why the firm, or partnership was dissolved and he personally isn't inclined to find our why. Yet, he or someone else speaking at the board table, has spoken to the attorney and been reassured that he'll meet some upcoming court dates. No one on the board questions, but for one. They just move on.
Remember, this particular attorney came to us under unusual circumstance. Moran was attorney of record and gave a WRITTEN legal opinion regarding the 2011 recall effort. Then board members, Huggins and Wilson, went off on their own without the approval of the board, and sought the advice of attorney "M", who we're told didn't agree with Moran. At the time, Garrison said the board would not pay for the opinion and Huggins said they wouldn't be charged. In the end, not only were they charged, but there was also an accumulation of approximately $5,000 in fees from this attorney, such a meetings with one of the chief female Concerned Citizens (not a board member). Garrison sat on the board that paid those fees. Additionally, from the beginning Garrison and attorney "M" have not put most (very few - count on one hand) legal opinions in writing, so that board members could review opinions for themselves, before they vote on issues.
The current contract is with a firm, a entity, which if it doesn't exist any more cancels the contract and diminishes credibility. There should have been a vote by the board to determine whether attorney "M" should proceed at all and bill. Surprised? I'm not. This board, in general does what they want, when they want, and just keeps going. Should we continue with an attorney who has this history??????
You'll note Garrison all but laughs at the state of collection on the $5,000 canal collection progression. Again, should he be Legal Chair when he and one of the Legal Committee members told our residents in writing, to put those monies in escrow? Our president seems oblivious. At the end of the report, he says, "Thank you Bob."
SOMETHING NOT SO SURPRISING????? I could have bet on this! Close friends will tell you that I said it would be the case. Garrison announced that the 2013 by-law change that passed at the 2013 annual meeting, has been legally registered. Some have said the by-law amendment was his. He did get a legal opinion in WRITING, from this attorney. He is the same Legal Chair who ignored even verifying whether the 2011 by-law change was registered, for a year and a half. President Walton, where are you? Don't you see these things? As important, because your board named Walton PRESIDENT, AND HE KEEPS NAMING THE SAME LEGAL CHAIR, where was your board when they voted to keep Walton as president?
I have transcribed the report to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape yourself for verification. Garrison, Legal Chair, provides the report. At times he comes across almost in conversation tone. Perhaps the board should go back to providing the individual speakers with a microphone, to provide quality in the recording. Direct quotes will be underlined and in quotation. We'll call our attorney, attorney "M".
We begin with Garrison stating that there will need to be decisions about our current legal representation. "The law firm we have been engaged with may not exist. I think (believe the following word is correct) dissolved on January 10th. (Can't understand a few words) ......."M" gone off on his own. At this point, I don't know where his office is, or if he even has one. " He then says something about not necessarily changing attorneys but, we might have to get a new contract with him. Later he begins to speak about the legal collections in progress and says he has a spread sheet of some of these ongoing foreclosures and "stuff". Still later, he says, "defendants in the canal assessment, that's still dragging on and gee, it has only been 3 years"
President Walton asks about a court date this month and whether our attorney will be representing us? I believe, (could be wrong) the answer comes from DeMarchi, who says something about the fact that he's assured him that he's prepared to take care of those cases.
McBride, "I think....reason for this law firm to dissolve as it did.....I think this board needs to understand some of that before we just agree that yes, we'll proceed with the same attorney that we have. Was it some sort of missing funds that caused this problem? What was it? These things don't just happen for some good reason."
President Walton jumps in and says that they don't know the reason and are just going to have to wait and find out what's going on.
McBride says they need to find out the reason.
Garrison, "I don't think it is the board's, or anyone else's business, what a private entity does if they elect to dissolve.......My understanding, from what little I was told was that "M" decided to go out on his own. I've only heard one piece of it from one side of it. When I called (He names the firm.) office and asked what was going on, the only answers I got was, I don't know. Unless the guy lost his law license, or is under indictment, or something, and that was the cause of it, why they elected to do this, my feeling from what (Names attorney by first name.) told me was that it was his decision, but I don't know that for a fact. I'm not going to pretend that I do. Our job is to decide who you want to have as an attorney. I don't .....not really concerned what their feelings are.....maybe their wives don't get along, didn't like each other, or whatever. I have no idea and frankly I don't care."
During the report Garrison also informs the group the by-law change passed at the 2013 meeting has been legally registered.
COMMENTS:
This appears to be a real nonchalant attitude by our Legal Chair in both the discussion about a key element in the board's responsibility and his criteria - not indicted, hasn't lost his law license. He states he doesn't know where the attorney is, why the firm, or partnership was dissolved and he personally isn't inclined to find our why. Yet, he or someone else speaking at the board table, has spoken to the attorney and been reassured that he'll meet some upcoming court dates. No one on the board questions, but for one. They just move on.
Remember, this particular attorney came to us under unusual circumstance. Moran was attorney of record and gave a WRITTEN legal opinion regarding the 2011 recall effort. Then board members, Huggins and Wilson, went off on their own without the approval of the board, and sought the advice of attorney "M", who we're told didn't agree with Moran. At the time, Garrison said the board would not pay for the opinion and Huggins said they wouldn't be charged. In the end, not only were they charged, but there was also an accumulation of approximately $5,000 in fees from this attorney, such a meetings with one of the chief female Concerned Citizens (not a board member). Garrison sat on the board that paid those fees. Additionally, from the beginning Garrison and attorney "M" have not put most (very few - count on one hand) legal opinions in writing, so that board members could review opinions for themselves, before they vote on issues.
The current contract is with a firm, a entity, which if it doesn't exist any more cancels the contract and diminishes credibility. There should have been a vote by the board to determine whether attorney "M" should proceed at all and bill. Surprised? I'm not. This board, in general does what they want, when they want, and just keeps going. Should we continue with an attorney who has this history??????
You'll note Garrison all but laughs at the state of collection on the $5,000 canal collection progression. Again, should he be Legal Chair when he and one of the Legal Committee members told our residents in writing, to put those monies in escrow? Our president seems oblivious. At the end of the report, he says, "Thank you Bob."
SOMETHING NOT SO SURPRISING????? I could have bet on this! Close friends will tell you that I said it would be the case. Garrison announced that the 2013 by-law change that passed at the 2013 annual meeting, has been legally registered. Some have said the by-law amendment was his. He did get a legal opinion in WRITING, from this attorney. He is the same Legal Chair who ignored even verifying whether the 2011 by-law change was registered, for a year and a half. President Walton, where are you? Don't you see these things? As important, because your board named Walton PRESIDENT, AND HE KEEPS NAMING THE SAME LEGAL CHAIR, where was your board when they voted to keep Walton as president?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)