12-21-2017, 05:16 PM
Well, at this point I don't take *anything* that either "Board" says as fully credible-- there has been too much stretching of the truth and shady dealings on both sides. While I have serious issues with the Wirick group, I think they have a better clam to legitimacy than the Arthurs group (tho they achieved control of the Board by gaming the system, beginning with the surprise Proxy voting event). The Arthurs group, on the other hand, has presented itself as the legitimate Board by calling general membership meetings and issuing official-looking newsletters in a manner that suggested they were in control of the Association. Both Boards have full-term members that were elected by the membership as a whole, but I suspect that between the two Boards, you probably couldn't cobble together a full slate of full-term, entire-membership elected members. So I think I'd err towards believing the Special Master, though I agree that she (or her firm) should not be considered for the Receivership position if that's what the Court orders.
I think it's also important to note that the Special Master appeared to be more critical of the Wirick group (ignoring Bylaws, withholding info) than of the Arthurs group, though both groups were criticized for dissing the other. And she appears to have gotten the Wirick group to admit that they used an unlicensed contractor for roadwork despite past their declarations that the contractor was licensed. So, in a nutshell, she appears to basically agree with the Arthurs group's initial complaints. Having said that, I think the most positive step we could take to get the Association back on track would be a new election for the entire Board that would be overseen by a neutral third party (such as the League of Women Voters, who I believe provided this service in the past). And I'd stipulate that members of both the Wirick and Arthurs groups would be ineligible to run for office during that election.
I think it's also important to note that the Special Master appeared to be more critical of the Wirick group (ignoring Bylaws, withholding info) than of the Arthurs group, though both groups were criticized for dissing the other. And she appears to have gotten the Wirick group to admit that they used an unlicensed contractor for roadwork despite past their declarations that the contractor was licensed. So, in a nutshell, she appears to basically agree with the Arthurs group's initial complaints. Having said that, I think the most positive step we could take to get the Association back on track would be a new election for the entire Board that would be overseen by a neutral third party (such as the League of Women Voters, who I believe provided this service in the past). And I'd stipulate that members of both the Wirick and Arthurs groups would be ineligible to run for office during that election.