As publisher of the FOBC Newspaper, I have not only lived in Big Canoe for 22 years, but I am also a rather rare property owner, one that has actually read (and understands) the thousands of pages of governing documents & deeds that legally define the community of Big Canoe. This sometimes gives me a rather unique perspective, and I am going to share some points before this upcoming vote.
(1) First, I want to share a recent article, by Big Canoe’s most widely read blogger, Patricia Cross. Ms Cross’ most recent article does a good job of summarizing some of the deficiencies (legal, ethical, wisdom) of the proposed By-Laws changes. If a property owner truly wishes to be an informed voter, then reading this article should be mandatory:
https://bcmatters.org/a-consideration-of-consequences/
(2) Second, I want to point to another recent article by Ms Cross, on October 29, 2021 titled “A Betrayal of Trust”, direct linked on her website at https://bcmatters.org/a-betrayal-of-trust/. I think that this particular article offers a good example of what happens when Voters trust their elected officials too much. Some of these changes to the By-Laws grant the Board even more authority, specifically the proposed changes that (a) Lower the Voting Quorum, and (b) Lower the Voter Approval Standards for Ammendments to the By-Laws. There is absolutely no reason for voters to unnecessarily eliminate checks and balances that exist to protect them in the Voter Approval process.
(3) Third, I want to direct Property Owners to perhaps some overlooked facts regarding how these proposed changes were arrived at. The publicly marketed story is that this initiative was a patient, deliberate, transparent and well thought out process, headed up by an impartial group of property owners, known as the “Governance Documentation Review Committee” (GDRC).
(3-A) Back in February 2021 as the GDRC was being formed, the 2/23 minutes have a single line entry…
“Kim Gaddis Attorney presented proposed revised By Laws”
The remainder of the minutes throughout the year basically show a history of the GDRC validating what the POA Board and their Attorney had already outlined. The notion that there was any actual “Input” of substance, needs to be dispelled. This was simply a rubber-stamping committee to offer public validation to what had already been drafted.
(3-B) By July 20 the GDRC has completed their review and were ready to submit a Final Report to the POA Board. The POA Board voted to approve the “final changes” on October 4. As I write this on Nov 9, Property Owners have still not seen the exact language of the By-Laws changes they are voting on, and Ballots were mailed yesterday as of this writing. Not sharing the language of what is being voted on until the actual ballots arrive doesn’t seem transparent. Not allowing public interaction during the Task Force process doesn’t seem transparent. This is further indicated by the nature of the Task Force’s Final Report….
(3-C) The Committee’s Final Report is a summary 2 page document (Login to bigcanoepoa.org > POA > Reports and Studies > Governance Documents Review Committee Report-Proposed Bylaws Changes 2021 ). This “2 Page report” is quite different from the last Governance Report released by the 2010 Governance Task Force, which was an exceptionally detailed 74 page Governance Report. In 2010 property owners got a transparent, detailed, open and thought provoking report. Fast forward to 2021, and you get 2 pages. This is emblematic of the direction that the POA Board (and it’s handpicked sub-committees) have evolved towards….. 2 pages without any supporting facts, reasoning, or methodology given.
(4) Fourth, an excerpt from the GDRC Charter is as follows:
“The Task Force’s objective is to recommend all revisions necessary to provide clear, cohesive guidelines and usable information while conforming to Big Canoe Covenants and Georgia Law.”
One statement in the Committee’s Final Report really jumps out, when it is stated….
“The GDRC recognizes that some amendments to the Bylaws cannot occur without Developer permission and/or amendments to the Covenants.”
Some of the proposed changes clearly seem to conflict with the Covenants (examples being the Quorum and Amendment Voting changes, both of which are defined in the Covenants in a conflicting manner). It seems to be putting “the cart before the horse” to Vote on Changes to the By-Laws now, when those changes can’t go into effect until changes to the Covenants are made later, and which will also require voter approval.
Furthermore, almost all of the proposed changes fall into a category that will require written Developer approval (see By-Laws Section X, and sections 3.1, 3.4, 3.5) . There is no clarity on whether the Developer has issued such written approval, and IF they have, which Developer would that need to be? The Developer we had 2 weeks ago (Greenwood)??? Or the Developer we have now (Big Canoe Holdings)??? That alone is another legal discussion I am sure…. which I cannot imagine has happened, since the change in Developers was unknown to the Board until about a week ago.
CLOSING THOUGHT: I hope that as ballots begin to arrive in the mail, property owners will be patient and wait a week or so before casting their votes. Ballots aren’t due until December, and this newspaper is currently reviewing, and verifying prior to release, some recently submitted information that could have significant impact on upcoming election. It won’t hurt to wait a few days to get more information. As my daddy used to say, “it never hurts to listen, and you can always say NO.”
This Article Shareable Online at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/FocusonBigCanoeGA/permalink/949054589122394/
Peace,
– david / publisher
Focus on Big Canoe, GA
* a publication of The Mountains Voice
Be the first to comment