Greetings All Big Canoe Property Owners. My name is David Hopkins; the publisher of this Newspaper (FOBC); long time Resident and Property Owner. I recently announced that I was considering running for the Board of Directors.
First, I want to thank all the people that signed my Campaign Petition. Suffice it to say that I had the required signatures within an hour or two of release, and it grew from there. Also thanks to all the people that sent supportive emails, that called, and that took time with me on the phone to share information, etc. At the end of the day I have decided not to run. There were many reasons I came to this decision (most effective use of my time?; 3 year commitment; peace of mind; family & friend input, etc..), but this article is only going to focus on one of the contributing factors – potential legal jeopardy I could be putting myself in.
The Process of running for the Board of Directors begins with the formal signing of a “Letter of Receipt” that says, “I have received a Petition for Election with copies of the Election Process: Information and Expectations“. That last word ended up being a critical factor in my decision not to run. Let me share directly with the community a Copy of the “Election Process: Information and Expectations” (12 Pg PDF) that I had to sign to receive.
I think every property owner should read the 12 Pg PDF document, especially those few individuals that currently stand at the forefront of attempting change from the outside, as seeming organizers of a property owner “movement”. I will let the document speak for itself, but will throw out a few bullet points for “guiding thought” or observations that I made in my review process, as I went through this multiple times, also cross referencing Georgia Legal Code and Case Law.
- The 1st point I want to make is that no one has ever released this document before. The entire process of having to formally sign a “letter of receipt” seems rather designed to insinuate a certain “Confidentiality”. But there is none, so I am releasing it in the public interest. But even I had to think twice, and I think average Candidates do so as well. Which again, may be why this information has never been publicly shared. Seems rather Non-Transparent. So that ends now.
. - Maybe it is just me, but there is a lot in this document that seems rather intimidating. There is a heavy focus on the potential liability that Directors assume in their decision making – BUT, if you go along with the “Experts”, then a Director is “not liable”. The way it is presented doesn’t appear to be a true and full representation of what the Law intends. This felt to me like the beginning of a creepy grooming process in which I was being prepared to do what I was told.
.
A perfect example of this misuse of “Experts” is in regards to the current situation with Lake Petit Dam. We have Geosyntec that the Directors rely on as “their expert” to cover their legal butts, but Geosyntec’s analysis of the Dam’s Seismic stability was never actually accepted by Ga Safe Dams (the Legal Authority and “experts” themselves). Then we hired very reputable “experts” in Piedmont Geotechnical and Jordan, Jones and Goulding Engineering that issued reports clearly stating that the Dam was NOT Seismically stable, and did NOT meet minimum requirements. Ms Gaddis seems to imply that only the hand selected “Expert” currently favored and paid by POA Management is to be relied upon, and that “experts” with opposing ideas can be ignored, and that somehow that erases any thought or responsibility from the process. My personal “Standard of Care” and “Business Judgement Rule” would be to err on the side of caution, the majority of “experts”, and my fiduciary responsibility to the safety of the community, and demand compliance.
. - An interesting side note is that much of this seems to have been prepared by the previous Big Canoe Attorney (Nowack) who resigned in February 2020 (coincidentally after taking the fall over another election snafu.) POA 12/2/2019 Eblast Quote “Counsel acknowledged that he had made a drafting error, albeit a significant one. Counsel has agreed to reimburse the POA for all expenses associated with this remailing and to not bill for professional time spent dealing with this matter.” It is curious that both his written campaign and director “advice” is included along with that by current attorney Kimberly Gaddis.
. - Two (2) excerpts really jumped out, and seem representative of a general tone and intent that seems to be found throughout the campaign process and actual service on the board, that being to keep secret any opposing thought, opinion or facts from property owners. I personally don’t know that I could feel comfortable not being able to at least publicly share another set of facts that my position was based on. There is no branch of US. or Georgia government that takes such an iron-fisted stance. While it is true that we must accept the majority decision, I do not feel that that expands to being silenced as to opposing viewpoints. I think this is the very definition of “Non-Transparency”. The following is from Pg 6, 3rd Column:
.
6. “Do not …… vote against or register a dissent in the minutes
7. Support Board decisions even if you voted against it: Board speaks as one.
.
Overall I was not comfortable with the legal jeopardy that I could be putting myself in if I continued to just “go along” with what I consider to be dangerous, unsafe, or fiscally irresponsible decisions that I currently see being made by the Board. I promised that I would try and run a “clean and professional” campaign, and to serve the same way. If my intention is truly to try and change things, then I don’t think that is possible under the current POA Attorney, who I have heard can be very aggressive and obnoxious.
I also have learned that the rumors of very restrictive NDA’s (Non-Disclosure Agreements that contain more so than law requires) are indeed “pushed” on new Directors. There is no legal requirement to sign such, and I wouldn’t, but my understanding is that there is considerable pressure put on new Directors to do so. That alone would set up for a very confrontational and public situation with me. I would take it all the way to litigation, and I don’t respect ANY Director that doesn’t refuse such additional control as well.
I actually think this should be a “Litmus Test” commitment that ALL Candidates should make – that elected Directors will rely only on the LEGAL restrictions already in place under Ga Law, and NOT SIGN any additionally restrictive NDA’s that only serve to further the atmosphere of Non-Transparency that exists. Change can begin with this small step – the Candidates committing to this one point of refusing the NDA.
In the end I am not the kind of guy that likes to waste his time. I think attempting change from within this Board IS a waste of time – unless a person was willing to really raise a stink, and go public, and open themselves to potential harassment threats of litigation, by a bully attorney.
I think it will take aggressive, persistent and ultimately litigious outside pressure to change things. So that is the path I will continue to take, and call for. The bottom line is that the governing system within Big Canoe is completely and utterly corrupt and broken. My Opinion. Period.
This Article Shareable Online at our FOBC Public News Group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/FocusonBigCanoeGA
Peace,
– david / publisher
Focus on Big Canoe, GA
* a publication of The Mountains Voice
Be the first to comment