Special meeting called ~ 6-26-13

Board members Present:

President Suzzi Combs                  John Porter

Vice President Rick Noffsinger     Joe Claflin

Secretary Faye Taylor                    Diane Jones

Treasurer Tom Moore                    Diane Porterfield

Board member absent:

Jack Watson

President Suzzi Combs welcomed the DH members to the Special Board meeting explaining that there are 3 items on the agenda.  The first item was a ‘straw vote’ involving a piece of ‘swamp’ property located down on Coolwood, near the home of Diane Alexander.  This property is technically owned by Entergy and her dead must now reflect that information before she may sell it.  The vote was passed unanimously.

Item 2 on our list is a disciplinary action. The reason that most of you are here tonight. Article VI, Section 1. Item f.  ‘It is possible to remove a member of the Board whenever, in its judgment, the best interests of the POA would be served thereby.’

Suzzi began to read a statement from Attorney Jonathon Jones:

"Attention POA Board members, this is privileged and confidential information.  I attended a Board meeting on June 3^rd, 2013 at the request of the president and various members.  The purpose behind same was to provide updates on all active litigation concerning the DPOA.  The majority of the discussion was properly focused on the most complex case facing the community as a whole.  The Ensminger vs. Chambliss state lawsuit and contained a tremendous amount of information that is protected by the attorney / client privilege.  I returned to work Tuesday morning only to receive a perplexing phone call regarding the Ensminger matter.  The phone call was from the present counsel for Chambliss, Miss Jerry Paine.  Miss Paine and I had a cordial, but awkward phone conversation in which she, with astounding detail, repeated virtually every statement made within the protected environment of the closed board meeting. Please note - This information is regarding a pending lawsuit that carries massive liability and economic ramifications if the DPOA is unsuccessful in its defense.  I recounted the contents of this phone conversation to the Board at the June 11^th, 2013 Board meeting.  Specifically, my utmost concern was given to the nature of t his breach of confidentiality and fiduciary responsibility and the almost undeniable liability of the DPOA if same is allowed to continue.  Since that time, said breach has been acknowledged and admitted by Diane Porterfield.  Thus I believe these actions to be the opitomy of how Board members should not conduct themselves.  Furthermore, the guilty of these transgressions, after a previous breach, regarding the exact same case, by the exact same member, is incomprehensible.  And therefore, I propose Miss Porterfield be removed from her position on the board with utmost confidence and haste."

Suzzi:  This is a very serious matter.  It is not something taken lightly by this Board.  And as you can see, you are as shocked as well.

Diane:  Do I get to speak?

Suzzi:  We will adjourn to executive session and you may speak at that time.

Diane:  You get to say this, but I don’t get to speak out in public?

With that Suzzi handed Diane the microphone.  “Thank you very much (for allowing me to speak) because that was the first time I have heard that (statement from the attorney) at all.  I would have assumed that I would have that information sent to me.

The following information was shared by Diane until stopped by the president requesting Chief Joel Tyner to take the microphone away.
All the information concerning the Ensminger vs. Chambliss case can be found on this Blog:  Police Officer  Please note the dates of postings.
The following is the email Diane sent in response to the President's question:  

          Good morning all…

I had a terrific vacation!  My mother is doing great.  And I had the opportunity to visit my sister and her family for the first time in several years.

If you have not been to Oregon, I highly recommend it.

Diane

  

Jerrie Paine said her clients called her with information that could only have been gleaned from our executive session held on 6/3/13.  Did you disclose any information to anyone that may have been in contact with the Chambliss' or were your in contact with the Chambliss' directly?

This question was posed by our attorney who directly questioned each member in attendance at tonight's executive session.

You may respond to me, or directly to Jonathan Jones at jonathandjones@gmail.com

Suzzi Combs

 501-282-1016

 To answer your question:

No.  I did not contact Jerry Chambliss.  I did discuss this issue with my husband, Sam.  Sam explained how ‘inept’ our attorney has been for many years. Sam sighted several instances of past attorney neglect.  I have also heard this same comment from other members of past boards.

In fact, why did the Chambliss attorney contact Jonathon Jones?  What was the purpose of the phone call? 

Yes.  You all know that I have received information from Jerry Chambliss regarding his case against Diamondhead.  Yes, I know things about this case which you have refused to listen.  Since this issue began in July of 2010, this issue has been mishandled (in my opinion). 

• Why is Jonathon Jones handling this case? It should be managed by our insurance company – Western World.  Which has a deductable of $500.00 --- not $15,000.00
• Was Jonathan Jones correct in his statement that ‘this case is practically over because of Jerry Paine’s neglect in filing documents in a timely fashion’?
• I was asked at Monday, June 3^rd, executive session à ‘Whose side are you on?’ ….Answer:  The truth.

If you think I have a conflict of interest regarding this issue, than ban me from further discussion of this topic. 

I met a lady on the plane who is an attorney with a firm who specialize in Community Associations.  Her name is Anne Williams and recommends this website:  Www.caionline.org

Diane Porterfield
__________________________
The above information was passed out to the attendees, and read aloud.

While Diane was speaking the Board left for Executive Session.  Upon return, it was announced that Diane Porterfield was removed from the Board.  The Board then excused themselves back to executive session to discuss 'personnel issues'.