Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

WHEN, OR WILL, THE WPA ANSWER MY REQUEST TO REVIEW RECORDS, AS REQUESTED UNDER STATE LAW, PROVIDED TO ME BY DE MARCHI

HERE IS WHAT I SENT AGAIN TODAY:

Wedgefield Office <WEDGEASSOC.COM@frontier.com>
Subject:No Response To Request to Review Records
Priority:NormalDate:Wednesday, March 4, 2015 8:37 AMSize:3 KB
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE BOARD AND PLACE A COPY IN THE CORRESPONDENCE FILE 
 
Board, the following request was left in the locked drop box at the office, with 
a $500 check.  The check for our assessment has been cashed, leaving me to 
believe that you also received my letter/request.  I have not received an 
answer.  I have since had medical tests scheduled for March 5th.  I'd like to 
change the date to review the records to March 10, at 1:00 PM.   I'd appreciate 
a timely response. 
  
 
HERE IS THE LETTER: 
 
February 24, 2015 
 
TO:  WPA BOARD 
 
FROM:  Madeline Y. Claveloux 
 
RE:  INSURANCE QUESTION & REQUEST TO REVIEW RECORDS 
 
At the end of the January WPA Board Meeting, a resident asked the board whether 
the association insurance policy allowed for, or covered volunteers who were 
performing work on association projects.  Legal Chair, Garrison said that he 
didn’t know.  The question is important, as during the meeting the board 
discussed the fact that volunteers would be working on the gatehouse project.  
During previous meetings, it had been stated from the board table, that there 
was mold in the gatehouse.  Since the January meeting, I have observed board 
member McMillin, and a committee volunteer sweeping up debris around the 
gatehouse, with a open trailer parked near by, containing moldy dry wall.  Did 
the board, prior to any work being done inside the mold infested (hazardous) 
gatehouse, verify that volunteers are covered while performing manual and 
sometimes, hazardous work for the association, either through review of the 
policy, or phone call to the insurance provider? If so, I’d like to review the 
portion of the policy that states that volunteers are covered in these 
situations.  My reason for the request is that I am concerned for the health and 
safety of our volunteers, and I believe the board is endangering our insurance 
coverage.  
 
I would also like to review the most recent Request for Proposal and bid 
response (2), for the gatehouse fix.  The reason for the request is that I would 
like to see whether there was consistency in following proper bid procurement 
processes.  A lack of consistency has been observed in previous reviews, and 
during discussions at the board table. 
 
I would like to come to the office on March 5th, at 1:00PM, to review the 
records. I am giving more than a 5-business day request for the review of 
records, as required by state law, which was sent to me by board member, 
DeMarchi quite some time ago. 
 
Please note that a $500 check for our 2014 assessment is included with this 
request, making me a member in good standing.  As long as our board changes the 
policy manual in an apparent attempt to circumvent the By-Laws, I will continue 
to pay our assessment at the last possible moment, to avoid late fees. 
 
 
P

Sunday, March 1, 2015

THE WPA SELECTS A NEW GROUNDS CONTRACTOR DURING THE FEB. BOARD MEETING

NOTE:  I did not attend the meeting, but I have listened to this part of the meeting tape, as always, I suggest that you listen to the tape to verify it for yourself.

The selection of a grounds contractor was a drawn out affair.  Grounds chair, McMillin announced that five bids were received. From what I heard on the tape, the bids were opened at the table. A board member suggested that the bids be copied, so that each board member could review them.  While the bids were being copied they moved on to other things.

Once the bids were presented to the board, discussion began. McMillin began by saying, "I want to mention that at no time, did I discuss any terms - not a word.  They all got equal..."  He went on to report that he asked all the contractors whether they were able to do the scope of work. All contractors were given an opportunity to see the contract format. From what I heard on the tape, McMillin gave each of the bidders a tour of the work areas and stated their associated work requirements.  This is a problem, as it opens the possibility of one being provided more information than the other.  This is no accusation against McMillin.  It would seem if you sent a request for proposal, and felt that a site visit by potential bidders, would aid in understanding the scope of work, that you would state a date and time, a bidders meeting/conference, where all could hear and see the same things, at the same time.  It levels the playing field and removes any potential claims of favoritism.

Once again, private lot mowing was included, which generated a lot of discussion.  The current grounds vendor was highly criticized.   It appeared from the discussion, that not all bidders addressed every aspect of pricing.  Please keep the following term in mind, as it will be used in another article.  The term is, "not responsive", and it was used by DeMarchi.  It appeared to me, that if a contractor didn't address all aspects of pricing in each individual area, they were ruled out.  That's fair, if it is applied by this board, every time they are looking at a bid process, and contract award.

In the end, the contract was awarded to Southern Lawns.  The board should be congratulated for posting the request for proposal in the Georgetown Times.  While we won't go into the complete discussion, DeMarchi held McMillin's feet to the fire during the discussions, regarding the private lot mowing portion of the contract.  We, as residents, have subsidized the mowing of private lots in the past, because of McMillin's pricing.  Southern Lawns is under contract with the condos, and reports are positive, regarding their work.

NEXT:  THE POND  BULK HEAD



Saturday, February 28, 2015

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

TWO ARTICLES WERE ADDED ON FEBRUARY 24

MY LETTER TO THE BOARD REQUESTING RECORDS REVIEW

February 24, 2015

TO:                  WPA BOARD

FROM:            Madeline Y. Claveloux

RE:                  INSURANCE QUESTION & REQUEST TO       
                        REVIEW RECORDS

At the end of the January WPA Board Meeting, a resident asked the board whether the association insurance policy allowed for, or covered volunteers who were performing work on association projects.  Legal Chair, Garrison said that he didn’t know.  The question is important, as during the meeting the board discussed the fact that volunteers would be working on the gatehouse project.  During previous meetings, it had been stated from the board table, that there was mold in the gatehouse.  Since the January meeting, I have observed board member McMillin, and a committee volunteer sweeping up debris around the gatehouse, with a open trailer parked near by, containing moldy dry wall.  Did the board, prior to any work being done inside the mold infested (hazardous) gatehouse, verify that volunteers are covered while performing manual and sometimes, hazardous work for the association, either through review of the policy, or phone call to the insurance provider? If so, I’d like to review the portion of the policy that states that volunteers are covered in these situations.  My reason for the request is that I am concerned for the health and safety of our volunteers, and I believe the board is endangering our insurance coverage. 

I would also like to review the most recent Request for Proposal and bid response (2), for the gatehouse fix.  The reason for the request is that I would like to see whether there was consistency in following proper bid procurement processes.  A lack of consistency has been observed in previous reviews, and during discussions at the board table.

I would like to come to the office on March 5th, at 1:00PM, to review the records. I am giving more than a 5-business day request for the review of records, as required by state law, which was sent to me by board member, DeMarchi quite some time ago.

Please note that a $500 check for our 2014 assessment is included with this request, making me a member in good standing.  As long as our board changes the policy manual in an apparent attempt to circumvent the By-Laws, I will continue to pay our assessment at the last possible moment, to avoid late fees.


RESIDENT QUESTIONS THE BOARD REGARDING ASSESSMENTS





THE FOLLOWING LETTER TO THE BOARD HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE BLOG, BY THE RESIDENT WRITER.   AS ALWAYS, THEIR NAME HAS BEEN REMOVED.

Date:Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:26 AM
From:
To:WPA Office <wedgeassoc.com@frontier.com>
Subject:Annual Assessments paid with partial payments?
Kathy, please copy this email and distribute a copy to each Board member and the WPA correspondance file.
 
During our February Board meeting, and during a discussion of paid yearly assessments, it was revealed that some WPA members paid their yearly assessments in parts, rather than as one lump sum.
The WPA Policy manual, currently on the WPA website, makes no mention that such partial payments are permitted. How does this "Sub Rosa" action exist outside the Policy Manual rules? 
 
And a related question: how are the "late fees" penalties for these members handled - considering that they would probably appear to pay for these penalties as well.   
 
How many members (expressed as the # of lots or condo units) paid their assessments in this manner in 2014? In 2015 collected to-date?
 
I appreciate an answer to these questions.