Total Pageviews

Sunday, November 19, 2017

THE WPA 2017 ANNUAL MEETING RESULTS, AND COMMENTS


************************************************
Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com.  We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it *.  P.S.  If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
***************************************************
I attended the WPA annual meeting yesterday, and will provide the following results as I noted them.  I reviewed the WPA website this morning, and as of 9:30am they have not been posted.  That is not a criticism, simply fact.  

The votes for the board seats:
Williams 218
McMillin -194
Vasey - 118
Downs - 116

The by-law amendment passed.

Comment:  I congratulate Connie Downs despite the loss.  The vote between Downs and Vasey was within 2 votes.  I thank her for her time, energy, and time taken to study the governing documents, regular attendance at  board meetings, and her guts to ask questions.  I wish Williams and Vasey well, and hope that they will take the time to study the governing documents, before they ever sit at the board table.  Both Vasey and Williams stated themselves that they weren't familiar with the governing documents, pre annual meeting.  Williams has shown the entire association that he has the ability to look at a problem, find a resolution, commit, organize, and implement.  Vasey only wanted to serve on ARC, and currently sits on the canal committee.  Serving in those roles, for about six months prior to the election, he should have known about the governing documents, and what they contained.  I ask that they each serve as individuals, and vote from the board table as individual board members, whose very placement on the board require them to know, understand, and govern us according to the governing documents.  Personally, I firmly believe your board will see a large "reckoning" legal type moment this year.  You only needed to look at your board's ongoing poor performance at the annual meeting this year.  

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MEETING ITSELF:
Board members in attendance:  Jacky Walton, Garrison, Anderson, Johnson, Phillips, Ebert, Garrison.  Board members absent:  John Walton, Cline.

In regard to a quorum, it was explained that after delinquencies were considered that 530 properties were able to cast votes.  177 were necessary to meet the requirements of quorum.  205 mail in ballots had been mailed in. 

Proof of mailing notice was presented.

A motion was made for the election process to proceed. Garrison called for nominations from the floor three times, as required, and there weren't any.

The election committee member names were announced and the ballots to be casted by members were collected, and the committee retired to count.

The 2016 annual meeting minutes were read, and it appeared that Garrison stopped to pencil a typo correction (this becomes notable later),  and proceeded to the end.  The minutes of the 2016 annual meeting were voted on and approved as read.

President's report:  Jacky Walton thanked all the volunteers on committees, and asked that new people step forward.

Vice president's report:  Garrison thanked Cline and Ebert for their service on the board.  He said he would like to see the Easter Egg Hunt expand beyond Easter, and possibly hold a barbecue.  He stated we didn't have a lot of children in the association, saw them, and a few residents who brought their grandchildren to this event .  We could keep the bouncy house, and if the residents think it is a good idea, maybe have hot dogs, and residents bring dishes to pass.

Secretary's report: - None

Treasurer's report:  Phillips reported the board approved the 2018 budget, with the 2018 assessments set at $525.  The budget goes to each board member as it is developed for their recommendations, prior to the final.  She named the finance committee members.

ARC report:  Johnson reported that it had been a slow month.  Over the last year we have seen 3 new construction, and 48 change or tree permits.  ARC has issued less fines.  Adjustments have been made to storage sheds, and tree removal.  ARC would welcome suggestions as to how to improve.

Legal report:  Garrison stated that most of the year was set in delinquent accounts.  If the board has to go to foreclosure to collect the legal costs are around $2,000, and different than we might think, that often is not recovered in the final determinations.  Get your assessments in early.  There was a legal lawsuit against and individual board member that was summarily dismissed, and is not active at this moment.

Finance report:  Phillips stated that the monthly financial reports were prepared by a CPA for $150/month.  As to why the financials weren't on the website, she said a lot of data was lost when the computer system was hijacked for ransom, and the new site is not pass word protected, as designed by your board.  She assured us that none of our bank accounts hold more than $250,000 as necessary protection of funds.

Communication report:  No report provided.

Welcome committee report:  Ebert reported that during 2017 15 new members were welcomed either by mail, or in person visits, depending on the new resident's preference.

Drainage committee:  Jacky Walton reported that there were 5 drainage issues in 2017.  Three of those were the responsibility of the property owner, and the committee was still working on two.

Water amenities committee report:  No report provided.

Roads report:  Anderson reported that during 2017 most of the road concerns were handled with cold patch.  There are a few streets which will require more than that in the near future.  The issue of aging street signs brought excessive bid numbers, and it was decided that we'll use what we have for now.  The speed bump survey included in our annual meeting packets showed 95 for, and 89 against.  Discussions will follow at a later date.

Grounds report:  McMillin stated that we were storm damage free for the last year.  The storm clean up reserve had been depleted after the last hurricane, and $20,000 was allocated by the board for the reserve.  Howard's, the grounds contractor has notified the board that he will accept the terms of the current contract when it comes up in February.  Nina Williams will hold a Crime Watch meeting.  He goes on to say that the Georgetown County Sheriffs recommend "see something, say something, but don't put yourself at risk."  Plans to decorate grounds for the holidays are set for November 25 and 26.  He made a motion to give residents free votive candles for the luminary event.  Two cases of candles only cost $240.  Motion passed.

Compliance report:  Garrison stated the committee is in the process of putting together a packet for closings.  The board already has to be involved because they have to provide a signed waiver of first refusal, and a document stating the property is clear of back assessments.  The packet would contain a document for the new owner to sign that would state that they are becoming a member of the WPA, and some guidance, so we don't hear, "I didn't know I had to do that."

Old business - None

New business - None

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER'S GENERAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE REPORTING PORTION OF THE MEETING:  We had no reports from several key areas of our board's work for the year, and some of the reports were laughable as representative on your board's expenditure of funds - often against our governing documents, general communication of withdrawal of resident information without discussion or vote from the board table, contracting methods (please go review the documents in the office regarding some of these procurement oriented projects), and to replace real annual meeting discussion we get free hot dogs (costs minimal, and votive lights ($240).  

No water amenities report!  Committee chair, John Walton wasn't present, but we had McMillin, Anderson, Johnson, Jacky Walton, and Garrison there, and in the past reports have been submitted for reading when the chair is absent.  All of these board members have been involved in some pretty shaky moves in providing illegally (against governing documents) up to $135,000 of our assessment dollars for dredging!  How many canal lot owners have committed themselves to this illegal mess?  Where was a report that this board illegally spent $7,950 out of emergency reserves, that were depleted for all of us, on illegal tree cutting on private lots on the canals.  No note what so ever, even if you believed their ridiculous writings when questioned.  

Where in the grounds report do we hear about any of the money spent - their words - on the "neglected, damaged, spoil site - that McMillin claimed "the whole board knew why", and he "listened to someone who was no longer there", and wouldn't tell us, but has spent money out of our assessment dollars.  What about a report on the spoil site?

No communications report about a website where minutes, financials, recordings have been removed, half of the time, and no announcements posted regarding open meetings, and first readings to policy manual changes.

Where was a report under finance as to how much we actually pay for financial record keeping.  How much time does the office secretary spend on entries?  What is the cost and time allocation to her?  Just how much do we pay that bookkeeper, in addition to the $150 /month CPA, that they then pay to audit the books.

As to financial reporting of expense for all of 2017 from this board, we get possibly the cost of free hot dogs at Easter, and $240 of votive lights.

The meeting was a sham.  

WE MOVE TO RESIDENT QUESTIONS.  PLEASE NOTE:  I WILL HAVE COMMENTS IN RED AFTER SOME OF THE RESIDENT COMMENTS, AND WILL NOTE THEM AS COMMENTS.  I WAS PROUD OF THE RESIDENTS WHO PRESENTED THEM:

Resident # 1:  Who is responsible for the website - Cline, someone else - what committee. Our president says the website is discussed under communication, and they'd like to get it up and running.

Resident # 2:  The lights for the luminaries are not enough, not enough containers.

Resident # 3:  Crime Watch Meeting on December 5th at 6:30PM at the WPA office.

Resident # 4:  Thanks the people for contributing to the mowing initiative on the golf course, until purchased.

Resident # 5:  Problem with children driving golf carts.

Resident # 6:  Would like the reserve study published.  We don't know too much about it, but feel that it is important that we all get to review it.  Someone on the board says it is long, and there is a copy at the office.  McMillin says the reserve study is flexible, and forecasts how much things could cost in the future.  The resident says "lets you move money around".  Another resident jumps in, and asks if it will be updated.  Our president says the company will update every three to five years, at a reduced rate.  Resident asks who contacts who?  The president says they will contact the board.  COMMENTS:  A big thank you to the two residents who jumped in and brought this question forward.  The answers from your board are vague, and I believe that way on purpose.  Dear president, it has to have been three years, and real close to five already.  This is a big document - not only by size, but when the reserve study was being prepared, your board refused to allow a sitting board member to speak to the contractor during contractor to board conference calls.  Additionally, almost without exception, every time your board transfers money through motion from operating to reserves for allocation to the various reserve accounts, someone on that board says, "are we appropriating according to the reserve percentages", and the answer from whoever is the treasurer at the time - that would be either Phillips, or former board member DeMarchi, and the answer is "yes".  I'd suggest that you go to the minutes, but they are so sanitized, that they don't include that discussion.  So go to the tapes of the board meetings and listen for yourself, but the board has removed the tapes from the website, and often the minutes.  More to follow, after other residents' comments and questions.

Resident (Former WPA president) # 7:   There is a by-law change on the ballot this year to make a change to omit the CPA.  This association has 1/2 MILLION dollars in reserves, and he names a figure that I couldn't catch, but says this much money from assessments each year.  You have a CPA at $150/mo?  You get what you pay for.  You can't have a bargain (my word) CPA because they are less doing this. You have the same CPA auditing himself.  Where is that good business? Someone on the board says that they hired a bookkeeper that does a lot of this stuff, and the CPA doesn't have to.  Garrison says that the by-law as written doesn't exclude a CPA.  The resident says, "you wouldn't have put that in there if you didn't want to change it."  Comment:  THANK YOU RESIDENT!  YOU GOT IT!   Someone on the board says that the board didn't make the resident decide to submit this.  The former president asks who submitted the by-law change.  The board says they have never revealed who submitted by-law amendments.  Comments:  First, I so proud of this resident/former president who questioned this board at the annual meeting.  Thank you, for staying with it!  First, I've told you all that board members are residents.  They have to be a resident, and in good standing to have anything to do with the annual meeting.  A board member who submits a by-law change can legally, snaky fashion, say a resident submitted.  McMillin, as in board member, recently addressed this by-law change in open discussion, saying that "what the BOARD wanted to do with this by-law change" was save us money, a $150/mo".  You decide whether the RESIDENT who submitted it was a board member.  Also remember that Garrison threw out at board meetings, on the dredging issue, that a resident had submitted a by-law change in 2015 that stated that absolutely no money would be spent on the canals, from our assessment dollars - ever.  He reported that the lawyer for the board said that it couldn't be placed on the ballot because of some technical writing problems, but now the resident knew what it took, and it was coming our way.  He used this scare tactic to all canal lot owners until the private canal lot owners meeting, with Garrison, amongst many other board members present.  He was asked about that by-law amendment coming up again in 2016, and he reported that HE had talked to that member, and they had agreed to hold off "for now".  The point, like that canal amendment, either it was a member of the board, or someone Garrison controlled.  

Resident # 8, and more numbers, because it is me, Madeline Claveloux, and I stood up a couple of times.  This gets complicated.  I will only report what I asked, and what I was told.  There was some interaction with a board member after, that I will not discuss until I see if it unfolds.  That was my commitment.  I wasn't asked by the board member to keep it to myself, but I chose to in attempting to move forward.  

I'm reporting to the best of my ability.  I can't take notes when I am talking.  I have great recall.  I have readers who were present at the meeting and I ask that if you find error in what I say today, that you write the blog, and note your concern.  I will remove your name, and publish it.

I asked how my board could have passed numerous changes to the policy manual, without posting first reading on the WPA website as required by a by-law that was submitted by a resident for a vote at an annual meeting, voted on, and passed a few years ago?  I asked where our legal and compliance committee were that they had allowed this to happen for at least a year and a half, with numerous changes to the policy manual, voted on by every member of that board repeatedly.  The board's answer was that they'd take a look at that!  I came back and stated that every board member at that board table was responsible for knowing the by-laws - governing documents, and it went beyond compliance, and legal, when they all voted to approve without following the by-law.  They sat looking at their hands each and everyone of them.  I further asked if they'd have to recind any of those changes, until they did the right thing?  They'll have to look into it.  Comments:  Residents, call me outspoken, trouble maker, whatever you want, but this is blatant disregard for our governing documents, and our operations in the best interests of Wedgefield.  Hot dogs and votive lights will not buy me.  The fact is, your individual board members and president all ignored this intentionally, and don't care.  If you review the changes to the policy manual they made, they gave themselves higher spending limits, etc.  At times, they ignore what even they put in the policy manual in regard to requests for proposals, bidding, contract development etc.  It is costing us all, and they are thumbing their noses at us, and handling our governance and our very homes, and lives like we are a herd of dumb animals.  The fact is, it hasn't been just a year and a half of this stuff, it has been about 3 years, and I called them on it once before, and they did nothing.  I talked to the actual resident who had submitted this by-law change regarding posting between first and second reading and a vote to change the policy manual.  That resident said that after the by-law had passed requiring this, that he/she was serving on the compliance committee to review and change as needed the policy manual.  When the board wasn't following the by-law requirements then, he/she met with our current president, and he said it would be remedied, and they were false promises because it never happened, and he/she was no longer a member of the committee.

As noted above, during the reading of the 2016 annual meeting minutes, I observed Garrison as the reader, correcting a typo on his copy.  The minutes were approved.  I asked the board if the minutes would be posted immediately?  I went on to say that the reason for my question was that at the regular October 2017 board meeting, as the board went to approve the September minutes (the board reviews hard copy - they are not read aloud), a board member noted a typo, and went on to approve the September minutes.  Yet the September minutes were not posted on the WPA website following the meeting.  I had checked the site a number of times.  One of the board members called out to the paid staff person Lee, who stood up and said they were posted immediately following the meeting.  I didn't argue.  I didn't have my documentation in front of me.  I have to tell you that I was lied to during the annual meeting.  After the October meeting, and my own observations of lack of posting of the September minutes, I received a call from a resident asking me why the September minutes weren't posted.  I said that I couldn't find them on the site either, and if they were concerned they needed to contact the board.  That other resident sent the following email to me, verifying what he/she was told verbally, and through email from Lee at the office.  I've removed the name of the resident to protect harassment by this board. NOTE THE DATE OF THE EMAILS.  IT WAS TWO WEEKS AFTER THE OCT. BOARD MEETING.

Date:Tuesday, October 31, 2017 1:51 PM
From:Name removed
To:mclaveloux@sc.rr.com <mclaveloux@sc.rr.com>
Subject:Fw: September meeting minutes

fyi...see below.   I guess the typo that was pointed out during the board meeting constitutes a delay in posting the minutes.   These won't get posted til December now.   







From: Lee Cote <wedgeassoc.com@frontier.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 1:49 PM
To: Name Removed
Subject: Re: September meeting minutes

After a Motion has been made and seconded, the minutes will be posted.
Lee Cote
Secretary to the Board
Wedgefield Plantation Association, Inc.
1956 Wedgefield Road
Georgetown, SC 29440
843.546.2718
843.546.4027 fax

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 1:48 PM, Resident Name Remove


Hello Lee,
When will the September meeting minutes get posted to the website?   

Thanks, 

Back to my own last question to the board.  I asked the board how they could appropriate money to the reserves according to the reserve study, when according to president Walton's answer to a resident question (not mine) at the time that the canals were included in the proposal, but not the final reserve study.  President Walton didn't recall that, and they'd have to look into it.  This is a long subject which will require a lot of documented research.  I have the information, and I went to the office after the reserve study was approved, and reviewed it, took notes, and reported on it, on the blog with documentation, at the time.  So for now, I'll present to you the rest of the story as it relates to this question, by posting what I emailed a resident last night.  Here it is:
There is something smelly there when I had questions after, and quoted Jacky Walton about his answer at the time of the reserve study completion when he was asked if the canals were in the study, and Jacky answered that they were in the proposal, but not the final.  Larry jumped in and said there were TWO SETS of finals.  I requested and reviewed the final  way back then, and the company had stated clearly that the board didn't want the canals in the study.  

STAY TUNED FOR THE RESERVE STUDY REPORT!    






Thursday, November 16, 2017

TWO NEW ARTICLES WERE POSTED TODAY, NOVEMBER 16. WE'VE ADDED A SPECIAL THANKSGIVING NOTICE WITH THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.


THE WPA BOARD PRESIDENT WILL NOT BE PARDONING A TURKEY FOR THANKSGIVING THIS YEAR!
IT ISN'T THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE A HEART FOR THESE BIRDS,
BUT HE PARDONS HIMSELF, AND THE ACTIONS OF HIS BOARD MEMBERS EVERY MONTH THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, AND HE JUST HASN'T GOT ANY PUBLIC PARDONS LEFT.
SORRY TURKEYS!

SOME INFORMATION FOR THE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE ASKED ABOUT SUING THE BOARD, OR IF THERE WERE AGENCIES THAT THE BOARD'S ACTIONS COULD BE REPORTED TO.

IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING SUING, REPORTING, OR HAVING THE BOARD INVESTIGATED, THIS INFORMATION MIGHT HELP.


*************************************************



Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com.  We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it *.  P.S.  If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
*******************************************************************
Readers, as I stated at the end of the article on the spoil site, I some residents have contacted me about suing the board.  Still others, have asked who in the state that they could report the board to, and have them investigate certain actions of the board. One of the last contacts asked me to participate in a secret community committee to investigate actions of the board, and help put information together to proceed down one of these avenues.  As I follow the stats on the blog I see readers researching all the way back to 2011 - the beginning of the blog to gather information for their own purposes.  For a few, who have contacted me for even more information prior to 2011, I have suggested they follow the articles presented with documentation on The Wedgefield Times, which goes back prior to 2011.

Yesterday, as I was doing some research on Internet, I came across the document I will provide below.  It is a letter from SC Attorney General's Office responding to someone as to whether that office will get involved with HOA illegalities.  As you read through you'll note that they really would prefer not to use their resources that way, but there is a chance that they will.  I'd suggest that the small groups that have contacted me, consider this approach. Remember that our state has tried a few times to help residents whose homes are under the governance of a HOA board, and failed. It has appeared to me, and obviously others, or I wouldn't be getting these calls to meetings, that more and more people understand the desperation in Wedgefield.  Get your documentation in order on the facts related to your concerns, what you see as violations (document), and proceed.  If I were doing it, I would also note copies to the governor, our local congressional representatives, and our senators, and get signatures from as many residents as possible for the cover page of your document.  Hope this helps, and gives you thought as to another way that you might proceed.

HERE IS THE DOCUMENT:









 







PLEASE ATTEND THE ANNUAL MEETING THIS SATURDAY. IF YOU HAVEN'T VOTED, PLEASE DO! I READY TO VOTE, AND EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE THREE OPENINGS ON THE BOARD, I'M ONLY VOTING FOR TWO! SAY NO TO YOUR BOARD'S BY-LAW AMENDMENT!


Monday, November 13, 2017

PART II WAS ADDED ON 11/14. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN THE ARTICLE TO PART II OF THE NOT SO HIDDEN FACTS ABOUT THE "NEGLECTED SPOIL SITE"


*************************************************


Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com.  We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it *.  P.S.  If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
*******************************************************************
NOTE:  THIS ARTICLE WILL HAVE TO BE POSTED IN TWO PARTS.  I'LL JUST NOTE PART II ON THE HEADLINE AND CONTINUE ADDING WHEN IT IS READY BECAUSE SOON WE WILL HEAR THAT THE SPOIL SITE IS DAMAGED WITHOUT COMMENT OF HOW?  IT IS GOING TO COST MORE.  HERE IS PART I OF THE ARTICLE.

There shouldn't be any thing that is private, or hidden from Wedgefield residents, regarding any part of our governance by our board.  Our governing documents call out for open meetings, open dialogue - full disclosure of fact - dissemination

 of fact particularly regarding expenditures- discussion at the board meetings, open votes on all issues let alone critical ones, proper and full  documentation in minutes, and financial reporting, and for sure - ready access to all documents to the members.  As residents, we have minimal scraps of that, allowed by our legal/compliance/vice president/member of numerous committees, Garrison on a very infrequent basis, often presented with anger, and sarcasm.  Is Garrison alone responsible despite his "you know who runs the board"?  No!  Each and every board member has the responsibility to stop this illegal locomotive, but they don't.  In fact they all appear to conspire in order to get their individual newest, and greatest (not) project through.  Such is the case with the dredging, the golf course (non action), and for certain the spoil site.  Our governance is an illegal nightmare, and we are becoming the village of the damned.  On to the crooked story of the spoil site.

We can't start at the beginning, but we can begin to track fact, or lack of, with the canal lot owners private meeting with most on this board on August 11, 2016.  Those board members are Garrison, Jacky Walton, John Walton, Johnson, Anderson, and McMillin, and add the volunteers on the Water Amenities Committee.  I will remind you that this should have been a meeting open to every member, and we were refused access.  We won't spend time on the commitment without a motion, discussion, or a vote at a WPA board meeting, of up to $135,000 of all of our assessment dollars.  That is another story, and we will cover it later.  It is too twisted to include in this posting.  Do keep in mind that the spoil site is critical to dredging, and the WPA does own it.  I have all of the handouts that were distributed during that meeting, and have interviewed some who have attended, and the fact that the spoil site, long before we are told, was neglected and overgrown.  Attendees were informed of what would need to be collected from them in order to move forward.  So our first lie of omission, and intentional withholding of the fact of neglect, and responsibility - the entire board, starts there.  What committee and chair is responsible for maintenance of the spoil site?  McMillin!  The twice yearly maintenance of the spoil site resides in the grounds contract.  What you are told is that this board has dedicated itself to doing this dredging right, unlike all those who went before them in the two prior dredgings.  It is the only way.

To proceed with the rest of the documentation I went to the WPA sanitized by this board, monthly meeting minutes, sometimes up on the website, at times hidden on a secret link, and at other times, shut out completely. They are so brief, left without relevant detail, that I went back to the blog, to see what I was reporting at the time.  Like the blog, or not, I do attend the meetings, and report what occurred at each meeting, and the board members' words.  I have to be responsible in such publishing, or I could be sued.  If you are in doubt, ask your board if you can listen to the meeting tapes that were always published on the WPA website, but no longer.  They have removed the tapes from the website, like so many other things.  So we go month by month, meeting minutes, and the blog meeting reports, to follow the tangled tail of the spoil site.

August 16, 2016 WPA Minutes
Water Amenities report by John Walton: "We have started collecting money for Phase I of this project (dredging).  Phase I will involve surveys needed for the canals and spoil site area."  NOTE:  no report of neglect yet. No discussion noted on The Wedgefield Examiner regarding the neglected spoil site.

September 20, 2016 WPA Minutes
No report noted in Water Amenities, or Grounds regarding the spoil site. No discussion noted on The Wedgefield Examiner regarding the neglected spoil site.

October 19, 2016 WPA Minutes
Water Amenities report by John Walton, "Canal dredging still in phase one for engineering report."  Grounds report by McMillin, "10-6-2016, board held exec. Meeting and the board chose to discontinue our Southern Landscapers - and hired Mark Howard on interim basis.  Motion made, Seconded and Passed at closed meeting on October 6."  The Wedgefield Examiner had a question regarding the former maintenance group - Southern Landscapers.  As a member, I wanted to know whether Southern Landscapers had fulfilled their contract to date (they were part way through their 2nd contract year) and earned all of their money, in the contract.  McMillin said yes they had, which would include twice yearly maintenance of the spoil site.  Wait until later, and you can only conclude that McMillin lied in the moment.  Where was John Walton to tell us that that wasn't true?

November 2016 - NO APPROVED MINUTES BECAUSE OF ANNUAL MEETING.

December 20, 2016 WPA Minutes
Water Amenities, "John (Walton) made a motion, Inge seconded for a controlled burn on the spoil site."  NOTE!  I can't help myself.  What would you call these minutes on this subject, except sanitized?  There was so much more discussion and the first glimpse of truth, and they don't want you to know the full dirty details.  Here is what The Wedgefield Examiner posted on that discussion in December 2016 from my meeting notes.   "3) Then John Walton moved to a report on the spoil site.  He starts by saying that the maintenance has been NEGLECTED!  He goes on to say that it is OVERGROWN, and suggested a burn, and that it must be completed by March.  He makes a motion requesting a controlled burn.  He states it would be rather COSTLY.  Anderson seconds the motion!  Jacky Walton wants to know what the alternative is.  Someone at the board table says what they need is a driver tract (my best guess because I'm not familiar with the equipment).  It would be expensive because they would have to get it out there.  The words again, that the spoil site was NEGLECTED.  Now, McMillin says, "WE KNEW WHAT THE PROBLEMS WERE WITH THAT".  No one from that board table acknowledges what THEY KNEW.  McMillin goes on to say that he'll get Howard Landscaping out there - a crew of 4 with CHAIN SAWS.  Someone says the trees have to come down.  Jacky Walton says that he is concerned.  He states that there was a problem near water in the condo area where a burn was tried.  He states he doesn't want a wind change, and a Wedgefield house to burn down.  Another board member says that it is expensive to  do a PROFESSIONAL 
CONTROLLED BURN, AND THERE WASN'T ANY MONEY FACTORED INTO THE PROJECT FOR THIS.  The motion is tabled until next month when more investigation into cost, etc. can be developed."  Yes, that is what really was said during John Walton's motion.  How if Southern Landscapers were the grounds contractor for one and a half years, and according to McMillin's answer (lie) had fulfilled their contract, and earned their money, can we have trees that need chain saws, a burn, and your board, or Water Amenities Committee didn't tell you when they were spelling out their grand plan to canal lot owners, that they neglected this on purpose? They have no money in the proposed budget for dredging for this? They find money later, and it comes out of our assessments under Grounds.  All the while we have grassy lots that are five feet high under McMillin's management, and where is ARC, and compliance?


PART II OF THE SPOIL SITE ARTICLE STARTS HERE.

January 17, 2017 WPA Minutes
Water Amenities, " Waiting for quotes for licensed bonded companies for a controlled burn."   Later in the minutes under resident comments, "Madeline Claveloux spoke to the board about the readiness of the spoil site."  NOTE:  Sanitized minutes for sure, particularly about what I had actually said, and asked, and the response I got from the board table that night.  Here is what I published immediately following the meeting on The Wedgefield Examiner.  "Water amenities chair, John Walton had reported during the meeting that during the last dredging that more money was spent on preparing the spoil site than the dredging itself.  He also reported that the spoil site was very over grown.  I asked how the board could knowingly let that happen.  I explained that McMillin had reported last month that everyone at that board table knew why it got that way.  I asked why everyone at that board table knew, and yet we didn't, and asked what they knew.  McMillin wouldn't name names, but said "he had trusted someone that was no longer there." 

 President Walton shut the meeting down."    First, John Walton is wrong, or not telling the truth about the spoil site in the last dredging.  The spoil site did not cost more than the dredging.  It was approximately 1/3 of the cost.  This board NEGLECTED the spoil site maintenance sometime since, ignoring the grounds contract specifications of twice a year maintenance which would  have kept the burn from ever having to be done.  From a governance stand point, they have covered up, lied to us, and now are telling an ugly, illegal fairy tale, to cover their dirty tracks.  Don't just blame McMillin, and John Walton.  McMillin is on the tapes of these meetings saying that they all knew, and depended on someone on that board who is no longer there.  So they all knew, and your board leader - president Walton shuts the meeting down, to stone wall having to answer questions using their own words, and reported actions.

February 26, 2017 WPA Minutes
Water Amenities, John Walton is making a motion, "to approve Sabine & Waters bid of $3,600 made by John, seconded by Keith.  Motion carried."  Sanitized minutes again.    How were they going to pay for this?  The project had no money for this, they stated that - see above.  McMillin told us everyone on that board knew about the intentional neglect by our board of the spoil site, and last month they had shut down the meeting rather than answer reasonable questions.  McMillin had lied when he previously answered my question about the former grounds contractor meeting all the terms of his contract, and the associated payments.  Who paid for this?  We did, and the spoil site management by this board smells of violations of financial management, governing documents, and any sound business practice.  Here is what I published on The Wedgefield Examiner immediately following the meeting. "As I walked out from the meeting, I talked to a few residents.  One fairly new resident (for your info - no long term friend of mine), said "Who are these people (the board)?  Where did they get them from?  They don't represent me!  You could put a real lawyer in these board meetings full time, and they wouldn't find most of what they did tonight legal."  Yes, a new set of eyes, and ears, untainted by the likes of me, and yet appears to be concerned for the future of Wedgefield, our current rapid decline of neighborhood, and assets, and the behavior and actions of this board.

March 2017 WPA Minutes - nothing reported about the spoil site.

April 18, 2017 WPA Minutes 
Water Amenities, "Dredging Project - The spoil Basin has been burned.  We are waiting for Earth Works to start with the Topographic Survey." (Reported by John Walton)   The Wedgefield Examiner did not print an article about the spoil site immediately following the April board meeting.  I am adding the words from the article I did post immediately following the board meeting because it speaks to your board's general harassing treatment of anyone who questions them, and does relate in general to their illegal nasty handling of not only the spoil site, but all of our business.  I, like many had asked a question during resident comments about the golf course, had sat down, and a few more residents had their questions asked.  I was taking notes when suddenly - Here is what I posted on the Wedgefield Examiner at the time.  "They moved onto other questions, and I continued writing notes, as people had questions.  Out of the blue, from the board table, Garrison says, "You better get that right - the truth."  I told him that I was sick and tired of him harrassing me from the the board table, and in fact a few months ago when I had a  question, and another board member began to answer, that Garrison interrupted, and stated that he "wouldn't be that nice to me".  He then said that "yeah he did, and what was I going to do about it?".
Before I could answer him, board member Cline started that cackling again, and I told her she could stop that harassing cackling from the board table.  She stopped the cackle, and I believe president Walton pounded the gavel.

I've relayed this to the best of my ability.  In the past, I would have gone to the official tape of the meeting, and transcribed it - word for word. YOU NEED TO BE CONCERNED, THAT AFTER YEARS OF THE TAPED RECORDINGS OF MEETINGS BEING POSTED ON THE WPA WEBSITE, THAT THIS BOARD HAS DECIDED WITHOUT DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD TABLE, TO REMOVE THAT OPTION FROM THEIR WEBSITE.  I CAN'T EVEN SUGGEST THAT YOU GO TO THE TAPE OF THE MEETING!


Today, I had another call about Garrison's treatment, and expressed concern, and the comment, that that is why they don't usually attend meetings.  I watched Garrison treat the resident on the 10 months journey of the shed repeatedly this way at meetings.  That "what are you going to do about it", is a fighting phrase, a confrontational phrase.  Remember, I was just sitting writing - no words to the board - no side bar conversations with anyone near me.  There was no reason to come after me like that!  What is worse, is that the board, and our president allow it - sanction it, and for the most part let him serve as spokesperson - the answerer of all questions"  Yes, you have the Gestapo berating anyone who questions.   We move onto another month in the minutes, and the reporting.

May 16, 2017 WPA Minutes
No report in the minutes on the spoil site.  

June 20, 2017 WPA Minutes
John Walton gave the report. "Water Amenities Report Repairs are needed on the dikes of the confined disposal facility. These repairs are necessary because of normal compaction which has occurred since the last dredging. The lowest corner is at 8.11 feet. We need 10.00 as the average dike top for the volume to be safe. We are currently seeking estimates to have this repair work done."

JULY 18, 2017 WPA Minutes
No report in the minutes on the spoil site.

August 15, 2017 WPA Minutes
No report in the minutes on the spoil site.   On August 21, 2017 I publish the following on The Wedgefield Examiner.  "No where in all the months it took to get us to this miserable spoil site place, does anyone declare that the spoil site is damaged, until recently.  No one tells how it was damaged, but they've hired an engineering firm to tell us what it will take to get it done!  Can't wait to hear the story about that.  Will it be the hurricane?  Will someone level with us if it was caused by the burn, or the landscaping crew - the new one that the committee boated over to the spoil site a few months ago - after the neglect that everyone of the people at the board table knew about - according to McMillin?????????

Looks to me like this board's usual performance, plus their effort to bill every place possible but the canal residents, to keep the total cost of their illegal proposed dredging low, so that more will sign up to pay.  The spoil site is owned by the association, but they have cut deals amongst themselves to get this done, according to a plan that harms us all.  Who would trust this crew to take a row boat down the canal?"

September 19, 2017 WPA Minutes
The minutes should have been approved at the October 2017 board meeting.  They have not been published because of a typo.

October 2017 WPA Minutes will not be approved until the December 2017 WPA Board Meeting.  The Wedgefield Examiner attended the meeting, and I have reviewed my notes. Under Water Amenities, as reported by John Walton, he tells us that Earth Works had contractors out to the spoil site to review the work (????) that would be needed to work on the dikes.

Final General Comments:
During the last six months, I've been invited to at least two small groups of residents - I believe it is three, but wouldn't want to embellish the truth.  Each time the agenda was "can we sue the board, we'd be willing to contribute."  I was invited, and not the organizer.  Each time, I reminded those asking that this board will use their money - assessment money, our paid for by assessment dollars insurance company attorneys who will drag the time out, working primarily toward settlement, and it is difficult to collect enough money to continue the lawsuit from the resident side.  Should this board be sued?  I think so, in so many areas - pick almost any of their actions - contracts, the spoil site, records, dredging, failing to follow covenants regarding ARC, harassing residents, cover ups, etc.  I'd support anyone who wants to stand tall and do it, but I won't lead it.  You have a simpler answer - GET THEM OFF THE BOARD 3 AT A TIME BY RUNNING FOR BOARD YOURSELF, AND VOTE THESE "LIFERS" OFF EVEN IF YOU LIKE SOCIALIZING WITH THEM AT BOAT CLUB, BACKYARD BURNING IN POTS (THANKS MCMILLIN), ETC.  DON'T BE AFRAID TO VOTE FOR WEDGEFIELD BECAUSE YOU THINK ONE OF THE VOTE COUNTERS WILL REPORT YOUR VOTE BACK TO THEM.  

For any of you still considering suing the board.  Here is information from a recent legal article about HOA's.
I.    Breach of covenant by the community association
Homeowners have a basis for an action for breach of covenant against their community association where the association fails to fulfill any of the duties it expressly agreed to perform in the community’s legal documents.  See Murphy v. Yacht Cove Homeowners’ Association, 345 S.E. 2d 709 (S.C. 1986).  The duties of a community association typically include management and control of the common areas, including landscaped areas and common recreational facilities, and maintenance and repair of the exterior building surfaces and roofs.  Failure to fulfill any of these duties could subject a community association to a breach of covenant claim brought by a unit owner or occupant.

II.    Breach of the fiduciary duty owed to homeowners by community associations

Homeowners have the right to have the community association exercise ordinary care, in reasonable and good faith manner in the performance of its duties.  For breach of these fiduciary duties, an association may be held liable by an owner.  Breach of fiduciary duty actions may lie where actions or duties not expressly stated in the community’s legal documents are fairly implied by the scope of the duties set forth in the legal documents.  This would include adequate funding or improper management of financial reserves to pay for repair, replacement and maintenance expenses.  Other actions possible to be brought by a unit owner on these grounds may include breach of fiduciary duty due to the failure of the association to sue the developer, declarant or general contractor for construction defects where the units were improperly constructed.

III.    Association director liability
Homeowners have the right to have directors act within their fiduciary duties.  Homeowners may bring an action against a director of a community association on the grounds of breach of fiduciary duty of the director.  Directors, also sometimes referred to as Managers, Trustees, Administrators or the Executive Board, owe fiduciary duties of care to homeowners to exercise ordinary care in performing their duties, to act reasonably and in good faith in their performance of their duties as members of the governing body of the community association.


Directors must exercise reasonable diligence in following through and carrying out the responsibilities assumed by or assigned to them under the governing legal documents.  Generally, directors must remain informed about the community association’s business at all times, be knowledgeable about the legal documents governing the affairs of the association, and attend and participate in the association meetings.  Directors may be held responsible for obtaining and reading the minutes of those association meetings the director was unable to attend.  Directors must also vote against actions taken or adopted by the Board of Directors that they are in disagreement with and record their disagreement in the meeting minutes.  Failure to perform any of these duties in a reasonably diligent and prudent manner could expose the director to liability to homeowners for breach of fiduciary duty.