DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR GOLF CART WAS LAST NIGHT?

WHERE WAS YOUR GOLF CART AT 11:00 PM TUESDAY EVENING?

I hope it was safely parked in your garage.  Someones golf cart was cruising Wedgefield's roads at 11:00 PM with 3 or 4 young people in it.  They were chatting, causing no harm, but there weren't any lights on the golf cart and it was pitch black out.

They could have been harmed.  They could have failed to see something in the road until it was too late - an animal, a parked car, etc.

What is most concerning is if anyone had been out driving at the time, they wouldn't have been able to see them.  If a driver, driving at 25 mph, doing everything they are suppose to do, hits them, whose fault is it?  Beyond that, how would the driver ever forgive themselves if the young people on the cart were injured?

I don't know who the young people were, but I hope they had a safe drive home.  Please protect our car operators by providing proper equipment and training for our Wedgefield youth who operate golf carts.



A UNAMAMOUS VOTE TO SEEK LEGAL OPINION ON CANALS

During the May 15th meeting the Board unanimously passed a motion to seek legal opinion on a possible option for the long term maintenance of the canals.

BACKGROUND:
First, be sure and listen to the tape at The Wedgefield Times.  This is a delicate subject. It is difficult to discuss for a number of reasons.  First, the residents present heard the motion to go to the attorney for advice, but we were not privy to what the option was.  It was not revealed.

In discussion Garrison explained that the Legal Committee had met with a subcommittee of the Water Amenities Committee, the Canal Committee.  During that meeting there was some option common ground, worth exploring from a legal aspect, as to the feasibility.  The over riding goal was to develop a plan that was viable,  legal, and could be a possible solution over the long term.  There was some mention of the fact that an option might come to a vote by the community through a possible by-law change.  If the option isn't feasible then it can publicly be checked off the maybe list, and the group sent back to the drawing table.  

I give the Board credit for attempting to resolve this issue.   

CONFUSING?:
Maybe, but in fairness, I don't believe intentional. I believe most of the Board Members effort is genuine. Confusing because you don't know what the option is? As I was thinking about this I thought that living in Wedgefield with the canal issue is almost like like living in a war zone.  There is nothing that can be announced or discussed, without artillery flying from one side or another.  Yet, even in an honest effort, sometimes the means, harms a good intentioned goal.  What do I mean?

Wouldn't it have been cleaner to state the option that the Board was seeking legal opinion on?  When a public feels there is secrecy, it often brings out the worst in those who wait, in speculation.  We suffered the speculation of a multitude of untruths during the 2009 -10 dredging effort.  Between July and August 2009, when the vote was taken, the Board met 2 or 3 times (the entire Board) with the Canal Finance Committee to review options.    During that time, some Board Members discussed options (with their own twist) with what they called their constituency.  Before the Board could take the vote and lay out the plan, some individuals went door to door frightening non canal lot owners with threats of unbelievable assessment.  They used their speculation to raise the fear level of the community.  This all caused protests,  newspaper articles, and law suits.

DOES THE BOARD HAVE A BINDING INSTRUMENT TO USE IN KEEPING THE OPTION CONFIDENTIAL?:

I don't personally think so.  As stated in an earlier article, when the Canal Committee met with the Legal Committee to discuss options, Legal Chair, Garrison called on confidentiality through  use of the Confidentiality Agreement.  The agreement doesn't fit the circumstance.  The key protection on confidentiality lies in the following:  "All staff and volunteers (board and committee) agree in writing to maintain member confidentiality. Information concerning member status, and financial and other personal information is processed for each individual members through Wedgefield Plantation Association office and is an important part of Wedgefield Plantation. "  Whether you believe anyone should be signing the Confidentiality Agreement, or not, it simply does not apply to the circumstance of most committee's. 

I have sympathy for the Board's apparent attempt to try and keep control of speculation as they attempt to look at long term answers to a contentious problem.  Use of this instrument to stifle communication with the community just appears heavy handed for a Board that labels itself as cohesive, and for many of the Board Members who pledged open governance, when they wanted our votes last fall.  This unenforceable instrument has also limited the residents who are willing to serve on any committee.  I know of three who were serving on committees and would not continue when the requirement to sign the agreement was enforced.  

Don't think,  "too bad, so sad".  We have reduced the benefit of the committee structure when we limit the number of knowledgeable volunteers coming to the table.  Our Boards in general have a history of failing to recognize the power of properly utilizing committees.  More members, more ideas, more buy in from the community, and more ideas for the committee chairs to bring to the Board table.

Finally, why should we all be denied information because of the bad behavior of a certain section of our community?  Quite frankly, we still have some of the former protesters, newspaper groupies, providers of speculation, fear mongers, and lawsuit slingers, sitting on our Board and committees.  Are they afraid residents will cause harm to them, as they did to others?  If you say, "maybe it is lessons learned", I don't believe it.  That section of the Board may be afraid they might have to deal with the same kind of havoc they brought to our community.  Is that why Garrison says, "it will never happen like it did last time."

I don't want  havoc.  I want open, don't beat around the bush governance.   As for the Board Members we elected in 2011 and those that recently filled vacancies, you may have been mesmerized by the "cohesive persuaders", but there really isn't cohesion when you break your pledges, revert to secrecy, reduce access to information, etc., and develop a poorly constructed instrument - the Confidentiality Agreement. 

As a member of the Canal Committee, who hasn't signed the Confidentiality Agreement, I gave my word not to discuss the "option".  My lips are sealed about that.  I did not promise to remain silent on how the Board is handling this.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION?  Send it to:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com  Be sure and note whether you want your name published.

I EMAIL THE BOARD FOR CLARIFICATION

I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD:

I sent the following email to the Board on May 21st:

Board,

When time allows, please provide clarification on the following:

1) Is this the email address I should be using to ask for information or should it be sent to the management company?

2)When pass due accounts are collected by the management company, does the management company receive 50% of the uncollected assessments & fines, or 50% of the fines - only?

3) If the management company secures bids, what kind of a fee are paid?

4) Would the Board consider posting the contract with the management company on the WPA website so that all residents could review it to understand the services provided?

I am of the belief that a management company will help our association move forward.  Just clarification so that my questions don't lead anyone to believe that I am against a management company.  My questions are simply for clarification.

Best Regards,

Madeline Y. Claveloux

CLARIFICATION FOR YOU, AS TO WHY I HAD QUESTIONS:

Prior to sending the email to the Board a reader sent me an email stating that they had read an article on the website.  In the article I had stated that it was my understanding from sitting at two recent Board Meetings that the management company would receive 50% of what they collected on past due accounts. The reader stated that it was their understanding that the management company would receive 50% of the fines, only.  I emailed the reader told them that I had asked two people who attended those meetings what their understanding was.  It was the same as mine.  I agreed to ask the Board.

As you'll note if you read on, my understanding was incorrect. YES, you read correctly.  I am admitting that I got it wrong.  It wasn't intentional, I had asked others what their understanding was, but we got it wrong.  I thought while I was writing the Board, I'd clarify a few other things.  So read on for the answers to the same questions you may have had.

THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS FROM TWO BOARD MEMBERS:

I received a quick response from two Board Members.  One was verbal, over the phone on May 22nd, and the other was via email on June 23rd.  I appreciate the response from each of them.  The verbal and written answers were consistent.  Here are the answers:


1) Who do we contact with questions: The management company.  We each received a letter from the company that included a email address.  Mr. LaFrance is our contact.  I've since asked if the Board could place the email address and contact information on the WPA website.

2)In regard to what the management company receives for collection on past due accounts:
First, both Board members advised that on accounts in arrears prior to May 2nd (date contract was signed with the management company), when they are collected (Past due accounts decreased some between April and May and now amount to somewhere around $150,000 +) the funds will go to the WPA including the fines.  Fines accessed after May 2nd, will be split 50-50 between the WPA and the management company, as they are collected.  The WPA receives 100% of the collected past due assessments.

3) In regard to the fees collected by the management company for securing bids:
Again, both Board Members stated that if the management company was involved in managing the project there was the potential for a negotiated fee of up to 10%.

4) In regard to posting the management company contract on the WPA website: 
One Board member felt that it should not be done because the management company bids on projects and it would produce an unfair advantage to others.  The second Board Member said it wouldn't personally be a problem.  In both cases, each said it would be a Board decision.

I appreciated their answers. 

As for the blog readers, I always encourage you to listen to the Board Meeting tapes at The Wedgefield Times, particularly on articles you are reading on the blog.  You should listen yourself to see whether you heard the same thing.  P.S.  A big thank you to the reader who emailed me and asked the question. 

Even better than just listening to the tape, go to the meeting.  I think I did an accurate resident count and there were less than 20 people at the May meeting.  The Board should continue to see that we are interested in our community.  If you snooze you lose.  Some months are quiet but Board votes continue to be taken and down the road, if you haven't been paying attention you can't claim that things were done in secret.

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER CELEBRATES 6,000 HITS TO THE BLOG

Brady is back to announce over 6,000 hits to the website.  He continues to stay by my side as we write about what is happening in Wedgefield.  He says, STAY TUNED because May has been a busy month.  

MORE ARTICLES IN DEVELOPMENT

The May 15th WPA Board Meeting was a full meeting.  Five articles have been posted to date on the actions of the meeting.  Stay tuned as others are in development.  Up next, a motion out of legal to seek an opinion from the Board attorney, regarding potential options for long term maintenance of the canals.  The article will deal with the motion and discussion at the Board table.  It should be posted by the 23rd. 

PART V, MAY 15TH BOARD MEETING - CHANGES TO THE POLICY MANUAL

Under Old Business, the Board prepared to vote on several changes to the newly approved Policy Manual.  At the 2011 Annual Meeting, the majority of residents voting passed the following By-Law regarding changes to the Policy Manual:  "A motion to change the Policy Manual must be presented at an open Board meeting, posted on the WPA website for resident comments, and NOT voted on until the following Board meeting."

FIRST A LITTLE RECENT HISTORY:  During the April Meeting a list of changes to the Policy Manual to be voted on at the May Board Meeting were passed out to Board Members, and mention was made that this would be first reading.  No one read the list of changes, or even provided a copy of the document to the audience.

Between the April and May Board Meetings I checked the official WPA website several times to see the list of changes to be voted on.  I did not find them anywhere on the site.  If I missed them during that time period and you have found them, please advise me.  I don't believe I missed them.  I don't believe they were published, as required.

THE MAY 15TH MEETING:  I encourage you to go to The Wedgefield Times and listen to this portion of the meeting tape.  I am writing what I saw and heard. You'll find this information under Old Business on the tape.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time going over each of the items voted on, tabled, or sent to the attorney for review.  All of those actions did occur during this section of the meeting.  My notes indicate at least eight proposed revisions.  I find it difficult to use the word  proposed.  Why?  The first change up for vote admittedly appeared to be necessary and minor.  It seems that in the section of the manual relating to the use of the office building that a $75.00 fee was inadvertantly added. What was more than interesting is that as the Board Members began to review their Policy Manuals, they had been changed.  What was to be proposed and voted on was already changed in their documents!

If you are saying to yourself, "no big deal on this item."  I tell you that was the case on 2-3 more items to be voted on.  It makes the process look like a sham!

As I advised, listen to the tape for yourself.

THOUGHTS ON THE LARGER PICTURE:  Most important, overall, your Board ignored the By-Law change that you and I voted in legitimately and legally.  First, they handed information to the Board in April.  There was no real first reading in April.  Second, they didn't post the list of potential changes on the official website.  If you found it, can prove it was posted during the required time - not after this article, I will apologize in a letter to the Board and publish it on the blog.  Third, they made some of the proposed changes in the Policy Manual prior to second reading and vote.

To use a term that Garrison used against McBride during the May Meeting, I ask where was due diligence?

DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?  Send it to wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com  Please note whether you would like your name published with your comments.

PART IV, THE MAY 15TH BOARD MEETING - ARC ISSUE RESOLVED IN COURT

NOTE:  I encourage you to go to the Wedgefield Times and listen to the tape of the meeting.  This section is located under the ARC Report.

The battle over ARC violations, with a resident the Board has termed Curb Man has been waged for about a year.  A fence that was too high and a curb that abuts the road across the lot frontage were the items in violation.  If I recall the history, Walton & Huggins went to the property and explained the violations while the work was in process.  The owner said some unrepeatable things and continued.  Finally, on May 8th the case was heard in magistrates court.  The owner must lower the fence, remove the curb, and pay a reduced fine.  The to be completed by date is not in place yet.  The judge has ruled and the detail will follow in the signed order.

A few questions remain, not about the court settlement, but the Board and ARC.

In regard to the Board, confidentiality again surfaces.  As of May 8th, possibly shortly before, the owners, name, address, etc. become public record because of the court.  Prior to that, and after the confidentiality agreement vote, this resident's name and address were published in the Wragg. The resident was discussed in Board Meetings and was named.  The fact that the owner was in arrears and his/her fines were brought out.  Where was confidentiality?

Second, will ARC go after all the ARC violations in this community?  Many are long standing.  A few weeks ago, after returning from an outing, a friend said let's take a ride.  We traveled down what I believe was almost every road in the plantation.  You take a ride and see if all meets standard.  When, and who will see that all violations are remedied?

DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?  Send it to wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Be sure and note whether you want your name published.

PART III, MAY 15TH BOARD MEETING, A VOTE TO REPAIR BULKHEAD ON CANAL

NOTE: The information presented below is written from my attendance and notes from the May 15th Board Meeting.  In all cases I encourage you to listen to the tape of the meeting at the Wedgefield Times. The discussion and vote to repair the bulkhead fall under the ARC Report.

A motion was voted on and approved to spend up to $7,500 to repair 60 feet of bulkhead on a canal.  It passed 7-1 with McBride voting no.  The background appears to be this.  Sometime after the 2010 dredging, bulkhead failed on one of the canals in back of a private residence.  Some earth on the owners property also gave way causing a large hole.  The dredging contractor did some work previously on the property.  The problems continued.  The homeowner had paid part of their $5,000 assessment and quit paying.  The problem is exaggerated by the fact that the canal frontage is owned by the WPA, as is the case for four other properties.  From the discussion at the Board table it appeared that some, if not all, were adjacent to this property.

Some of the discussion centered around the fact that the WPA owns the water frontage and must restore it.  It is then hoped that they can quit claim deed the property to the resident. A question arose as to whether the resident could resist the quit claim deed. Legal will be looking at that quit claim deeding all of the properties..

It was stated by one of the Board Members that it was the opinion of Water Bridge Construction that the bulkhead failure had nothing to do with the dredging.  It had been damaged by tie back failure. Someone else added that they had been told that when this section of bulkhead was fixed that there was a high probability that the bulkhead on the adjacent properties on either side would fail.  When that point was brought up President Walton said, "let's move on."

This is a Solomon decision at best. Some would say if you own it, you fix it.  Others would say if you own it you can let it be.  Remember there is some evidence that the WPA may own the adjacent water frontage on either side and the bulkhead may fail on each of those.  I'm glad I don't live by either.  What if the properties adjacent to this chain of events are caused to fail and the frontage is owned by you or me?  The bottom line question is, is $7,500 spent now the end of this, or just the beginning of $7,500 X at least four more properties?


Discussion continued as to whether when the bulkhead on this particular property was fixed, would the owner pay their $5,000?  There were no promises.  So we vote to repair WPA  property because a property owner who isn't in good standing, and wants correction to a problem we didn't cause , is upset?

These are just a few questions, but I think the Board "moved on" too quickly.

PS:  Where did confidentiality go?  The Board named the resident, the fact that they were in arrears and mentioned their payment history.

DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?  Send it to wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com  Be sure and note whether you want your name published with your comment.

PART II - UPDATED -MAY 15 BOARD MEETING, THE CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT CONTROVERSY

NOTE:  This article was updated on May 17th.  See added writing in blue at the bottom


The following observations are about what I (remember I) observed under New Business during the May 15th Board Meeting.   Additionally, I will add statements that involve my prior interaction with the subject of confidentiality.  AS ALWAYS  I ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO TO THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES AND LISTEN TO THE TAPE OF THE MEETING.

Board Member McBride brought a motion to the Board table under New Business (as first reading) to change the language in the Policy Manual regarding confidentiality.  That is Section IV, # 1.03, Confidentiality Statement:  A "Confidentiality Agreement" form is to be signed by each Director, the staff, and committee members that may have access to confidential WPA membership information.  See Appendix IV-3."

Prior to making the motion he attempted to give background or rationale for the potential change.  Garrison, Legal Chair and Vice President, said as a side line, "are we ever going to get a motion out of this.?"  He who pontificates on subjects, won't allow another Board Member time to speak?  It gets worse.  McBride states his motion which basically intends to remove and committee members from the blue quote above.  To capsulize, he states that staff and Directors are indemnified.  They are covered by the association insurance.  Volunteers are not.  It potentially puts volunteers at risk.

Garrison says he can't come up with a scenario that would put volunteer committee members in jeopardy.  He then goes after McBride saying the Board voted on confidentiality three months ago and McBride knowingly had committee members who had not signed. He asks McBride where his due diligence is.  He went on for quite some time.  Listen to the tape.  It reminded me of the Board Meetings when he went after two female Board Members.  Quite frankly it was disgusting.  In the end a second motion is made to take the issue to the attorney for advice.

I spoke during the resident comment period and told the Board how disgusted I was with the confidentiality portion of the meeting.  Why was it disgusting?  For a number of reasons.  First, for the way the Board, Garrison in particular treated McBride.  It was bad enough to sit and watch.  Personally, I am sick of the rest of the Board sitting on their hands while Garrison and others, appear to want to demean McBride's relevance.  It happens meeting after meeting and this Board has laid claim to a self identitfication of cohesive.  Really?  Where is President Walton?  McBride is a member who was ELECTED by the membership for a three year term.  He earned his seat on the Board.   He has stood out as the person who wants to open the issues and discuss them at the Board table.  His efforts come at a high personal price.  I want Board Members who respect me enough as a resident to bring the challenges of leadership to the Board table.  I don't want a big brother administration. 

Second, I ask Garrison  and at least two other Board Members where their due diligence was on this particular issue,  if that is truly a concern?  I am a member of a Water Amenities subcommittee.  I have been advised by my attorney not to sign the confidentiality statement.  It is not enforceable (Under the By-Laws, they can't even fire a Board Member who breaks it.), and it does put a volunteer at risk, without the protection of the indemnification that Board Members and staff enjoy.  As to Garrison's question about a possible scenario, where has he been living since at least 2009?  We have had good, decent, hardworking people sued.  These same good people have had their names plastered in our newspapers, in public meetings, and have been threatened with prison terms - without real reason.  When the Board approves a committee member I would hope that they have looked at their character and integrity!

In my case, I sit on a subcommittee - the Canal Committee, that was invited to meet with the Board Legal Committee on April 26th.  Prior to the meeting, I had sat in several subcommittee meetings, having fully disclosed the fact that I hadn't signed the Confidentiality Agreement.  I have not disclosed the discussions of those meetings.  On the evening of the 26th, three Board Members were present at the meeting:  President Walton, Garrison, and Anderson.  As we settled into the meeting Garrison made a statement saying he was sure that everyone present had signed the agreement.  I informed him that I had not, because I had been advised not to, and would not sign it.  I pleasantly told the people present that I would leave without any unpleasantness.  I was told they wanted to hear what I had to say.  After a short period Garrison told the group that he had spoken to me off the record twice and the conversations had not come back to him, nor did they appear in print anywhere.  I was allowed to stay and participate.  I have not, nor will I break my word to hold the contents of the meeting itself in confidence.

My question to Garrison is where was your due diligence?  Where was the due diligence of the other Board Members who were present at that meeting, if that is the real issue?  I have held to the integrity of my word.  Where is the entire Board's due diligence?  By the way,  do you want to know who was missing the evening of the meeting?  McBride.  To my knowledge he was NOT invited or informed of the date and time of the meeting.  WHERE IS DUE DILIGENCE, FOLLOWING PROTOCOL, AND PROCEDURE IN THAT?  He is the Chair of the Water Amenities Committee!


 Finally, take a look at the Confidentiality Agreement:  "Wedgefield Plantation Association has policies and procedures regarding confidentiality of information from inappropriate and/or unlawful disclosure.  When data is collected and aggregated, individual member confidentiality is protected.  All staff and volunteers (board and committee) agree in writing to maintain member confidentiality.  Information concerning member status, and financial and other personal information is processed for each individual members through Wedgefield Plantation Association office and is an important part of Wedgefield Plantation.  CONFIDENTIALITY IS ESSENTIAL!!  I understand that any member information to which I have access, through verbal knowledge, access to records or through attendance at board meeting is privileged and shall be held in strict confidence.  Member information will only be shared with appropriate Wedgefield Plantation Association personnel."


Whether you believe volunteer committee members should be required to sign the agreement or not, what does it have to do with most committee work?  The agreement is oriented toward individual financial information. The Canal Committee has no need to know the association individual resident finance information.  My grandmother use to say, "a fool and their money are soon parted".  I say only a fool doesn't listen to their attorney.

Yes, today I am still disgusted with the manner the Board treated McBride.  I am concerned about the Board's apparent disregard for a person we elected.

UPDATE:  After I wrote the article and was thinking through confidentilty.  I remembered conversations that took place at the Board table, and it caused me to further question the Board's dedication to the protection of our personal financial information.  My question after thinking about it was "Has the policy been developed in an honest effort to protect us, or as another gimmick to keep control of their agenda until they are ready to tell us how things will be?  Why would I have this question?  The Board itself does not follow the policy, as recent as Tuesday evening.  There will be a separate article to cover the subject on a vote to repair bulk head on a canal but while the Board was in discussion during the meeting they named the property owner involved and discussed the fact that the owner hadn't paid their $5,000 assessment.  They further stated that he had started to pay and quit when the bulk head failed.  Isn't that personal financial information being disclosed to the public at large?

This isn't the first time.  Remember, I posted an article when they did this to the resident called "Curb Man".  At that time the issue had not gone to court.  They hadn't reached the point where the individual had been served papers of a lawsuit.  They named him, gave details on what he owed, etc.  Do they only want to protect those that they want to, or is the protection sacred for every home owner?   Nothing can be done to the Board Members who exposed private information.  There are no penalties for those who violate it.

DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?  Send it to wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com   Be sure and note whether you want your name published or not.

THE WPA BOARD VOTES ON A PROPOSAL FROM THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE

PART I OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES REGARDING THE MAY 2012 BOARD MEETING
BACKGROUND:

As residents, we have something to be proud of. The Landing Committee, a subcommittee of the Water Amenities Committee, has been working diligently to put together a proposal to solve some of the launching & landing problems, add a dock, and make our water front more enjoyable for our community. They did their homework, sought bids, and put together a presentation to the WPA Board. The Landing Subcommittee Members are: Ed Wozniak, John Walton, Larry McMillin, Keith Johnson, and Jamie Cristello.

On April 18th, the Board held an open meeting for the presentation and seven Board Members attended. Kudos to the Board for recognizing the committee's work and taking the time to listen. While the meeting was an open meeting, few residents knew about it because it was not posted on the WPA website or at the entrance. Note to the Board: This would have been a perfect example of open cooperation if the event had been posted. You did the rest of the work, you missed the opportunity for a complete, hardy "good job pat on the back". 

I attended the meeting.  The Board listened, had questions, and left any vote for a regular monthly meeting.  They acted in accordance with our governing documents, policy, etc  Great job, from an administrative prospective.  They governed legally and ethically. You can be proud of how they handled this request.

Here are key points taken from the Landing Committee's power point presentation:

"The Riverfront and landing are Wedgefields wonderful resource.  We are unique among the plantations because we have over one mile of water frontage on the river.

The landing is being used more than ever before.  There currently 208 card holders enjoying our Riverfront.  Add to that the residents who regularly walk or bike the Marina Road and we are seeing an increased popularity and demand for our Riverfront.

We would like to propose the following:

Install a new 12' X 48' dock across from the existing dock, with an Aluminum Ramp and Fixed pier, (similar to the existing) but with greater structured integrity.

This would accomplish several things:

*The new dock would create a "coffer" between both docks and reduce surface current, thereby making it safer to both launch and haul out and will extend our time for dock replacement.  Most Public landings have 2 docks for this purpose. NOTE:  The committee provided pictures of the landings at:  Ball Park Landing Georgetown, Maryville Landing, Murrells Inlet Landing, and South Island Landing.

*Any boater that has launched and hauled out knows how difficult and dangerous it is with either an incoming or outgoing tide along with a strong wind.

*A new dock will over come and improve this condition.  Our main concern is the safety of our residents but long term, this addition will be a cost savings."

The committee sought three bids for the project.  The firms are licensed, insured, and respected in this type of work.  The contractors provided bids that included the main dock (12' X 48'), aluminum ramp, and fixed pier. 
____________________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD BRINGS THE PROPOSAL TO A VOTE AT THE MAY BOARD MEETING 

During the May 15th WPA monthly Board Meeting, two motions were made regarding the landing.  First, a motion to contract with Wendel Power to survey, engineer, and permit the project, not to exceed $1,300.  The motion passed 7-1.  Barrier voted no.

The second motion was to contract with Ronnie Campbell, not to exceed $22,500 to construct and complete the project.  The motion passed 7-1. Barrier voted no.

Garrison advised  the Water Amenities Committee that this project exceeded the Water Amenities budget line items and this would be their project for the year.  The Board appeared to recognize the value and benefit of this project.  Great move to declare how it fit in the budget and a heads up to the fact that this was it for the year.

The project and vote were handled well.  Great job performance by all concerned - just my humble opinion.

STAYED TUNED - THE MAY BOARD MEETING WAS INTERESTING

I attended the Board Meeting this evening and will be posting articles on Wednesday and Thursday.  The Board got a fair amount of work done. There was some showmanship, that was same old, same old, but disconcerting from a Board that claims to be so cohesive.  If you listen to the tape you'll note that I found some of it to be disgusting.

Time to think, write, and rest.

Stay tuned.

WHAT IS GOING ON? ATTEND THE WPA BOARD MEETING ON MAY 15TH

That's right, there is a WPA Board Meeting on May 15th.  If this was a newspaper in the good old days, the headline would have read, "READ IT HERE FIRST."  Again, this month we don't have an agenda posted as it should be, one week prior to the meeting.  There wasn't any notice posted at the front gate as of yesterday.  Why?

Doesn't our Board know that when they fail to follow through that it raises suspicion and questions, and removes trust.  Radio personality Bob Grant would say, "you have to walk the talk."  Is it a big deal not to have posted the agenda and placed the sign at the front gate?  Probably not any where else.  Here, it is a problem.  As residents, we have lived through at least three years of chaos.  This Board has made promises to run our association with a cohesive Board, utilizing our governing documents and policies.  That means you stick with the program.

Posting seems to be a problem for this Board.  During the April Meeting the Board had a list of changes to the newly approved Policy Manual.  Shouldn't the proposed changes be posted on the WPA website for residents to review before the Board votes?

For those of you who attended the April WPA Meeting you are aware that the new management company was to begin work on May 2nd.  In fact each resident was sent a letter by the management company. 

Let me make these qualifying statements before I say anything else.  I wanted a management company and felt that based on our history, we could only benefit by one.  I have no reason to question why the Board voted to hire this particular company.  I am aware of the work that went into investigating the various companies.

I do feel that the form letter, probably used every time this company introduces themselves to a new community, left more questions than answers.  The only real substance in the letter, was that I know how to pay my assessment.  This information will be helpful if it is included in next year's assessment mailing.  Like most of you, I have already paid my assessment.

I was left wondering exactly what they are going to do for us.  I noted that when the Board discussed them at the last meeting it appeared that they are counting on them to dig into the collection of over $170,000 of unpaid assessments.  If I understood it correctly, the management company will keep 50% of what they collect,  Additionally, they will receive a % of every vendor contract they assist the Board in procuring. Perhaps the Board would be willing to post the management company contract so we all know exactly what they are providing and how much it costs.  That would be one way for the Board and the management company to deal with us out in the open.  Then as residents we could determine whether we endorse a renewal of contract.

When I have a question, do I write the Board or the management company? That's pretty important to me because you know I have questions.  We'll see.  We won't jump to conclusions.  A management company representative will attend every Board Meeting.  You should attend the May meeting to meet their representative.  Maybe we will get more information.

DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?   Send it to:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com  Be sure and note whether you want your name printed.

THE BREAK IS OVER

The Wedgefield Examiner hasn't gone away.  We've been on one of life's breaks.  It happens to all of us.  The pace gets to fast, and we aren't getting any younger.  It was time to manage home projects, a visit with family, and enjoy.  It was also time to think.

I'm involved with a project I can't talk about.  Not because it should be hidden, because I think it has positive possibilities.  Maybe not as the project stands, that has to be determined and evaluated.  It is in the exploration stages. 

Anyway, it kept my mind occupied.  I'm back looking at things and Brady says, "back to the key board.  Please stay tuned.