TWO NEW ARTICLES WERE POSTED LATE ON OCTOBER 31

RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS - "ANSWERS"

 Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.

 

 

Dear Examiner,

A number of months ago, I asked to see the written,legal opinion from Mr. Moody concerning the formation of a canal sub association. Bob Garrison answered me almost immediately that Mr. Moody had not put his opinion in writing. I asked Bob about the financial analysis that I did and the questions I posed. He, Bob, told me that he knew nothing about the financial questions that I had asked, but Adam would. I did not received a reply from Adam until recently:

From: adam anderson [mailto:andersonbodyshop@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:51 PM
To: Kathy Phelan
Subject: Answer to Davis concerns about canal regime

Kathy,

Please pass this along to Jude Davis and the board.

Mrs. Davis,

At last Tuesdays meeting you made a comment the ALL of the board had failed to answer your questions. Your statement made me go back and look to see if there was indeed anything I had failed to answer. The only thing I could find that would pertain to me or any of the committees I am involved in was the following paragraph in an email from August.

I find it interesting that Adam is proposing that the board contribute about $40-$50 per household as their share. At $50 per household, the amount comes to $28,850. This amount is supposed to ‘cover’ the 45% of unsecured waterfront the WPA owns as well as the debris added daily by the drainage system. If we do some backwards math, $28,850 is 45% of $64,111 leaving $35,261 for the canal lot residents to contribute or about an additional $452 per property. Where did Adam get his figures? What is the cost of the next dredge? At $64,111 annually when can we do a maintenance dredge? How much will be dredged?

Perhaps I owe you an apology but when I initially read this I couldn't help but think that these were rhetorical questions. You, along with your husband Mike understand the issues of the canal and dredging as well as anyone. You researched this in depth many times before and after the 2009 dredging and have even shared some of your research with me in the past to use in the water amenities committee as we look into a solution to the issue. I find it hard to believe you are confused in any way about the proposal. You may not agree with it or have fundamental differences with its basic premise, but that is an entirely different thing than not understanding it. As far as specific answers to your questions, there are none at this time. Everything we are working on are just ideas and concepts at this point. If you have any input you would like to contribute in a positive manner, I would be happy to read it. In fact our next move is a poll and questionnaire that will be sent to all canal lot owners seeking their interest and ideas on the canal regime concept.

Perhaps I can clear up any confusion by giving you my feelings about canal dredging in general. Also let me be clear that these are MY personal opinions and not necessarily that of the board or any member of the committee. The 2009 dredging and the events that led up to it were very tumultuous for Wedgefield. Regardless of which side of the issue you were on it affected everyone in some way.Friendships were lost, sales of property were lost, and a general negative image was thrust upon Wedgefield as a whole as a result of all the conflict. Few residents have been affected by this as much as you. One would think that you of all people would want the next dredging to be done with as little conflict as possible. I share that general feeling and believe the only way to achieve it without fighting is by allowing the canal lot owners to foot the largest percentage of the bill. There are several possible scenarios in which this could be done, but I believe the best is this canal regime concept. It allows the canal lot owners to pay the majority of the expense while the rest of the community still contributes a small but relevant amount on a yearly basis through their annual assessment. This would cover the drainage and debris issues and the 45% of the rice fields that the WPA owns. To argue that everyone should pay more based on the amount of canal lot frontage the WPA owns seems unfair. What benefit or advantage does a resident living on Wraggs Ferry or Francis Parker gain from that frontage? None. The only valid argument is the drainage and debris that ends up in the canal contributes to the buildup over time. I think a 40- 50 per lot, per year contribution covers that concern and most residents would not oppose such a fee. It should be up to the canal lot owners to pay the rest. I am committed to seeing this done in a way that does not rip apart our community again. I am on record as far back as 2007 as saying we, the canal lots, should foot the bill. Yes I supported the 2009 dredging and the board members that voted for it, but that does not mean I didn't think it could be done another or better way. I was not in a position of power or even a resident at that time. All of the information I got during that era was second hand and days or weeks old by the time I heard it. Having lived here for the past 18 months and being a board member for the past 9 months I now have a much better grasp of the sensitivities of this issue. If we try to force some sort of dredging plan thorough again it will restart this whole process of animosity that surely no one wants to relive. I very much enjoy my water access and living along the canal, but I am more than willing to pay a premium for it and I don't expect my neighbors to chip in any more than they should. Again, this is MY personal opinion and I remain open to anything that would resolve this in an amicable manner.

You and your husband Mike are both very bright and intelligent individuals and could better serve our community in a positive manor instead of nitpicking everything this board does with a magnifying glass. We are all volunteers trying to do the right thing. Yes, we make mistakes, but the point is we are making honest attempts at bettering our community, and I believe we are succeeding. The constant questioning of peoples motives or intelligence is insulting and discouraging and probably why you don't always get the answers you are seeking. Perhaps a different approach will yield better results for you.

Sincerely ,

Adam Anderson

As you can see, my questions remain unanswered, specifically:”Where did the amount of $40-$50 per house hold come from if my other questions have not been investigated. I would like to remind everyone in this community that the 2009 Board, specifically me and Karl, did everything out in the open. WE DID NOT INITIATE THE LAWSUIT---CAROL ZIESKE, GEORGE WILSON,AND FRED THOMAS DID! The 2009 Board RESPONDED with a counter suit. If Adam wants to blame someone for the hurt feelings, loss of property sales, etc., he should start with the those three individuals and their supporters in the community and on the Board. At no time did anyone on the 2009 Board call the media or initiate violence.

It is my understanding that Water Amenities the sub committee for funding was NOT in favor of a sub-association. The idea came from Bob Garrison. Individual assessments were okay when Carol Zieske’s Board assessed them in 1998-99 for ditch maintenance. She, Carol, has repeatedly said that they were to be used only for small amounts? No one has been able to provide proof this caveat to me or to anyone.

I responded to Adam:

Please distribute to all Board members except, by his request, Jason and put a copy of my response in the correspondence file.

Dear Adam,

I am unsure as to why you thought my questions were rhetorical when Bob Garrison answered my question as to the legality of a sub-association. You are correct in stating that I have researched the canal dredging issue and understand it as well as anyone, probably better. I remain confused as to how you arrived at the number of $40-$50 per lot. In order to come up with that amount, or $28,850 annually, I assumed you had some idea as to when the next dredge would happen, how much it would cost, and what the canal lot contribution would be. Once again, where did the $40-$50 per lot come from?

Please remember, the entire spoil site is legally owned by the WPA . Some maintenance annually would probably save us a major expense in the future. As far as I know, nothing has been done to the spoil site in almost two years and I can’t find any mention of this area in the 2013 budget. In addition, both Janine Cline and Bob Garrison made statements at the September 2012 meeting that the assessments for 2014 would go back to $450.00 per household. Where do comments like that leave any money for canal maintenance?

The actual dredging cost, not the spoil site revamp, for 2009 came to approximately $750,000. We budgeted for $405,000 from 81 lots and an additional $345,000 from 577 lots. If you do the math, canal lot owners paid about $5600 versus everyone else paying about $600. How is that not the largest percentage of the bill?

Adam, I am not now,nor have I ever been, one who is unwilling to pay my share and more! I agree wholeheartedly that canal lot residents should pay more! Please remember, I did not file the first lawsuit. The people who did, including some of the people whom you seem to support, did not want to pay any money for dredging! What makes you think that these same people have changed? I am proud to say that this whole issue has not cost me the friendship of anyone who matters. My friendships today are better and stronger than ever.

I do not believe that a sub association is the way to go for a variety of reasons. If, as your sub committee originally believed, the individual assessment was the way to go, an amount could have been in place for 2013. Instead, you accepted Bob’s idea of a new regime of volunteers and another year (2013) will fly bye without anything happening. The legality of individual assessments has never been adjudicated. In fact, it was used by the 1998-99 Board. I have reached into my pocket more than anyone else to make voluntary contributions towards the canal issue but will do so no more. I will, however, pay any amount assessed my property by the WPA. I have made repeated suggestions as to what the WPA could do to help reduce some of the debris that is washed into the canals from the roads and been ignored.

You seemed to have joined the ranks of those on the Board who excuse their behavior towards me by saying that I nit-pick. I have offered my help to Jacky Walton and asked to be on the ARC. He ignored me. Because of the lack of consistency in enforcing our ARC rules, we lost the suit against the too high fence and curb on William Screven. Mike volunteered to serve on Ruth’s finance committee until Bob Garrison and Jason Barrier called her to tell her they would not support him because he was ‘too controversial.’ We both offered to help Janine and were told that she had everything under control! This month was the first financial report since February that approached completeness! I worked on the Compliance Committee until the Confidentiality Agreement came up. It wasn’t until I pushed the issue with Al that he finally admitted that the confidentiality agreement he presented to you as having been approved by a previous Board was just a undated piece of paper found in the file cabinet. I have made repeated suggestions as to what the WPA could do to help reduce some of the debris that is washed into the canals from the roads and been ignored. When the attorney makes pronouncements based on ‘fact’, is it too much to ask to see the documents he is referring to? I am still waiting to see the deed he called Master! Do you really think that it’s okay for Board members to violate the confidentiality of residents or do you just want me to ignore it when it happens? I watch any combination of Janine, Al, Bob, Jacky, or Jason violate the Code of Ethics you all signed on an almost monthly basis in their treatment of John McBride. I watch the rest of you sit on your hands. You went outside the Plantation to find an arborist to examine the trees when Peter from Great Lawns is certified.

I do not expect any answer other than the truth, and sometimes the truth hurts.

Sincerely,

Jude Davis

I am still waiting for answers to my questions, but I’m not holding my breath! Do I nit-pick, maybe—but to accuse Mike of nit picking is ridiculous. Perhaps this Board needs to examine the discriminatory, yes it is discrimination, way that I am treated because I disagree with some members of the Board when the residents who do agree, or hold multiple votes, have Board members jumping through hoops.

Jude Davis

JUDE DAVIS, "WHY DO SOME RESIDENTS GET AN IMMEDIATE RESPONSE?"

 Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.

 

Dear Examiner,

At the September,2012 Board of Directors meeting, President Jacky Walton spoke about forming a committee to deal with responses to residents. When I questioned him about this committee in October, he reluctantly admitted that no action had been taken. The following e-mail was sent to me from the office:

From: Kathy Phelan

Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 10:32 AM

To: 'Jude Davis'

Subject: Previous Questions

Mrs. Davis,

We still have not received the previous questions from you that were not answered from this past months Board Meeting.

We will attempt to respond as soon as we receive them.

While I do not believe that I have to repeatedly send my requests for information, I took the time to do just that.

To date, I have not had a response from the Board, but have heard from Adam Anderson. I will send you his e-mail and my response under a separate e-mail.

I did receive a copy of an e-mail sent to John McBride by Edmund:

From: Edmund LaFrance <elafrance@wmdouglas.com>
To: John McBride
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 11:19 AM
Subject: 555 WP Canal Response

John

Right before we held the September meeting we had a discussion about the canal response for Jude Davis. During our discussion it was agreed that you would put together another email for the board to review in response to her siltation issue. I don’t believe that I have ever received this email.

Thanks,

Edmund LaFrance

This is John’s response:

You received my response as per the procedure the Board agreed to use at our workshop. The Board and only the Board can establish these procedures. It is your responsibility to execute according to our procedures, not anything you might want to do or are asked to do that would violate a procedure. I am still waiting for ou to send the letter to Jude Davis as it was sent to you.

Kind Regards, John McBride

Who is blocking John’s attempts to answer residents? Doesn’t Edmund answer to the Board as a whole, or is he someone’s puppet? Who pulls Edmund’s strings? What is this Board hiding?

Jude

TWO RESIDENT COMMENT ARTICLES ADDED TODAY, OCT. 30

RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS RESPONDS TO "DIM BULB"

 Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.

 

 

Dear Examiner,

I loved the piece about point of light or dim bulb. Finally, someone else gets what you have been trying to drill into our heads. To my knowledge, John is the only Board member who realizes how serious it is when the entire Board remains silent when another sinks to an all time low.

I’ve included an e-mail from John McBride to Al DeMarchi and copied to the Board. It is simple, only a few sentences, but points out the harm done to the whole Board by an irresponsible, and shameful, action by a single Board member.

Although only a rumor, I have heard that John received a particularly nasty e-mail response from Al.

Jude Davis

From: John McBride

Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 9:44 AM

To: Alan DeMarchi

Cc: Adam Anderson ; Al DeMarchi ; Bob Garrison ; Cline ; Jackie Walton ; Jason Barrier ; John Walton ; Larry McMillin

Subject: Re: Criminal accusations

The use of the word pandering has a number of meanings. Ms Davis was referring to the getting of votes using your position and authoritative and I believe it accurately describes what you did. To continue your personal fight is shameful and harms the image of the entire Board. If you want to continue this type of response to members of this association, then I suggest you resign and do it in a way that does not reflect on the rest of us. It is my opinion that had you responded to the original issue in a professional way, then everyone would be satisfied. We can not do what you did for everyone, nor is it our responsibility.

Kind Regards, John McBride

THE "DIM BULB BOARD"

 The following was sent to the Wedgefield Examiner.

Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.

From the great country song by Randy Travis “Point of Light”:

There's a point when you cannot walk away When you have to stand up straight and tall and mean the words you say
There's a point you must decide just to do it 'cause it's right
That's when you become a point of light

There's a darkness that everyone must face
It wants to take what's good and fair and lay it all to waste
And that darkness covers everything in sight
Until it meets a single point of light

All it takes is a point of light,
A ray of hope in the darkest night.
If you see what's wrong,
And you try to make it right,You will be a point of light.

I quote this because while you call it the “Let It Go”, board, I call it the “dim bulb” board. We have one, sometimes maybe two “Points of Light” in office, but the rest are just feeble “dim bulbs”.

To the Directors of WPA: If you see what's wrong, and you try to make it right you will be a point of light. If not, you’re just another dim bulb.

THE LET IT GO BOARD

Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.


After reading and thinking about Secretary DeMarchi's letter to Jude Davis I couldn't help but feel that this is the "let it go board".  No thought to what is right but "it is one of ours so it is OK".  More of their so called "cohesiveness"?  Wedgefield has had a lot of strife, lawsuits, and slurs, but what Secretary DeMarchi implies in his definition of pandering shows us just how much this board will ignore and condone.  They don't mind, after all this is definitely not one of their favored residents. 

Think about it.  Why the whole board?  Remember, DeMarchi sent his email to the entire board.  Did you see or hear any out cry about his ridiculous innuendo?  Not one word.  Protocol has been that when a board member prepares an answer to a resident that he/she sends a draft to the entire board, comment can be made, changes if necessary, and then it is sent from the office.  When DeMarchi sent this nasty piece, copied the board, he wrote from his board seat.  Your board did nothing!  They obviously condone his writings!


Remember, this whole board and the management company, through their lack of action, failure to answer residents, ignore and condone.

This board voted and approved a Confidentiality Agreement, presented by DeMarchi, that they have broken over and over themselves, and failed to self enforce.  They let it go.

This board has been asked to clarify attorney opinions presented to the public through Garrison, even when it is shown to contradict other documents.  They don't answer.  They move on and let it go. 

This board has either hindered the management company from their work, or the management company isn't providing the service we expect.  They let it go because the truth might hurt.

This board has watched Barrier month after month, with no report, or a snarky verbal report, without written answer to the resident who wrote. They take no action and move on.


We have 24 new familes who haven't been welcomed.  They have done nothing all year.  Now the annual vote and meeting is coming up so they make a big show at discussion, and let it go until after the annual meeting.


This board has sat back as recent as during the October meeting and spoke of possibily using 2013 monies now, in certain line items.  Not one said, "weren't we assured when we voted to pay down $81,000 on the dredging loan that we had enough money to get to the end of the year?'  No one asked.  They just let it go.

This board used our money for a legal opinion on a canal option that they wouldn't discuss for months.  2-3 months ago, they presented it, no written legal opinion (only Garrison's verbal), and promised a survey to canal owners regarding the option.  To date, it hasn't happened.  They sit by, don't question, and let it go.

This board has signed a Code of Ethics that they fail to follow and each of them either abuse it themselves, or sit back and let it go.

We could go on and on.  You have to consider who you will vote for in the upcoming Wedgefield Elections.  There are three board vacancies, three current board members running - Anderson, DeMarch, Walton (John), and a fourth who hasn't severved on the board - Taco Wijthoff.  Vote for Wijthoff.  The other three have sat back, watched it happen, and let it go. Note: Wijthoff has not asked for this endorsement and The Wedgefield Examiner has not sought his opinion on this article.

RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS ANSWERS SECRETARY DE MARCHI

 Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.

 

 

Mr.De Marchi,

Thank you for educating me on additional uses for the word pander. I never meant to accuse you of soliciting sexual favors. Quite frankly, that definition never crossed my mind and I apologize.

Why did you and your attorney decide to take the sexual definition as opposed to the political when my e-mail was quite specific? Let me quote : I hate to think that this was an attempt by a member of the Board running for office to pander for votes, but that is exactly what it looks like. Pandering for votes is unethical.

There are many definitions for pander. According to several sites, the most common usage is political. In my mind, pandering, especially pandering for votes, means:

Pandering is essentially a reaction of panic in elected officials who must either tailor their views to public opinion or risk losing their existing or potential seat.

When you pander to people, you cater to their needs because you want something from them. A good example is a politician who says what the voters want to hear, to get their votes--politicians pander to voters. The verb pander is used in a negative way to denote the behavior of someone who has ulterior motives or just wants to indulge the person to whom they are pandering.

With all of the ugliness in this Plantation since 2009, no one has interpreted ,until you, anything said to mean something sexual. You twisted what I said and used an archaic and seldom used definition for pander to threaten me. You, and others on the Board, have tried in many ways to silence anyone in the Plantation who asks questions. What are you all hiding?Threatening legal action is nothing new. You continue to be a disappointment.

I stand by my original statement:

Pandering for votes is unethical

Mrs. Davis

From: Alan DeMarchi

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:46 AM

To: Jude & Mike Davis

Cc: John Walton ; John & Carolyn McBride ; Wedgefield Plantation Association ; Larry & Sandra McMillan ; Jacky Walton ; Janine Cline ; Jason & Crissy Barrier ; Bob & Johanna Garrison ; Adam Anderson ; Edmund LaFrance

Subject: Criminal accusations

Ms. Davis:

I quote, "In the State of South Carolina, pandering is illegal. According to the criminal law of the State of South Carolina, pandering includes the following acts:

• procuring a female for a house of prostitution
• causing, inducing or persuading a female by threat, violence or promise to become a prostitute
• receive anything of value to become a prostitute
• accept money or something of value from a prostitute
• aid, abet or knowingly participate in any of the acts listed above"

Based upon legal advice I have received, you are bordering on slander. You have wrongfully accused me of "pandering" for votes, which in South Carolina suggest some form of sexual illegalities. You have publicized this accusation in writing to the Wedgefield Plantation Board of Directors, and also posted this to an internet site for public access.

If you persist with your distortions of the truth, inaccuracies, and false criminal accusations, I will seek legal recourse against you.

I am writing this based upon the recommendations of my attorney and trust this will put an end to your accusations.

Alan A. De Marchi

A QUICK REPORT ON THE OCTOBER 16TH BOARD MEETING

Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.


I wanted to start this report with the phrase that is often used in national political talks.  Many end it with "God bless America".  After this October meeting, I say God bless Wedgefield.  We need all the help we can get.  The other thought that came to mind was "The Mickey Mouse Club".  I think that Mickey was at the meeting.  Nothing, absolutely nothing was settled, nothing accomplished.  The show put on by this board was ridiculous.  All board members were present except for Garrison.  Edmund LaFrance from the management company attended.

You are about to vote for three of these board members, as they are running for re-election.  This board has had almost a full year to accomplish something that would represent leadership. The reports were quick and failed to cover significant challenges facing this association.  So little has been accomplished that your president did not even attempt to list the board's accomplishments for 2012 in his letter to residents in the annual meeting packet.  We've reached the point where stagnation must be an accomplishment.

Back to the October meeting.  Our time was spent on the following, which took significant time, about two hours.  On top of that the discussions were frivolous, and caused one to question why the board had bothered to meet at all.  Please go to The Wedgefield Times and listen for yourself. Here are the issues your board took significant time with:

*Under Old Business, your board launches a discussion on John Walton's Welcome Committee. NOTHING has been done to welcome new residents all year long.  Now it is so important that we spend an inordinate amount of time on it, even though the general consensus is that any welcome event should be held after the annual meeting. It seems some on the board have discussed this prior to the meeting.  DeMarchi says they have an idea to help Walton.  There are 24 families who have moved in and not been welcomed (Nothing has been done since the end of 2010 and some of these board members have been in their board seats that long.).  It is suggested and a motion made by Walton to invite families to a meet and greet with the board and present those who attend with a $20 Walmart gift card.  The discussion goes on for some time and then it is time for me to both thank and praise Barrier.  He says something about he doesn't feel that handing out association money...he isn't sure it would be allowed to basically write residents a check.  DeMarchi wants to know what the difference would be between buying them a sandwich at the Manor House or giving them a Walmart gift card.  Edmund LaFrance cautions not to do it.  Now we get into a labored discussion about bags with plants and community information in them that could be left at the new resident doors, or a meet and greet with beverages and food at the office.  It went on and on.  At times they said there was $200 in the budget to welcome new residents, then someone discussed using part of the 2013 budget.  At some point Anderson offers to give $20 so they can move on.  Could someone just welcome the new residents?  Some have been here so long that it would be embarrassing to WELCOME them now. 

*McMillin's Grounds Report went almost as long.  The problem was that it was almost entirely about the golf course.  He had met with the new management and discussed with them what he felt they should do about a number of things.  He spent time explaining each of his suggestions.  He was going to do a follow up visit with them to see if they had taken his suggestions seriously.  This also went on and on and on.  Why take so much time on something we don't own and quite frankly, why would they listen to him.  Just toward the end he mentions that he has talked to them about maybe leasing the pool to the WPA!  It could be set up with memberships for Wedgefield residents, only.  Why?  What is alarming is that McMillin wanted that pool in 2009 when I was on the board.  One of the family members from the golf course owners sat on the Board.  That time the offer was made from the golf course to the board.  The board considered it and McMillin wanted it.  Some of us on the board asked numerous times to be provided information on the cost of running it, cost of insurance, etc.  No one would provide that information and yet, McMillin continued to want to move forward with it.  It was voted down.  Would you lease a business, or portion of a business that was struggling with membership?

Mc Millin wanted to seek approval to buy no more than $600 worth of fall flowers for the front entrance and nearby area.  Someone asked about the budget.  Again, the thought that maybe some could come from 2013 came up.  Why?

*Barrier had a Community Liaison Report this month.  How?  I don't know.  It would seem to me that you would have to answer someone in order to report on it.  I've reviewed the correspondence file.  He hasn't answered anyone.  Instead he says he has two things and gives a snarky, from the board table answer to residents who may or may not be there.  I sat through it and I don't understand the first item.  You can draw your own conclusions. He says that personal emails between residents coming to the office with personal disputes needn't be on his computer.  I have no idea, except that DeMarchi had both sent and received emails at home from the resident with 2 lots that became 4.  Finally, the lot owner had sent his big thank you to DeMarchi to the office.  When I reviewed the correspondence file it included those that were sent and received from DeMarchi's home.  Maybe Barrier was reprimanding DeMarchi. 

Next Barrier implies the some residents may be trying to use the Confidentiality Agreement to remove a board member and they can't.  He further states that he disputed the Confidentiality Agreement with DeMarchi when it first came up.  Then he says you can't remove a board member using it.  Next, he looks at DeMarchi and asks him if he intends to step down from the board.  DeMarchi says, "no".  Barrier then says that he feels DeMarchi is an excellent board member.  Do you think that was rehearsed?  I do.  Back to the subject.  I ,and I know of one other resident who protested the Confidentiality Agreement have each written the board.  From the beginning each of us stated that our governing documents would not allow the board to self remove another sitting board member.  It was the board attorney who said that those who broke it, could be removed.  So Barrier was just adding drama, hoping to cast aspersions on residents that were untrue, and failing to address the fact that DeMarchi and several of the board members are the only ones who have breached the Confidentiality Agreement.  So the Board who imposed it on resident volunteers, misused it on many occasions, can do as they want and not suffer the consequences. Now Barrier would like to hang false accusations on those who write.  He fails to answer them because the truth would sting. 

*Janine Cline provided the best financial reports we've seen since February.  She states that there are a few items to work on but the improvement is noticeable.  Someone states that DeMarchi and Cline are working on the financial reports.  McBride volunteers to help.  He says, "let me know and I'll be there."  It appeared he was ignored once again.  Just see what happens during the resident questions.

*At one point in this long meeting as discussions regarding budget are in progress, McBride says that  directors need to go through the financial reports and understand them.  He asks if everyone reviewed the financials prior to the meeting (not word for word but equivalent).  DeMarchi asks when the board received them.  McBride gives an answer of two or three days.  DeMarchi says he hasn't seen them and he may have deleted them.  Yet, our board, at least twice during the meeting talked about maybe they could use money budgeted in certain line items, this year??????

There will be more on the meeting later in other posts.

During the resident comment section a resident says that since residents are required to put concerns, questions, etc., in writing that it is reasonable that they should be answered in writing.  They ask President Walton what progress has been made on the committee he said he would form to set a procedure for answering residents.  You may remember that during the September meeting our president said he would form a committee to work on it.  John McBride volunteered, was ignored, and another board member reminded the president that he could select who served on the committee.  Well, he should have taken McBride up on his offer and then maybe something would have been done.  Our president reported he had done nothing regarding forming the committee.  I guess that he and his board don't think it is important to answer residents.  After all  his Community Liaison doesn't answer and keeps his job.  Your presidents appoints him and could relieve him of that responsibility and hasn't.  Your president has watched your board ignore the newly approved policy manual directives on answering residents.  Your president has presided over meetings where DeMarchi announced new guidelines for answering residents and no one followed them.  Your president has stood by while our management company has failed to answer residents.  Why would he hurry now when the annual meeting is next month?

The sorry thing about all of this is your board - those who have their seats for one or two more years, those who have to run for re-election, seem to take for granted that it is OK to ignore the residents.  Three of the current members - Anderson, DeMarchi, and Walton (John) are running for re-election.  As you vote remember that they have accomplished very little, set rules that only they break, set more rules that they don't follow, and sit by while others on the board fail to treat each other decently - break the Code of Ethics our president so wanted everyone of them to sign and yet they want your vote.  There are three board seats open and four candidates.  The only candidate who has not been part of all of this is Wijthoff.  Give Wijthoff your vote.  Note:  Wijthoff has not asked for this endorsement and The Wedgefield Examiner has not sought his opinion on this article. 

OUR NEXT ARTICLE WILL BE WRITTEN ABOUT THE CONDO REGIME WHO WAITED 3 MONTHS TO GET A PAYMENT BACK FROM THE WPA.

DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR CHILDREN WERE AT ABOUT 6:10 PM ON SATURDAY EVENING?

Some one's preteen - young teens, one dressed in a red shirt, 4 or 5 in a group that may have been mixed but if so, more of them  females, may have told you they were out for a stroll but were out for mischief.. They were walking on Pine Grove entered a neighbor's yard once and then appeared to move on.  A few minutes later they returned to the neighbors yard and then went charging through our large flower bed stepping on small plantings, exiting our yard on William Screven.  A walk to socialize isn't a walk when you tear through property.  We got in our car and tried to find them so we could notify their parents.  They disappeared.  If your young person entered the house quickly and a little out of breath you might want to ask them if they were trespassing and destroying property.

RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS WRITES REGARDING THE OCTOBER 16TH BOARD MEETING

Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.


Dear Examiner, Board of Directors, and Edmund LaFrance,

Were you as frustrated by the October board meeting as I was? This two hour meeting, the last before the annual, left me with a very unsatisfied feeling. With no President’s report, no Vice-president’s report, no Legal, Condo, Communication, etc., we were, instead, treated to an inaccurate and snarky Community Liaison report, an over long and off topic Grounds report, a and ridiculous Welcome committee report.

According to the present Policy Manual, after a resident’s letter goes through hoops, the final response is to be authored by the Community Liaison Chair—Jason Barrier. I am not among the favored few who ever get a written response from Jason. In fact, he has told me that he will NOT respond to my questions. This attitude towards a single resident seems to be supported by the majority of the Board.

I have written to the Board each time a member of the Board violates the Confidentiality Agreement they supported and signed. It was the attorney, Mr. Moody, who opined that , according to our By-laws, a Board member could be removed from his/her position for violating this agreement, not me. Although our By-laws do not have this provision, no one has ever questioned Mr. Moody. By the same token, NO Board member has acknowledged violating the Confidentiality Agreement.

Yes, I wrote to the Board concerning Al DeMarchi’s involvement with the recent two lot/four lot debacle. I questioned his violation of confidentiality when he mentioned the lot owner by name. I also questioned his intense involvement in resolving this issue, including ‘hours’ down at the county offices. It should not have been the job of any Board member, let alone one running for re-election, to resolve the question. It was the property owner’s job. I considered this special treatment of a single property owner pandering for votes and a violation of the Code of Ethics. I hope that each and every Board member has examined the papers that Al held up in September and is satisfied with their accuracy!

Why aren’t the changes to the Policy Manual documented at the bottom of the page?

When I asked Jacky Walton about the committee he was forming to expedite responses to residents, he looked at me as if I had two heads. When questioned further, he admitted that the committee has not been formed and has certainly not met. It frustrates me that the members of the WPA are treated so disparately! It remains my contention that ALL residents are entitled to a written response to written questions.

It is my understanding that the fiscal year starts January 1^st. Looking towards next year’s budget to fund this year’s projects seems wrong!

Judith Davis

ReplyReply All

Move...

 

RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS - MASTER DEED

Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.


Dear Examiner,

I have included an e-mail exchange that I recently had with the office. This is not the first time Mr. Moody has made assertions that can’t be substantiated.

Sent 9/24

I thought I heard Bob say that the attorney examined the master deed. This was confirmed by listening to the tape of the meeting.

I would like to come to the office on Wednesday to see a copy of the master deed that Mr. Moody examined.

Judith Davis

When I went to the office on Wednesday, Kathy informed me that she did not have a Master Deed to show me.

Received 10/2

Per Bob Garrison:

"We are seeking an answer to your inquiry regarding the question about the "Master Deed" from Mr. Moody."

Kathy Phelan-Stilwell

Received 10/15

Jude,

No one has brought this to me and as far as I know there has been nothing further done on this issue.

Kathy Phelan-Stilwell

I can’t understand why my question about the Master Deed has gone unanswered for over three weeks. Someone gave Mr. Moody a deed to examine and led him to believe it was the Master Deed to the Plantation. What deed did he look at and who told him it was the Master Deed?

It is my understanding that each property in Wedgefield has its own deed. While very similar, there are subtle differences. Each bankruptcy and subsequent developer had the opportunity, and did, make minor changes.

The WPA does not have a Master Deed—one that would be the same for ALL single family, detached homes. My question, unanswered, remains:” What deed did Moody look at and who told him it was the Master Deed?” The continuing question that I have is:”Why doesn’t anyone on the Board care?”

Judith Davis

UPDATED OCT. 15TH (NOW TWO PARTS) A FIRST FOR THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER

Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.


PART I:

The Wedgefield Examiner always includes a statement telling our readers that they are welcome to respond to an article.  To date,  I have published every email sent to the blog.  I do not comment on the opinion.  I publish it as it was sent.  Not today.  I will not disclose the name of the writer.  I have emailed them (below) and asked for clarification.  The writer made statements about candidate Wijthoff, an issue with lots & votes, without documentation.  Writers to the blog provide documentation with their opinion, or I have witnessed the actions, or reviewed documents, regarding the topic that they are discussing.  Not the case today.  The writer claims (amongst other things) that The Wedgefield Examiner is part of Wijthoff's "team". Read what I have to say about that.  If there is a "team", I can't find it.  When the writer provides documentation I'll be happy to print their letter.

 

 

October 15, 2012

　

 

I have received your email addressed to Taco Wijthoff, WPA Board, and The Wedgefield Examiner. As Editor of the Wedgefield Examiner, I stand by the statement that if you have an opinion you are welcome to send it and it will be printed, with or without your name. Your recent letter presents unusual circumstance to The Wedgefield Examiner as it contains unsubstantiated statements. The Wedgefield Examiner provides back up to statements that includes actual documents, transcription of tapes - including reference to the tapes, and actual minutes, etc. To date, I have printed every communication that has come to the blog. I have printed items that are substantiated either by documents I have seen, Board Meetings I have attended and saw and heard, or by the writer’s provision of documents. I hope that you will take the time to provide the following clarification.

*Your email is peppered with numerous references to “Taco’s team“, or “they” or “them“, referring to the team, and at least once - The Wedgefield Examiner, as though Mr. Wijthoff’s approval has been sought by the blog. First, you’ll note that anytime The Wedgefield Examiner suggests supporting Taco Wijthoff that a disclaimer always follows stating that Wijthoff has not asked for endorsement, and The Wedgefield Examiner has not sought his approval. Simply stated, no one directs me. The blog belongs to me. Anyone who knows me, knows that I will not bend, let alone be lumped with an unknown “team”, or directed by Taco Wijthoff, or anyone else.

Please provide documentation regarding the “team“. I know as Editor of The Wedgefield Examiner, that I am not part of the “team“. Who is? When was the “team” organized? Has the “team” sent out any election propaganda? If so, please reference or provide it.

*I have personally reviewed many documents regarding your lots. I am not an expert. Please clarify the date when your lots were recognized by the county as four single family lots. What year did you begin paying property tax on four single family lots?

*I, as the Editor of the Wedgefield Examiner have sighted numerous instances when the WPA Board has failed to serve in the best interests of Wedgefield Plantation residents. It is my opinion supported by all the documentation listed above. Again, Wijthoff has had no part in my documented writings. Please provide a list of serious accomplishments, achieved by this Board. I’ll be happy to publish them with appropriate documentation.

*I ask how you can speak to harmony, a positive approach, and moving forward in a positive direction, when you call 81 independent lot owners the equivalent of mud hole people? Interestingly, two of the candidates you support come from the canal mud hole lot owners, does your endorsement make you part of their team. Do they approve of your writings?

I look forward to your documented response. In the recent past, I have been sued by people who called names, made false claims- no documentation, and waged a long costly lawsuit, while tearing up my community. As Editor of The Wedgefield Examiner I refuse to play a part in harming anyone, including Taco Wijthoff. To my knowledge, he is his own person, true to his beliefs, and willing to work to make our community strong. I can’t imagine any “team” directing him to harm anyone, let alone the residents of the community where he lives and has invested. Again, I have not sought his opinion or approval on my correspondence.

Sincerely,

Madeline Y. Claveloux

Editor, The Wedgefield Examiner

PART II - A RESPONSE FROM THE WRITER PRODUCES NO CLARIFICATION:
The almost immediate response from the writer to the blog follows.  Read through and you will note that they are unable or unwilling to provide clarification. This is obviously a person who can't back up what they say.  It is exactly the reason I asked for clarification.

This individual speaks from both sides of their mouth.  They write,"It is sickening how backward and negative the current process continues to fester. This is a war on Wedgefield which has to stop. Who would want to live in this environment? Who is enjoying this madness? Our property values are declining, and the negatives are fully apparent outside of Wedgefield. This is not good!" Yet, he/she has been a part of a "team"  ( spoke at a Board meeting for the team) that has threatened lawsuit aganist this very Board, noting in writing that if the individual Board Members failed to vote as directed that they would be sued.  This person doesn't live in this environment.  They own property here but don't live here.  They rarely attend Board Meetings.  Yet, they claim they support this Board.  Where more double talk comes in is that they wrote the following in the letter I refused to print without clarification, " (name removed) and I will vote for the other three highly qualified candidates (Adam Anderson, Alan DeMarchi, and John Walton), and so advise our fellow residents to vote in your opposition."  They can't back up what they say, and support Board Members for re-election that they threatened to sue.  Do you want to follow this team's endorsement?

HERE IT IS:

Ms. Claveloux,

Thank you for your hasty response, and all your reasons for not publishing my letter to Taco. I would not have expected anything different, but I certainly respect your wishes. Please determine for yourself who is the ‘team’, ‘they’, ‘them’…. In the longer run, this ‘team’, whoever it is composed of, will lose! More objectively, Wedgefield needs to win!

Privately speaking, there are just a few folks who may want to continue the destruction of Wedgefield with what I call ‘Mud Hole Politics’. This does not encompass all the 81 canal lot owners which you, as editor, wrongly associate. I do not place many wonderful people who live on the canals into this group, in fact, many canal lot owners are embarrassed with the tactics that involve such poor, nasty, and divisive policies. In the long run, the many battles that are promoted may be won or lost, but for certain Wedgefield will be the loser. It has suffered the continuing attacks on its board members, its clear division, and negative exposure to the community outside of the plantation. Why wouldn’t you as editor consider a more constructive approach, and help lead us to a more unified strategy with more common objectives? Why not motivate Taco to better use the power of his 31 votes? Why wouldn’t he lead this community in a different direction? You may be surprised with the potential outcome, and the potential support for needed canal maintenance!

It is sickening how backward and negative the current process continues to fester. This is a war on Wedgefield which has to stop. Who would want to live in this environment? Who is enjoying this madness? Our property values are declining, and the negatives are fully apparent outside of Wedgefield. This is not good!

Madeline, please change the ‘spin’ as editor of your blog. I think you may come to enjoy the beauties of Wedgefield, instead of the unsightly effects of the ‘Mud Hole Politics’ that permeate the atmosphere. We are all human beings trying to live our lives without turmoil. Unfortunately, such policies provoke adverse reactions to result in further discomfort. Someone has to break the ice!

Try it, you may like it!

Respectfully,