Today, I submitted the following proposed By-Law Amendments to the Board. I have more than met the deadline. The question hanging yet, is will they ever appear on the ballot? Remember they have to be reviewed by legal. If they are not approved for the ballot, I deserve a written, precise answer from the Board. In that event, I will share it with you.
As for the proposed amendments, I hope you will give them consideration, and vote to remove some of the strife in our community. HERE THEY ARE:
BY-LAW CHANGE # 1:
ARTICLE V, ASSESSMENTS AND PENALTIES, Section 2, Individual Assessments (Now)
Individual Assessments: In addition, individual assessments may be levied by the Board. These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance, or any costs incurred, by The Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-Laws and in the deed “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions.”
CHANGE (noted in blue & underlined):
In addition, individual assessments may be levied by the Board. These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance,
including canal maintenance , or any costs incurred, by The Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-Laws and in the deed “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions.”
RATIONALE: The language, as currently written has been applied to canal dredging. As currently written it has not been over turned, in any court. However, considering the historic strife regarding the canals, adding the additional language would remove question, as to the validity of its use, should a Board determine that it was in the best interest of the community to assess periodic maintenance of the canals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BY-LAW CHANGE # 2:
ARTICLE IV, MEMBERSHIP, Section 3: Voting Rights (Now):
On matters submitted to a vote of the membership, members in good standing, who have officially registered with The Association by providing the name and address of the legal owner/s of the property, shall be entitled to one vote for each lot or condominium apartment owned. Members in arrears in payment of their yearly assessment within ten (10) days prior to the Annual Meeting are not in good standing and shall not be entitled to vote.
CHANGE (noted in blue and underlined):
On matters submitted to a vote of the membership, members in good standing, who have officially registered with The Association by providing the name and address of the legal owner/s of the property, shall be entitled to one vote for each lot or condominium apartment owned. Members in arrears in payment of
any assessments approved by the Board, within ten (10) days prior to the Annual Meeting are not in good standing and shall not be entitled to vote.
RATIONALE: The Wedgefield Plantation canal lot owners were previously assessed for dredging, under the By-Laws, through Individual Assessment. The assessment, was voted and passed, contracts and loans secured based on the assessment. Members who failed to pay their Individual Assessment, retained their right to vote at the Annual Meeting, which is a privilege, while causing great harm to the ability of the Association to pay its legitimate debt.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
BRADY ANNOUNCES 9,000 HITS TO THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER BLOG
Even with Brady dragging his blanket out to take a break, we've been busy. He claims he really wasn't laying down on the job, but a picture speaks volumes. He says, "stay tuned'.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
WHO WILL ANSWER RESIDENT LETTERS? A PROCEDURE ANNOUNCED BY THE WPA SECRETARY, SAMPLES OF RESIDENT WRITINGS, ALL BEG THE QUESTION - WILL YOUR BOARD CONTINUE TO ANSWER SOME WHILE IGNORING OTHERS?
Don't let the headline throw you off. The subject isn't complicated. We will take it a step at a time. First Secretary DeMarchi announced the following procedure, with comments, under the Secretary's Report, during the July Meeting. Before I provide my transcription from the tape, I have a question. "Why wasn't the Community Liaison detailing and informing us as to how residents would be answered? Coordinating the gathering of information to answer resident questions is the key responsibility of the Community Liaison. The transcription follows. I've transcribed to the best of my ability. As always I recommend that you go to The Wedgefield Times and listen to the section yourself. THANK YOU WEDGEFIELD TIMES!!!
HERE IS A PORTION OF THE SECRETARY'S REPORT:
"Several correspondence have been received at the office and the management company, Mr.LaFrance has been answering the correspondence as rapidly as possible.
Section 12 of the Policy Manual states the Community Liaison has 10 days to acknowledge receipt of the correspondence and 30 days for a final response. Some residents feel they are entitled to immediate responses and it is not always possible since the volunteer Board Members are not always available to respond immediately. A procedure will go into effect in which Mr.La France will receive the correspondence. He will communicate those to the Board Members. The Board Members have 48 hours in which to respond to Mr. La France, at which point he will put together a response to the resident. The Board Member will then receive that final response. If approved, Mr. La France will proceed with sending it out. This should eliminate any conflicts from what Board Members feel is an appropriate response."
So now, the Secretary has added more procedure. Is it policy? Is his intention to add it to the policy manual? If so, was this first reading? Will all residents in good standing be treated equally? Frankly, the Board and the management company's dealing with this subject, and all their rules and policy, and procedures, have more holes in it than baby Swiss cheese!
I visited the office, under an approved appointment, and reviewed the correspondence file. I've had the opportunity to view who writes and who gets answered at all, and how quickly they are answered. If you are a regular reader, you'll have been kept up to date on how fast, and the hoops the Board jumped through to answer Thomas. We won't go over that again, but keep it in mind. I believe I have a complete snap shot of the correspondence file for the last 4 - 6 months. For purposes of the sample, I will even leave myself, and those unanswered letters I saw from Jude Davis off. I certainly don't speak for her. As for myself, I keep thinking of Garrison's statement about "personal agendas and vendetta's. It is my feeling that some on the Board who make up procedures for other committee Board chairs, supported by a few other Board Members, may be deciding who will be answered based on whether they feel there is a hidden agenda or vendetta. Who appointed anyone to serve as God here? It appears to depend on who you are, whether you are in line with particular Board Member's agendas and vendettas, whether you are answered or not. In one case the resident didn't even have to write the Board. He/she called a Board Member and the Board Member issued an email to the Board. You'll evaluate the situation. HERE IS THE SAMPLE:
*Resident RA: letter typed with a June 25th date, stamped received at the office July 17th. Where was it between a reasonable delivery date, and the day it was stamped received in the office? Was a Board Member, or Members keeping it to themselves? The resident informs Mr. La France of all the problems of the association and lists four recommendations for resolution. The fourth recommendation follows, "Advocate & facilitate the creation of 3 regimes within the community: 1) Canal Property Owners, 2) Condo Property Owners, 3) Golf Course (or some other name), Property Owners who do not fit the other two categories." This person has been a co-hort of Garrison during the 2010 uprisings here in our community. I saw them myself at the 2010 Recall, on stage and in charge.
This resident gets an answer at least from our busy management company. I am not going to provide the response in it's entirety. Look at the WELCOME this resident receives. The response from La France is dated July 17. "I wanted to thank you for taking the time to send me your letter of concerns about certain issues that appear to remain ongoing at Wedgefield Plantation." I'll save my comments until the end.
**Resident FV: email dated July 12. "Why is the WPA Secretary answering membership letters, when that task previously was performed by the WPA Community Liaison Chairperson? If that Chairperson is not functioning, for whatever reason, reassign him." THIS RESIDENT GOT NO RESPONSE. No welcome or thank you from the management company or the Board. This is a resident in good standing. HMMMMMM
***Resident PM: email dated June 26, addressed to McMillin: "Listening to the last Board meeting. The 2012 Budget under "Professional Services". You budgeted $5,000 for a Reserve Study. So unless it has been altered - a reserve study IS in the budget". THIS RESIDENT GOT NO RESPONSE. No welcome or thank you from the management company or the Board. This is a resident in good standing. It should be noted that during the June Board Meeting as DeMarchi's allocation of reserves was being discussed that McMillin stated that there was no money in the 2012 budget for a reserve study. HMMMM, topic too hot for either to touch?
****Board Member Anderson: email dated May 21. "A resident just called and stated there are 2 sink holes in front of his and his neighbors house. Mr. ----------- (I leave name & lot # out) William Screven Road & his neighbor is on one side but he won't clarify which side." THIS RESIDENT GOT NO RESPONSE. I question why the resident wasn't advised to email or write. The policy is to put your concerns and questions in writing. Don't blame the resident. This is a resident in good standing who generally, to my knowledge and observation of the correspondence book, doesn't contact the Board.
*****Resident RW: letter dated April 17. This letter is lengthy, supported with documentation regarding the Arbors and admittance into the WPA. THIS RESIDENT GOT NO RESPONSE. Again, topic too hot to touch?
******Resident M is informed that they may speak at a Board Meeting. I may have missed it, but I didn't see Resident M's request letter. This resident is sent the following: "This is confirmation of your request to speak at the February Board Meeting. As policy states you will have 5 minutes to address the Board. Thank you for your request and we will see you on the 21st." This resident gets a welcome to speak and in fact, speaks at both the February and the March meetings. Agenda & Vendetta? A email to the Board with threats of being sued if they didn't vote to sue the bank and Attorney Winslow for the dredging loan, etc, was delivered to the Board, on the morning, of one of the dates he spoke. What did he speak about? - suing outside the gates of Wedgefield - the bank and Winslow. His topic was something about peace and harmony! I can't help but insert this. I wrote the Board and asked to speak at the August Meeting, and requested the appointment to review records. Secretary DeMarchi emailed that I could come on the date and time that I had suggested. He then told me that the decision regarding speaking would come from President Walton. Why? Where is my welcome letter?
*******Resident Thomas: correspondence dated February 29: He states: "The legal files from the dates that Jude was Legal Chair extremely deficient. There are a huge amount of records missing. This is WPA Documents that are missing and they have been missing since June 2010. It is the Board's responsibility to retrieve these files. I have talked to Al DeMarchi about this and all members need to be aware." Board Member Anderson emails this on March 1 (During my review it appeared to be connected to the Thomas email. If I am mistaken, I apologize. I like Anderson's stated overview.): "Verify your accusations. I personally feel everything we have belongs to all of us and should be treated accordingly. If we have it and someone wants to see it, let them, but the request needs to be reasonable."
Residents, this is a mess created on newly created procedures and some newly approved policy mountain, maintained by the votes and silence, of your individual Board Members. In the end, each of the Board Members, who fail to speak up, vote to serve you with their own integrity, investigation of fact and adherence to governing documents, answer you without the prejudice of one of their own determining - whether you are viewed by them as a person with personal agenda or vendetta, are all culpable. You'll note that some of the correspondence is dated in a period of time when the management company wasn't on contract. The management company is left off the hook in those instances. However, I will remind you once again that the management company is there at the pleasure of the Board. Is your Board advising them who will be answered and who will be ignored? I wanted to give a management company a try in hopes that they could help with some of our issues being discussed and resolved. To date, I think we are wasting our money. It appears the long over bearing arm of some of the members of this Board, coupled with spineless behaviors by others on the Board, will not allow us to move forward openly and honestly, according to our governing documents.
I don't believe that I have left out other resident letters to the Board. Those that I have written, or JD have written, have been published on this blog. I didn't want to add length to the article. I have two written in the last 6-8 weeks, followed up with requests for an answer, as to why I'm not being answered. How big is this busy load?
WHAT ELSE IS MISSING? In the past, prior to this ridiculous handling of resident emails and letters, when I reviewed the correspondence file, I would see emails containing the thoughts from individual Board Members regarding a proposed answer to the resident. Not so now, either their thoughts through email aren't being placed in the file, or they don't want you to know what they are thinking, or how they are being strong armed.
FINALLY: When Secretary DeMarchi answered me and told me I could come to the office to view files, he said the following: "I am not sure what other questions you have asked and not received an answer. I understand that you provided your own answers to several questions." Please! He knows and the Board knows, that I have only been told I can come to the office to review files. I have two letters full of unanswered, legitimate questions. After weeks of receiving no answers from the Board or the management company, I researched our governing documents, recordings of meetings, relevant correspondence, etc., answered my own questions, published them, and sent my answers to the Board. Is our Secretary telling me that I answered correctly? Does he really want to leave the impression that those answers are acceptable to the Board? If so, as they say in court: "let the record stand".
DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? SEND IT TO: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Be sure and note whether you want your name published.
HERE IS A PORTION OF THE SECRETARY'S REPORT:
"Several correspondence have been received at the office and the management company, Mr.LaFrance has been answering the correspondence as rapidly as possible.
Section 12 of the Policy Manual states the Community Liaison has 10 days to acknowledge receipt of the correspondence and 30 days for a final response. Some residents feel they are entitled to immediate responses and it is not always possible since the volunteer Board Members are not always available to respond immediately. A procedure will go into effect in which Mr.La France will receive the correspondence. He will communicate those to the Board Members. The Board Members have 48 hours in which to respond to Mr. La France, at which point he will put together a response to the resident. The Board Member will then receive that final response. If approved, Mr. La France will proceed with sending it out. This should eliminate any conflicts from what Board Members feel is an appropriate response."
So now, the Secretary has added more procedure. Is it policy? Is his intention to add it to the policy manual? If so, was this first reading? Will all residents in good standing be treated equally? Frankly, the Board and the management company's dealing with this subject, and all their rules and policy, and procedures, have more holes in it than baby Swiss cheese!
I visited the office, under an approved appointment, and reviewed the correspondence file. I've had the opportunity to view who writes and who gets answered at all, and how quickly they are answered. If you are a regular reader, you'll have been kept up to date on how fast, and the hoops the Board jumped through to answer Thomas. We won't go over that again, but keep it in mind. I believe I have a complete snap shot of the correspondence file for the last 4 - 6 months. For purposes of the sample, I will even leave myself, and those unanswered letters I saw from Jude Davis off. I certainly don't speak for her. As for myself, I keep thinking of Garrison's statement about "personal agendas and vendetta's. It is my feeling that some on the Board who make up procedures for other committee Board chairs, supported by a few other Board Members, may be deciding who will be answered based on whether they feel there is a hidden agenda or vendetta. Who appointed anyone to serve as God here? It appears to depend on who you are, whether you are in line with particular Board Member's agendas and vendettas, whether you are answered or not. In one case the resident didn't even have to write the Board. He/she called a Board Member and the Board Member issued an email to the Board. You'll evaluate the situation. HERE IS THE SAMPLE:
*Resident RA: letter typed with a June 25th date, stamped received at the office July 17th. Where was it between a reasonable delivery date, and the day it was stamped received in the office? Was a Board Member, or Members keeping it to themselves? The resident informs Mr. La France of all the problems of the association and lists four recommendations for resolution. The fourth recommendation follows, "Advocate & facilitate the creation of 3 regimes within the community: 1) Canal Property Owners, 2) Condo Property Owners, 3) Golf Course (or some other name), Property Owners who do not fit the other two categories." This person has been a co-hort of Garrison during the 2010 uprisings here in our community. I saw them myself at the 2010 Recall, on stage and in charge.
This resident gets an answer at least from our busy management company. I am not going to provide the response in it's entirety. Look at the WELCOME this resident receives. The response from La France is dated July 17. "I wanted to thank you for taking the time to send me your letter of concerns about certain issues that appear to remain ongoing at Wedgefield Plantation." I'll save my comments until the end.
**Resident FV: email dated July 12. "Why is the WPA Secretary answering membership letters, when that task previously was performed by the WPA Community Liaison Chairperson? If that Chairperson is not functioning, for whatever reason, reassign him." THIS RESIDENT GOT NO RESPONSE. No welcome or thank you from the management company or the Board. This is a resident in good standing. HMMMMMM
***Resident PM: email dated June 26, addressed to McMillin: "Listening to the last Board meeting. The 2012 Budget under "Professional Services". You budgeted $5,000 for a Reserve Study. So unless it has been altered - a reserve study IS in the budget". THIS RESIDENT GOT NO RESPONSE. No welcome or thank you from the management company or the Board. This is a resident in good standing. It should be noted that during the June Board Meeting as DeMarchi's allocation of reserves was being discussed that McMillin stated that there was no money in the 2012 budget for a reserve study. HMMMM, topic too hot for either to touch?
****Board Member Anderson: email dated May 21. "A resident just called and stated there are 2 sink holes in front of his and his neighbors house. Mr. ----------- (I leave name & lot # out) William Screven Road & his neighbor is on one side but he won't clarify which side." THIS RESIDENT GOT NO RESPONSE. I question why the resident wasn't advised to email or write. The policy is to put your concerns and questions in writing. Don't blame the resident. This is a resident in good standing who generally, to my knowledge and observation of the correspondence book, doesn't contact the Board.
*****Resident RW: letter dated April 17. This letter is lengthy, supported with documentation regarding the Arbors and admittance into the WPA. THIS RESIDENT GOT NO RESPONSE. Again, topic too hot to touch?
******Resident M is informed that they may speak at a Board Meeting. I may have missed it, but I didn't see Resident M's request letter. This resident is sent the following: "This is confirmation of your request to speak at the February Board Meeting. As policy states you will have 5 minutes to address the Board. Thank you for your request and we will see you on the 21st." This resident gets a welcome to speak and in fact, speaks at both the February and the March meetings. Agenda & Vendetta? A email to the Board with threats of being sued if they didn't vote to sue the bank and Attorney Winslow for the dredging loan, etc, was delivered to the Board, on the morning, of one of the dates he spoke. What did he speak about? - suing outside the gates of Wedgefield - the bank and Winslow. His topic was something about peace and harmony! I can't help but insert this. I wrote the Board and asked to speak at the August Meeting, and requested the appointment to review records. Secretary DeMarchi emailed that I could come on the date and time that I had suggested. He then told me that the decision regarding speaking would come from President Walton. Why? Where is my welcome letter?
*******Resident Thomas: correspondence dated February 29: He states: "The legal files from the dates that Jude was Legal Chair extremely deficient. There are a huge amount of records missing. This is WPA Documents that are missing and they have been missing since June 2010. It is the Board's responsibility to retrieve these files. I have talked to Al DeMarchi about this and all members need to be aware." Board Member Anderson emails this on March 1 (During my review it appeared to be connected to the Thomas email. If I am mistaken, I apologize. I like Anderson's stated overview.): "Verify your accusations. I personally feel everything we have belongs to all of us and should be treated accordingly. If we have it and someone wants to see it, let them, but the request needs to be reasonable."
Residents, this is a mess created on newly created procedures and some newly approved policy mountain, maintained by the votes and silence, of your individual Board Members. In the end, each of the Board Members, who fail to speak up, vote to serve you with their own integrity, investigation of fact and adherence to governing documents, answer you without the prejudice of one of their own determining - whether you are viewed by them as a person with personal agenda or vendetta, are all culpable. You'll note that some of the correspondence is dated in a period of time when the management company wasn't on contract. The management company is left off the hook in those instances. However, I will remind you once again that the management company is there at the pleasure of the Board. Is your Board advising them who will be answered and who will be ignored? I wanted to give a management company a try in hopes that they could help with some of our issues being discussed and resolved. To date, I think we are wasting our money. It appears the long over bearing arm of some of the members of this Board, coupled with spineless behaviors by others on the Board, will not allow us to move forward openly and honestly, according to our governing documents.
I don't believe that I have left out other resident letters to the Board. Those that I have written, or JD have written, have been published on this blog. I didn't want to add length to the article. I have two written in the last 6-8 weeks, followed up with requests for an answer, as to why I'm not being answered. How big is this busy load?
WHAT ELSE IS MISSING? In the past, prior to this ridiculous handling of resident emails and letters, when I reviewed the correspondence file, I would see emails containing the thoughts from individual Board Members regarding a proposed answer to the resident. Not so now, either their thoughts through email aren't being placed in the file, or they don't want you to know what they are thinking, or how they are being strong armed.
FINALLY: When Secretary DeMarchi answered me and told me I could come to the office to view files, he said the following: "I am not sure what other questions you have asked and not received an answer. I understand that you provided your own answers to several questions." Please! He knows and the Board knows, that I have only been told I can come to the office to review files. I have two letters full of unanswered, legitimate questions. After weeks of receiving no answers from the Board or the management company, I researched our governing documents, recordings of meetings, relevant correspondence, etc., answered my own questions, published them, and sent my answers to the Board. Is our Secretary telling me that I answered correctly? Does he really want to leave the impression that those answers are acceptable to the Board? If so, as they say in court: "let the record stand".
DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? SEND IT TO: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Be sure and note whether you want your name published.
Friday, July 27, 2012
UPDATE TO "DETAILS & DOCUMENTS FROM THE BOARD DEBACLE REGARDING 31 LOTS", THE BOARD RESPONDS TO THOMAS IN WRITING
The article mentioned in the title, "DETAILS & DOCUMENTS FROM THE BOARD DEBACLE REGARDING 31 LOTS", dated July 19th, at this site, can be viewed under OLDER POSTS at the bottom of the page.
Briefly, Thomas wrote President Walton questioning T. Wijthoff's ability to vote 31 lots. While the letter isn't dated, we know that Secretary DeMarchi called Wijthoff around noon on July 9th. We also know that President Walton & Secretary DeMarchi met with Thomas at the WPA closed office on July 20th. We've already questioned why this immediate attention to Thomas, by a Board that isn't answering resident correspondence. The management company isn't answering several residents correspondence either.
There is correspondence authored by Barrier, to Thomas, in the correspondence file, dated July 23rd. Barrier & I rarely agree. I must say, that he has composed a reasonable, ethical answer to Thomas. HERE IT IS (Please note that I have retyped the letter. If any typos are found they are mine - without intention):
"The Board has considered your complaint and has found it to be without merit. There is nothing in our governing documents or in South Carolina law that establishes the need for a corporate resolution in order to establish who may cast a ballot as a representative when more than one owner is involved in a property (or multiple properties). Mr. Wijthoff's stake in ownership of the Georgetown Rental Properties has been investigated and the results were found satisfactory to the Secretary and to the Board. Mr. Withoff has cast ballots on behalf of Georgetown Rental Properties for many years without complaint or dispute. This was done through the tenure of multiple Secretaries, all of whom took their duties to ensure a fair election seriously. Until the Board receives correspondence from another owner in Georgetown Rental Properties disputing Mr. Wijthoff's right to cast ballots on its behalf, the matter is considered closed by the Board of Directors of the WPA."
Jason L. Barrier
It appears that Barrier researched, or was advised, and did the right thing. While I am in agreement with his answer, he did the right thing by responding and placing the document in the WPA correspondence file. To my knowledge, he did not make erratic calls to a resident, meet with the complaining resident when the office was closed, etc. I hope this indicates that he will answer all residents with facts, and the same level of respectful delivery of information that he has to Thomas.
Resident Wijthoff had at least one suggestion in his letter to the Board. Will he get a written response?
Briefly, Thomas wrote President Walton questioning T. Wijthoff's ability to vote 31 lots. While the letter isn't dated, we know that Secretary DeMarchi called Wijthoff around noon on July 9th. We also know that President Walton & Secretary DeMarchi met with Thomas at the WPA closed office on July 20th. We've already questioned why this immediate attention to Thomas, by a Board that isn't answering resident correspondence. The management company isn't answering several residents correspondence either.
There is correspondence authored by Barrier, to Thomas, in the correspondence file, dated July 23rd. Barrier & I rarely agree. I must say, that he has composed a reasonable, ethical answer to Thomas. HERE IT IS (Please note that I have retyped the letter. If any typos are found they are mine - without intention):
"The Board has considered your complaint and has found it to be without merit. There is nothing in our governing documents or in South Carolina law that establishes the need for a corporate resolution in order to establish who may cast a ballot as a representative when more than one owner is involved in a property (or multiple properties). Mr. Wijthoff's stake in ownership of the Georgetown Rental Properties has been investigated and the results were found satisfactory to the Secretary and to the Board. Mr. Withoff has cast ballots on behalf of Georgetown Rental Properties for many years without complaint or dispute. This was done through the tenure of multiple Secretaries, all of whom took their duties to ensure a fair election seriously. Until the Board receives correspondence from another owner in Georgetown Rental Properties disputing Mr. Wijthoff's right to cast ballots on its behalf, the matter is considered closed by the Board of Directors of the WPA."
Jason L. Barrier
It appears that Barrier researched, or was advised, and did the right thing. While I am in agreement with his answer, he did the right thing by responding and placing the document in the WPA correspondence file. To my knowledge, he did not make erratic calls to a resident, meet with the complaining resident when the office was closed, etc. I hope this indicates that he will answer all residents with facts, and the same level of respectful delivery of information that he has to Thomas.
Resident Wijthoff had at least one suggestion in his letter to the Board. Will he get a written response?
Thursday, July 26, 2012
UPDATE: QUESTIONS TO THE BOARD, UNANSWERED BY THE BOARD, SO I'LL ANSWER
UPDATE - AUGUST 2ND. I finally receieved a response, but no real response from Mr. LaFrance. He is unsure of any of my questions that remain unanswered. Really???? I've sent him the following regarding my July 3 correspondence, provided below.
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE BOARD AND PLACE A COPY IN THE CORRESPONDENCE FILE
Mr. La France,
I've attached the three page July 3rd correspondence. I do question the filing
systems of both the WPA and the management company for not having the detail of
what has been answered or not. As to the document itself, here is
clarification.
QUESTION 1: Secretary DeMarchi answered it.
QUESTION 2: No answer from the Board. I've answered it myself. Copy should be
in WPA Correspondence File. If not, notify me and I will provide it. Your
answer could be that the Board accepts my determination and let's it stand as a
record.
QUESTION 3): No answer from the Board
How many more weeks will the answer take?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As mentioned earlier, I have two letters to the Board, long overdue for an answer. I answered one of them and sent it to the Board. It has been busy. Now, I'll answer the second one, As before with the first, when I answer it, I will share my answers with the Board, so they know where to find the information.
HERE IS THE SECOND UNANSWERED LETTER:
Then Board Members, Huggins & Wilson, (2 of the objects of the 2011 Recall) sought a second opinion under Attorney Moody, despite the fact that they were highly involved in the 2010 Recall under State Law. I have never seen his written opinion, but have a document from Wilson which states that Moody says we can't hold the meeting, because it doesn't follow our By-Laws. HERE IS THE "OFFICIAL LETTER I RECEIVED REGARDING THE 2011 PETITIONERS RECALL:
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE BOARD AND PLACE A COPY IN THE CORRESPONDENCE FILE
Mr. La France,
I've attached the three page July 3rd correspondence. I do question the filing
systems of both the WPA and the management company for not having the detail of
what has been answered or not. As to the document itself, here is
clarification.
QUESTION 1: Secretary DeMarchi answered it.
QUESTION 2: No answer from the Board. I've answered it myself. Copy should be
in WPA Correspondence File. If not, notify me and I will provide it. Your
answer could be that the Board accepts my determination and let's it stand as a
record.
QUESTION 3): No answer from the Board
How many more weeks will the answer take?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As mentioned earlier, I have two letters to the Board, long overdue for an answer. I answered one of them and sent it to the Board. It has been busy. Now, I'll answer the second one, As before with the first, when I answer it, I will share my answers with the Board, so they know where to find the information.
HERE IS THE SECOND UNANSWERED LETTER:
PAGE I
PAGE 2
PAGE 3
As to question # 1, Error In The March Minutes: First, Secretary DeMarchi did respond to that section of this letter - ONLY. Second, the issue was taken up at the July 2012 Meeting.
Question # 2, (read above) (no answer): Garrison and the Board don't respond. Hell will freeze over and the devil dance on it before they do, because common sense says this was a ridiculous move. SO MY ANSWER IS: The motion made by Garrison was made in poor judgement, reaks of breaking the bounderies of ethics, has all the appearance of conflict, and is a poor use of our funds What is worse, your Board passed it. Additionally, it was poorly worded (didn't represent what was said on the tape of the meeting) in the approved March minutes and your Board passed those. I'll back my answer up with documents, but first a brief history so you and the Board can follow it.
First, in 2010 the Concerned Citizens, later called the Petitioners held a Recall to remove Jude Davis & Karl Gettmann. It ended up in court and Board Attorney of Record, Winslow represented Davis & Gettman as they were Board Members. He respresented using the By-Laws. He was a constitutionalist.
The 2010 "Petitioners" were represented by Attorney Moran. He respresented under SC Non Profit Law. He won in Magistrate Court.
The ruling was appealed in Circuit Court. Davis & Gettmann were represented by Attorney Fulton, another constitutionalist who represented according to our By-Laws. See page three of my letter above.
The now (2010 after recall) Board (some formerly known as the Petitioners) were represented by Attorney Moran in Circuit Court.
After the hearing in Circuit Court, the judge ordered that Attorney Fulton and Attorney Moran draft a final order. He would select one and sign it. He selected Moran's. HERE IS THE FIRST PAGE OF HIS FINAL ORDER WHICH REFERS TO SC NON PROFIT LAW:
STAY WITH THIS SO YOU GET THE COMPLETE PICTURE
Then Attorney Fulton wrote a reconsideration motion, that still hasn't been heard. So, we are left with this open motion. After the Board fired Moran, he told them in a letter that they would have to replace him through a filing with the court.
While all this was hanging & before the Board fired Moran, a group of 2011 Petitioners filed 2 petitions with the WPA to remove five 2011 Board Members, under SC Non Profit Law. Then Board Attorney of Record Moran supported the Recall Meeting being called according to SC Non Profit Law. HERE IS WHAT THEN BOARD ATTORNEY OF RECORD TOLD THE BOARD ABOUT THE NEW 2011 PETITIONERS FILING UNDER STATE LAW:
Enough said, but I have provided complete, accurate information and stand by my answer. Can you tell me how Moody could represent under these circumstances?I
Question # 3: (no anwer from the management company or the Board) Please note the question. After I state that no answers come from the management company (I'm not the only one who doesn't get answered.), I ask what the responsibillity is of the Community Liaison. ANSWER: The newly approved Policy Manual says that the Community Liaison has a lot to do. Coordinate with the Board to secure an answer to the resident, answer the resident, make reports at the Board Meeting each month. THE COMMUNITY LIAISON, LIKE THE REST OF YOUR BOARD IS FAILING TO FOLLOW BY-LAWS, THE POLICY MANUAL AND REFUSING TO ANSWER RESIDENTS IN GOOD STANDING. I was going to provide the Community Liaison job discreption but you can look it up in the Policy Manual, Section XII, #1.
I performed this function when I sat on the Board. It isn't an easy job. During the July Meeting, Garrison said something about people with "personal agendas and vendettas". I answered all the Concerned Citizen Letters during 2009. Did they have personal agendas and vendettas? I won't even say, "you be the judge", because we all know the answers. Bottom line your Board is breaking Policy and By-Laws, by failing to answer.
I'll end my answer with a question. Why isn't President Walton providing proper oversight and if his Board Members fail, or the management company fails, why isn't he firing Board Members from the chairmanship? Why isn't he announcing that he has concerns about how the management company is performing? Remember, he has stated many times that he just wants to live by the By-Laws and Policies, and he and his Board, your Board - AREN'T.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
ANSWER TO MY REQUEST TO VISIT THE OFFICE
The Board responds to my request to visit the office and review documents. Thank you Board. Please see my request letter in the article titled, "Appointment....". After you read the following response, realize that a portion of it is incorrect. No one has spoken or written to me regarding the insurance. Additionally, it is none of my business, no provision of information to me to know what Ms. Davis was given.
The Board's Response:
The Board's Response:
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
STAY TUNED, TOMORROW I'LL PRINT THE ANSWERS TO MY SECOND UNANSWERED LETTER TO THE BOARD
WHEN YOUR BOARD FAILS AND YOUR MANAGEMENT COMPANY FAILS, WE HAVE TO DO OUR BEST TO REMIND PEOPLE OF OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS AND RESIDENT RIGHTS.
Monday, July 23, 2012
APPOINTMENT TO REVIEW DOCUMENTS & REQUEST TO SPEAK AT THE AUGUST BOARD MEETING
FIRST, DON'T MISS OUT. CONSIDER TAKING THE TIME TO READ THE FOLLOWING 4 OR 5 ARTICLES. MUCH HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST 3-4 DAYS. DON'T MISS OUT ON A RESIDENT RESPONSE TO THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER.
Now down to the topic at hand. It requires no explanation if you have been following the blog. If the Board responds, I will share their correspondence. If not, I'll report what happend at the office on the 26th. HERE IT IS:
Now down to the topic at hand. It requires no explanation if you have been following the blog. If the Board responds, I will share their correspondence. If not, I'll report what happend at the office on the 26th. HERE IT IS:
Saturday, July 21, 2012
WHEN A SECRET ISN'T A SECRET AND YOU AREN'T BREAKING YOUR WORD WHEN YOU DISCUSS IT
Many things have been said about me as a Board Member, a past Board Member, as a resident member, and finally as the writer of this blog. Most is untrue, or words pulled out to change the truth. As reported in previous articles, I was a member of a sub committee of the Water Amenities Committee. Your Board requires that ALL committee members sign a Confidentiality Agreement that basically says if you hear about any resident personal financial information that you cannot talk about it. Your Board is using it to silence all committee members regardless of the committee information, topic, or responsibility. I HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN IT BECAUSE OF YOUR BOARDS MISUSE OF THIS DOCUMENT AND BECAUSE MY ATTORNEY ADVISED AGAINST IT. I have been sued and have counter sued. I gave MY WORD that I would not discuss what was said by anyone at the Canal Sub-Committee meetings, or the meeting of the subcommittee with the Board Legal Committee. I have kept my word because I gave it. Believe it, don't believe it, but I am a person of integrity who stands behind what they do and say, and keep my word. HOWEVER, THE SECRET IS OUT ON THE STREET. SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE THE INFORMATION STATED A BOARD MEMBER HAD TOLD THEM. I just have to say same old behavior by some on your Board. I don't have to keep the secret anymore and will provide the information here and tell you what I think about the whole thing!
BACKGROUND:
I met with the three person sub committee (including myself) for several months trying to find an answer to funding future canal maintenance without the angst, lawsuits, abuse of those who have to make the tough decisions, etc. Prior, to the June WPA Board Meeting, the subcommittee was invited to meet with the Legal Committee to discuss possible actions. I don't believe that I am mistaken when I say that the subcommittee went prepared to discuss a By-Law change that added clarification to INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT.
I, Chris Carrol, and subcommittee chair, Adam Anderson attended the meeting. Garrison, Bob Nichols, and I believe (not sure) Jacky Walton attended in behalf of the Legal Committee. I've written in previous articles that the issue of the Confidentiality Agreement came up before we went to the meat of the meeting. I told those present that I hadn't signed, didn't see myself signing, and was allowed to stay because I gave my word to remain silent about the discussion. Garrison stated that I had kept "my word" to him when I gave it. What I didn't notice that evening, and I should have, was that John McBride, Chair of the Water Amenities Committee was not there. I called him the following day and asked if he had been invited, and he stated "no". I asked if he was aware of the option that was to be taken to the attorney, and he stated "no". First, clue that things weren't being run according to any real standard. Oh, but I forget, you are use to YOUR Board ignoring Mc Bride's attempts to adherence to By-Laws, Policy, etc. Don't forget that he is the chair of Water Amenities, which includes the Canal Sub-Committee!
We were hardly in the meeting when we discussed the By-Law change noted above. There really wasn't any interest on the part of the participants from the Legal Committee. I had written our proposed By-Law change along with my rationale. I brought copies that evening but they weren't handed out. "Other copies were available. When they were handed out, my rationale was not on the copies. Why?
I believe the reason was that my rationale included statements regarding Individual Assessment (currently in our By-Laws). I'll publish it when I send it to the Board by the required dead line and publish what your Legal Committee has to say about it, if it doesn't appear on the ballot.
It should be noted that Garrison stated more than once that it would never be done the way it was last time. I know you wouldn't believe this but I swallowed hard, shut my mouth against retaliation, and listened.
Garrison spoke for the Legal Committee. He discussed a plan that would be contingent on a sub association being formed by canal lot owners. The Board would seek a legal opinion, as to whether that was possible. It was further discussed that that might be a hard sell to the canal lot owners. We already had about 10% who hadn't paid their 2009 Individual Assessment, after being coached by the Concerned Citizen element of our development. We talked about the possibility of grandfathering people who resisted, until their property was sold.
The second part of the proposal was a per cent of annual assessments dedicated to the sub-association in restricted reserves for canal maintenance. This portion of the plan would require a By-Law change, or addition.
It should be noted when our sub-committee met for the first time and discussed possibilities, that I brought the legal paper work from one of the other sub-associations in our community. Very quickly, it was decided that WE didn't think it was the way to go.
Admittedly, I was willing to investigate it. At the following Board Meeting Garrison asked for approval to take the issue of a sub-association to the attorney. When were YOU going to be told what the content of the option was? It didn'thappen in June and certainly not in July. Maybe it will be at the Annual Meeting.
Remember, I wasn't allowed to discuss this because I gave my word. I did secure information from a local attorney and a relative who is an attorney in the Washington DC area. Both said it wouldn't work. One said that lot owners who had a mortgage would have to sign off from the bank.
What is upsetting? Many things, YOUR BOARD voted and approved the expenditure of funds, at a meeting, in your presence, when YOU were not allowed to know what the option was that they were seeking legal advice on. YOUR BOARD held me to secrecy, WHEN SOME OF THEM COULD NOT KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT. I AM SO SORRY THAT I GAVE MY WORD. I GAVE IT TO PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T HAVE THE DECENCY TO FOLLOW WHAT THEY REQUIRED OF ME.
WHAT DO I THINK OF THIS? I'm going to tell you. If you don't like it, get off my blog and don't read it anymore. It is The Wedgefield Examiner, but really it is me. I back up what I tell you with documents, excerpts from governing documents, transcriptions of recordings from meetings, and if it is a rumor - I tell you it is a rumor.
My household will NOT SIGN UP FOR THIS. WE WILL GIVE IT NO SUPPORT. I have never felt so strongly about something in my whole (well almost) LIFE. Why?
First, in 2008 when YOUR then Board, that had allowed the Canal Owners to seek a permit at their own expense, threw the Canal Committee off the Board to stop this expensive permit process, we received a call asking us to commit money to pay for our share of the dredging and for those who wouldn't pay. We capped our pledge to $20,000. When the group tried to meet with that Board to say basically, "let us dredge, we will pay the whole thing", THAT BOARD WALKED AWAY AND DENIED THE OFFER WAS EVER MADE. I will remind you that I was in the court room when some canal residents sued that Board, and the person who had made calls to solicit participation and financial commitment stood up and told the judge how much money had been petitioned. At that time, we - my household would have given $20,000 to control the destiny of the canals.
NO MORE! Our family had never lived, in all of our long lives, under the restrictions of an association. WE HAVE LIVED with how we fence, paint the outside of our house, etc. since 2004. THERE HAS BEEN NO CONSISTENCY in property maintenance (still today). I have a curb across the road that is illegal, is a safety hazard, and the chair of ARC in 2011 drove by it every day it was in development and never stopped it. Yards are in disrepair, and your Board (current) doesn't care. I have seen vendor contractors with no insurance and no license, gain huge contracts. I have seen an office built with no public vote and money taken out of reserves. I have been sued as a Board Member, individually, by people who broke all the governing documents and built that office. MANY OF YOU GAVE THEM MONEY FOR LEGAL EXPENSES WHEN THEY SUED THE BOARD I SAT ON. I have watched Boards destroy the name and reputation of individuals on Boards that worked to follow the rules. THE CURRENT BOARD DOESN'T FOLLOW THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, STARTS THIS PROJECT WITH A TRUMPED UP CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE THAT DOESN'T APPLY, AND IS NOTHING MORE THAN SECRECY.
Our household will NEVER sign off to do this. We own our "little retirement home outright". It only takes our signature and WE WON'T DO IT. If they come to your door, remind them that there is "no solicitation" in Wedgefield and that you think for yourself.
If you have drank the kool aid and think you might buy into this, think about it. It started with a secret, based on a bogus confidentiality document, so they could tell you what they wanted, when they wanted, and have you follow the herd. You are a herd when you watch your Board approve funds for an option they aren't willing to share with you, and you don't question it..
If you are against the canals, remember they promised you so many things, and settled a lawsuit "in behalf of you"! Remember, your cuurent Board, named a Concerned Citizen as Legal Chair. Who do they put on the committtee with Garrison? Another Concerned Citizen. In the recent past, both of these Bobs authored and signed a letter to residents telling them not to pay their $175.00, but to put it in escrow. This is like setting the fox up in the hen house. Now they have an idea in the best interests of the canal lot owners???? You research it, I have. What does your attorney and bank say about a sub association and your deeds and your lending agreement?
THIS HOUSEHOLD ISN'T BUYING INTO IT. We have had eight years of erratic Boards and we will not add another layer telling us what we will pay for next!
BACKGROUND:
I met with the three person sub committee (including myself) for several months trying to find an answer to funding future canal maintenance without the angst, lawsuits, abuse of those who have to make the tough decisions, etc. Prior, to the June WPA Board Meeting, the subcommittee was invited to meet with the Legal Committee to discuss possible actions. I don't believe that I am mistaken when I say that the subcommittee went prepared to discuss a By-Law change that added clarification to INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT.
I, Chris Carrol, and subcommittee chair, Adam Anderson attended the meeting. Garrison, Bob Nichols, and I believe (not sure) Jacky Walton attended in behalf of the Legal Committee. I've written in previous articles that the issue of the Confidentiality Agreement came up before we went to the meat of the meeting. I told those present that I hadn't signed, didn't see myself signing, and was allowed to stay because I gave my word to remain silent about the discussion. Garrison stated that I had kept "my word" to him when I gave it. What I didn't notice that evening, and I should have, was that John McBride, Chair of the Water Amenities Committee was not there. I called him the following day and asked if he had been invited, and he stated "no". I asked if he was aware of the option that was to be taken to the attorney, and he stated "no". First, clue that things weren't being run according to any real standard. Oh, but I forget, you are use to YOUR Board ignoring Mc Bride's attempts to adherence to By-Laws, Policy, etc. Don't forget that he is the chair of Water Amenities, which includes the Canal Sub-Committee!
We were hardly in the meeting when we discussed the By-Law change noted above. There really wasn't any interest on the part of the participants from the Legal Committee. I had written our proposed By-Law change along with my rationale. I brought copies that evening but they weren't handed out. "Other copies were available. When they were handed out, my rationale was not on the copies. Why?
I believe the reason was that my rationale included statements regarding Individual Assessment (currently in our By-Laws). I'll publish it when I send it to the Board by the required dead line and publish what your Legal Committee has to say about it, if it doesn't appear on the ballot.
It should be noted that Garrison stated more than once that it would never be done the way it was last time. I know you wouldn't believe this but I swallowed hard, shut my mouth against retaliation, and listened.
Garrison spoke for the Legal Committee. He discussed a plan that would be contingent on a sub association being formed by canal lot owners. The Board would seek a legal opinion, as to whether that was possible. It was further discussed that that might be a hard sell to the canal lot owners. We already had about 10% who hadn't paid their 2009 Individual Assessment, after being coached by the Concerned Citizen element of our development. We talked about the possibility of grandfathering people who resisted, until their property was sold.
The second part of the proposal was a per cent of annual assessments dedicated to the sub-association in restricted reserves for canal maintenance. This portion of the plan would require a By-Law change, or addition.
It should be noted when our sub-committee met for the first time and discussed possibilities, that I brought the legal paper work from one of the other sub-associations in our community. Very quickly, it was decided that WE didn't think it was the way to go.
Admittedly, I was willing to investigate it. At the following Board Meeting Garrison asked for approval to take the issue of a sub-association to the attorney. When were YOU going to be told what the content of the option was? It didn'thappen in June and certainly not in July. Maybe it will be at the Annual Meeting.
Remember, I wasn't allowed to discuss this because I gave my word. I did secure information from a local attorney and a relative who is an attorney in the Washington DC area. Both said it wouldn't work. One said that lot owners who had a mortgage would have to sign off from the bank.
What is upsetting? Many things, YOUR BOARD voted and approved the expenditure of funds, at a meeting, in your presence, when YOU were not allowed to know what the option was that they were seeking legal advice on. YOUR BOARD held me to secrecy, WHEN SOME OF THEM COULD NOT KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT. I AM SO SORRY THAT I GAVE MY WORD. I GAVE IT TO PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T HAVE THE DECENCY TO FOLLOW WHAT THEY REQUIRED OF ME.
WHAT DO I THINK OF THIS? I'm going to tell you. If you don't like it, get off my blog and don't read it anymore. It is The Wedgefield Examiner, but really it is me. I back up what I tell you with documents, excerpts from governing documents, transcriptions of recordings from meetings, and if it is a rumor - I tell you it is a rumor.
My household will NOT SIGN UP FOR THIS. WE WILL GIVE IT NO SUPPORT. I have never felt so strongly about something in my whole (well almost) LIFE. Why?
First, in 2008 when YOUR then Board, that had allowed the Canal Owners to seek a permit at their own expense, threw the Canal Committee off the Board to stop this expensive permit process, we received a call asking us to commit money to pay for our share of the dredging and for those who wouldn't pay. We capped our pledge to $20,000. When the group tried to meet with that Board to say basically, "let us dredge, we will pay the whole thing", THAT BOARD WALKED AWAY AND DENIED THE OFFER WAS EVER MADE. I will remind you that I was in the court room when some canal residents sued that Board, and the person who had made calls to solicit participation and financial commitment stood up and told the judge how much money had been petitioned. At that time, we - my household would have given $20,000 to control the destiny of the canals.
NO MORE! Our family had never lived, in all of our long lives, under the restrictions of an association. WE HAVE LIVED with how we fence, paint the outside of our house, etc. since 2004. THERE HAS BEEN NO CONSISTENCY in property maintenance (still today). I have a curb across the road that is illegal, is a safety hazard, and the chair of ARC in 2011 drove by it every day it was in development and never stopped it. Yards are in disrepair, and your Board (current) doesn't care. I have seen vendor contractors with no insurance and no license, gain huge contracts. I have seen an office built with no public vote and money taken out of reserves. I have been sued as a Board Member, individually, by people who broke all the governing documents and built that office. MANY OF YOU GAVE THEM MONEY FOR LEGAL EXPENSES WHEN THEY SUED THE BOARD I SAT ON. I have watched Boards destroy the name and reputation of individuals on Boards that worked to follow the rules. THE CURRENT BOARD DOESN'T FOLLOW THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, STARTS THIS PROJECT WITH A TRUMPED UP CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE THAT DOESN'T APPLY, AND IS NOTHING MORE THAN SECRECY.
Our household will NEVER sign off to do this. We own our "little retirement home outright". It only takes our signature and WE WON'T DO IT. If they come to your door, remind them that there is "no solicitation" in Wedgefield and that you think for yourself.
If you have drank the kool aid and think you might buy into this, think about it. It started with a secret, based on a bogus confidentiality document, so they could tell you what they wanted, when they wanted, and have you follow the herd. You are a herd when you watch your Board approve funds for an option they aren't willing to share with you, and you don't question it..
If you are against the canals, remember they promised you so many things, and settled a lawsuit "in behalf of you"! Remember, your cuurent Board, named a Concerned Citizen as Legal Chair. Who do they put on the committtee with Garrison? Another Concerned Citizen. In the recent past, both of these Bobs authored and signed a letter to residents telling them not to pay their $175.00, but to put it in escrow. This is like setting the fox up in the hen house. Now they have an idea in the best interests of the canal lot owners???? You research it, I have. What does your attorney and bank say about a sub association and your deeds and your lending agreement?
THIS HOUSEHOLD ISN'T BUYING INTO IT. We have had eight years of erratic Boards and we will not add another layer telling us what we will pay for next!
DON'T MISS OUT
It is Saturday and a lot is happening. WE ADDED TWO NEW ARTICLES TODAY AND ONE ON FRIDAY.
THEY ARE THE FOLLOWING THREE.
DON'T MISS OUT
AND WATCH FOR MORE TO FOLLOW SUNDAY OR MONDAY
THEY ARE THE FOLLOWING THREE.
DON'T MISS OUT
AND WATCH FOR MORE TO FOLLOW SUNDAY OR MONDAY
A LETTER FROM RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS
Dear Madeline,
We seem to be in the same category of residents—the do not answer them. As
Bob Garrison likes to point out, some residents are more equal than others. I
also had a list of questions after the June meeting, and have not received a
written reply. As I understand it, the flow of responses goes something like
this:
Resident to Edmund to Board to Edmund to Board to Edmund to Resident-----no
wonder it takes upwards of 40 days!
I went to the office on Tuesday July 17 and received some information to my
questions. For example, I was told that the $53,000 was two months operating
expenses for the WPA. This money included the loan payment. Since the loan
payment is a direct draft from our operating account, William Douglas will
refund to the WPA the loan payment. Do you get it?
I asked to see the archival document that proves that the Confidentiality
Agreement has historically been part of the Policy Manual. After a few tense
moments of dithering, Al admitted that he found a stand alone piece of paper on
WPA stationery with this agreement spelled out. The agreement was NEVER
adopted. In fact, although Al told John McBride it was yellow and tattered, it
was just the opposite. Since I don’t remember a date on it, I don’t have any
idea as to when it appeared in the file. It certainly was never in the policy
manual.
I had some concerns about the statement of indemnification by extension to
volunteers. I called several insurance people and two insurance lawyers who
cautioned me that coverage is usually limited to those groups specified. Al
admitted that volunteers were never mentioned. Jacky Walton observed the
discussion and he assured me that he would call the insurance company
immediately. Hopefully, he will send me a written reply as to what he
discovered.
Oh, by the way, during the comment period after the July meeting, I asked
why the complete financial report disappeared from the web site. No one at the
table even knew that it had, and the treasurer was absent so they didn’t have an
answer for me.
I have a theory that you and I ask questions that the Board doesn’t want to
answer because the answers reveal too much information. They seem to subscribe
to the keep them in the dark and feed them c--- management style.
It is sad that the entire Board by their silence is allowing one or two
individuals to dictate policy and make new rules.
Jude
A PUZZLE, TWO APOLOGIES, A COMMENT, AND A CLOSED MEETING
I've got a lot of things in progress. We've had the July WPA Board Meeting, a secret isn't secret any more, and now the puzzler.
Let's start at the beginning. If we take it step by step, you may be able to solve the puzzle. If you do will you please email the blog wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you want your name published with your answer to the puzzle.
First Clue: We are all aware of the Thomas letter and the Board Secretary's call to Wijthoff.
Second Clue: This one becomes a little more complicated because it includes the two apologies and the comment. They all took place at the July WPA monthly Board Meeting.
Apology # One: President Walton makes the following apology. I have transcribed it to the best of my ability. As always, listen to the President's Report at The Wedgefield Times. Here it is: "The President has made a mistake resulting in an awful position. I apologize to the Board Member and the resident for being placed in this awful position." This is supposed (by others also) - we don't know because he starts off with December, but appears to some that he is talking about DeMarchi and resident Wijthoff.
Apology# Two: Secretary DeMarchi said the following during his Secretary's Report. I have transcribed it to the best of my ability. As always, listen to the President's Report at The Wedgefield Times. Here it is: "In some matters I try to resolve issues before they become problems. I apologize to any residents who feels I was not working in their best interests to resolve these matters. As a business man, I have always thought...to refute allegations and innuendos. This direct approach has not worked in our business of Wedgefield Plantation Association. So in the future I will not attempt to resolve matters as quickly. The issues will be brought before the Board for appropriate Board responses." Sounded to me and others that he was speaking of the Thomas/Wijthoff debacle.
The Comment: The comment comes under Garrison's Vice President Report. I have transcribed it to the best of my ability. As always, listen to the Vice President's Report at The Wedgefield Times. Please listen yourself. Garrison's voice is not as clear as Walton's and DeMarchi's and it is not my intention to mislead (I don't believe I am.). I won't even try to transcribe his words verbatim. He comments about several questions and comments coming to the Board. They are trying to respond. Then he says something about residents with personal agendas and vendettas. I have no idea who he is talking about. I know my questions have related to By-Laws, Policies, requests to view documents, and clarification about what was presented at Board Meetings. Can't be me, in my estimation, but I haven't been answered when others have. Not to name names but we all know Thomas wrote on July 9th and he got action. Another resident R. Arm....(won't write the whole name) had a response. R's response letter was in the Correspondence File, but his letter requesting information wasn't.
The Closed Meeting: This is more than a rumor. I have at least two confirmations that it occurred. On Friday, July 20th, a day that our WPA Office is usually closed for business, President Walton and Secretary DeMarchi met in the office with Fred Thomas.
The Puzzlers - How Many Of These Questions Can You Answer?
*Since President Walton started off talking about something in December and then giving an apology, was he apologizing to Wijthoff and DeMarchi?
*Was DeMarchi apologizing for his actions regarding Wijthoff?
*Who amongst the residents, does Garrison think have personal agendas and vendettas? Could it be Thomas and R?
*Why were DeMarchi and Walton giving Thomas time, during a time when our office is closed for resident business?
*Were ALL Board Members notified and invited to the closed meeting?
*Was there any sincerity, based on Friday's meeting, in any of this?
*With all this attention to Thomas, why don't they have time to answer me, a resident in good standing, with no personal agendas or vendettas?
I've told you where to send your answers. In the least, you should be concerned when the Board doesn't meet their own policies in responding to residents, but hand pick and give special attention to others.
Let's start at the beginning. If we take it step by step, you may be able to solve the puzzle. If you do will you please email the blog wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you want your name published with your answer to the puzzle.
First Clue: We are all aware of the Thomas letter and the Board Secretary's call to Wijthoff.
Second Clue: This one becomes a little more complicated because it includes the two apologies and the comment. They all took place at the July WPA monthly Board Meeting.
Apology # One: President Walton makes the following apology. I have transcribed it to the best of my ability. As always, listen to the President's Report at The Wedgefield Times. Here it is: "The President has made a mistake resulting in an awful position. I apologize to the Board Member and the resident for being placed in this awful position." This is supposed (by others also) - we don't know because he starts off with December, but appears to some that he is talking about DeMarchi and resident Wijthoff.
Apology# Two: Secretary DeMarchi said the following during his Secretary's Report. I have transcribed it to the best of my ability. As always, listen to the President's Report at The Wedgefield Times. Here it is: "In some matters I try to resolve issues before they become problems. I apologize to any residents who feels I was not working in their best interests to resolve these matters. As a business man, I have always thought...to refute allegations and innuendos. This direct approach has not worked in our business of Wedgefield Plantation Association. So in the future I will not attempt to resolve matters as quickly. The issues will be brought before the Board for appropriate Board responses." Sounded to me and others that he was speaking of the Thomas/Wijthoff debacle.
The Comment: The comment comes under Garrison's Vice President Report. I have transcribed it to the best of my ability. As always, listen to the Vice President's Report at The Wedgefield Times. Please listen yourself. Garrison's voice is not as clear as Walton's and DeMarchi's and it is not my intention to mislead (I don't believe I am.). I won't even try to transcribe his words verbatim. He comments about several questions and comments coming to the Board. They are trying to respond. Then he says something about residents with personal agendas and vendettas. I have no idea who he is talking about. I know my questions have related to By-Laws, Policies, requests to view documents, and clarification about what was presented at Board Meetings. Can't be me, in my estimation, but I haven't been answered when others have. Not to name names but we all know Thomas wrote on July 9th and he got action. Another resident R. Arm....(won't write the whole name) had a response. R's response letter was in the Correspondence File, but his letter requesting information wasn't.
The Closed Meeting: This is more than a rumor. I have at least two confirmations that it occurred. On Friday, July 20th, a day that our WPA Office is usually closed for business, President Walton and Secretary DeMarchi met in the office with Fred Thomas.
The Puzzlers - How Many Of These Questions Can You Answer?
*Since President Walton started off talking about something in December and then giving an apology, was he apologizing to Wijthoff and DeMarchi?
*Was DeMarchi apologizing for his actions regarding Wijthoff?
*Who amongst the residents, does Garrison think have personal agendas and vendettas? Could it be Thomas and R?
*Why were DeMarchi and Walton giving Thomas time, during a time when our office is closed for resident business?
*Were ALL Board Members notified and invited to the closed meeting?
*Was there any sincerity, based on Friday's meeting, in any of this?
*With all this attention to Thomas, why don't they have time to answer me, a resident in good standing, with no personal agendas or vendettas?
I've told you where to send your answers. In the least, you should be concerned when the Board doesn't meet their own policies in responding to residents, but hand pick and give special attention to others.
Friday, July 20, 2012
PART ONE: YOUR BOARD'S BEHAVIOR - SELECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY OR JUST PLAIN LIES?
It is SIX WEEKS & COUNTING SINCE I WROTE THE BOARD. In fact I wrote a second letter after. There has been no response on either. I've decided to answer my questions myself and share the answers with you. IN THE END YOU WILL BE THE JUDGE AS TO WHETHER I AM CORRECT OR NOT. UPDATE: This is PART ONE of a two part series. I have a second unanswered letter sitting in the WPA Office. I'll answer that one in PART TWO, over the weekend.
First, I'll provide a little back ground. I'll provide the information to support my answers. I'll share the completed document with the Board so they'll know where to get the information, in case you ask.
We'll start with the WPA Policy Manual regarding answering resident questions. HERE IT IS:
the affected resident or member will be notified of this fact.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Can you believe it? In my case they failed in their responsibilities! Did Fred Thomas have to wait 10 days? No, he did not. His letter to President Walton was received on July 9th and by noon of the same day DeMarchi was calling Wijthoff. For me, I'm way past a month. I have reached the point where I will publish all my correspondence to the Board here, as I send it off to the Board.
My June 12th letter to the Board follows. Please note that the original letter will appear in black and my answers in red.
_________________________________________________________________________________
June 20, 2012
TO: WPA BOARD c/o Mr. LaFrance, William Douglas
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: Request for Copy
Clarification and Provision of Information
Objection & Clarification
Request for Copy of Archival Documentation
Request for Copy
I am requesting a copy of Attorney Moody’s legal opinion regarding the confidentiality statement. Please let me know when I can pick it up at the office.
ANSWER: First organized "officials" whose intent is to "serve" their public would have looked at this letter, determined what they could respond to quickly and emailed me and gave me a date and time to come into the office and either review the document or provide a copy. Remember confidentiality isn't an issue because Garrison read portions of the opinion during a open Board Meeting. Our By-Laws State: ARTICLE XII, BOOKS AND RECORDS, Section 1: "All books and records of The Association may be inspected by any member; or his agent or attorney, for any proper purpose at any reasonable time."
First, I was within "reasonable time". I asked when, as in at your convenience. Second, I asked for a copy. The Board COULD HAVE ANSWERED, maybe said I could only review it, or relied on the wonderful word so many use here, "PRECEDENT, and allowed me a copy, as has been the practice for YEARS. So, I get to see or have a copy of the document. THIS IS JUST SELECTIVE GOVERNANCE. Before I leave this question it should be noted that until we elected Secretary DeMarchi, we could go and view records, receive copies, WITHOUT A BOARD MEMBER PRESENT. The By-Laws do not require it, only Secretary DeMarchi.
Provision of Information
I was surprised, and am skeptical about the statement made that committee members are indemnified through the Board’s insurance. Please provide a copy of the section of the Board’s Insurance policy, or quote the section’s specific language, regarding this coverage.
ANSWER: Again I was reasonable and within the By-Laws, as noted above. THE BOARD EITHER HAS THE DOCUMENT or THERE IS A LIE IN HERE SOME PLACE. Did they really speak the truth from the Board table?
Clarification
I believe I heard Legal Chair Bob Garrison state that committee members and Board Members could be removed if they violated the Confidentiality Agreement. I credit myself with a clear understanding and thorough knowledge of our governing documents.
Please provide the section and language in our governing documents that would allow removal of a Board Member under those circumstances. My reading indicates that unless a Board Member has not paid their assessment, has committed a crime against the association and been found guilty, that there is no avenue to remove a Board Member short of a recall.
ANSWER: I've reviewed the By-Laws. These are the only instances I can find that refer to the removal of a Board Member. ARTICLE VII, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Section3 - (c): "Removal. Any Directr may be removed from office with or without cause by concurrence of two-thirds of the eligible votes of the entire membership at a specail meeting of the members called for that purpose." More information foolows but this covers the subject.
Again under the same section: "If any Director fails to pay any annual assessment within thirty (30) days after its due date, or is in violation of any of the Covenants and who fails to remedy the violation within 30 days written notice by the Board of Directors, he/she shall be removed as a Director and the remaining Directors shall select a successor to serve the unexpired portion of the term of said removed Director."
If you are a committee member I believe you are there at the pleasure of the Board. They can remove you, but if they do I would scream the circumstances from the roof tops if they claim you violated the Confidentiality Agreement and you were guilty, unless you are quilty of relaying PRIVATE MEMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION, because that is all that the agreement insists you remain silent about!
Since the Board failed to answer I rate this as a plain old lie or deception on the part of your Board.
The answer is important, as we have had several Board Members publicly violate the Confidentiality Agreement. Jude Davis mentioned the very public disclosure in the Wragg earlier this year. At last months meeting the payment status of Mr. Grey was discussed openly at the Board Meeting. What will happen to these Board Members?
Who will enforce the policy?
This Board wants to silence YOU. Trust me they won't and can't start legally removing each other. NONE OF THIS HAS TEETH OR ENFORCEMENT AND THEY TOOK IT TOO FAR ON A BOGUS DOCUMENT - more later.
Request for Archival Documentation
During the June Meeting it was stated that the Confidentiality Agreement has been in place for many years. It wasn’t mandatory that it be signed but it was in the Policy Manual.. As a former Board Member I have numerous old copies of the Policy Manual and can’t find it. Please provide a properly dated copy of this section of the Policy Manual.
ANSWER: This is another case of if they had it, they would produce it and do it quickly. THE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT IS NOT A HISTORICAL, UTILIZED BEFORE, POLICY. You know I always tell you when something is a RUMOR and this is. It is rumored that even your Board feels that they were lied to about this document. First some were told it was old and yellowed, when actually it is quite white and fresh looking and was found in a file unrelated to policy. THIS WHOLE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND ITS USE WAS INITIATED WITH A LIE.
Objection & Clarification
At least as of yesterday, I was a member of the Water Amenities Committee, assigned to the Canal subcommittee. I have not signed the Confidentiality Agreement on the advice of my attorney. I have not hidden the fact that I have not signed it. In fact I made Board Members McBride, Garrison, and Anderson aware of the fact. I have been allowed to attend meetings with the promise of my silence on the items discussed. I have kept my word.
I am considering signing the Confidentiality Agreement, after the items listed above have been provided, against my attorney’s advice. I am in agreement that any contact Board Member, or committee member has with individual resident financial information, should be held confidential. In fact, the document relates only to confidentiality of that information. I believe I could sign and agree to that. However, if I did sign it and were allowed to sit on committees that is the ONLY information I would find it necessary to hold confidential. The rest would be at my discretion.
It appears this Board has taken an agreement utilized for the sole purpose of protecting individual residents, and used it as a broad brush to silence and hide information from the residents. They are destroying the best attributes of the committee process. It appears that they are afraid of residents having and discussing information.
ANSWER: Here is the confidentiality statement. It doesn't take an attorney, or a great deal of brain power to see THAT IT RELATES ONLY TO FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING ELSE THAT A COMMITTEE DISCUSSES UNLESS THE COMMITTEE CHAIR DOUBTS THAT THE MOVES PROPOSED ARE NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY. ADDITIONALLY, YOUR BOARD APPEARS TO THINK THEY CAN HERD YOU INTO FOLLOWING LIKE CATTLE, AND THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO READ AND APPLY THE CONTENT OF WHAT YOU READ. This whole thing is based on a lie and used to selectively silence you.
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 member through Wedgefield Plantation Association office and is an important part of Wedgefield Plantation Association business.
CONFIDENTALITY 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.
Board/Staff Name: ___________________________________
Date: _____________________
Board/Staff Signature: _________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________
My verbal agreement went against every principle I ever had as I worked with and on committees and Boards, over 25 years in the non profit arena. Any appearance of secrecy at this point in our history will come back to bite this Board. How insulting to the residents intelligence, for Garrison to make a motion to spend Association funds, on seeking advice regarding a “secret option” for the canals! Most of us don’t spend money until we know what we are buying. Right now, we are contributing to a secret.
Board, please provide the information requested above so I can make a good decision for myself. If the Board has made a decision as to whether I will be allowed to remain on the committee, please be decent and professional enough to notify me.
If you don't write and demand that the secrecy stop then you deserve what you are getting - lies, selective governance, and secrets that insult the average persons intelligence. Again, why did your Board SELECT Thomas for immediate attention against their own policy, and ignore the policy for me?
CC: WPA BOARD
Have a comment? Send it to wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Be sure and note whether you want your name published.
First, I'll provide a little back ground. I'll provide the information to support my answers. I'll share the completed document with the Board so they'll know where to get the information, in case you ask.
We'll start with the WPA Policy Manual regarding answering resident questions. HERE IT IS:
1.02
Scope and Procedure:
1. When a written communication is received in the WPA office, the office
clerk will date stamp it, place a copy in the correspondence file, and
forward a copy to all board members.
2. Upon receipt of the communication copy, the Community Liaison
Chairperson will determine if another WPA committee should be
involved with assisting with the inquiry response. If that is the case,
they are expected to merge their responses with that of the Community
Liaison Chair who must write the final response.
3. All proposed responses will be submitted in writing (with other relevant
materials) for eventual inclusion in the final response which is to be
presented to the Board of Directors.
4. There will be a ten (10) day deadline for the acknowledgement of receipt
of communication. There will be a thirty (30) day deadline for the final
response to the resident or member, unless the final response requires
more extensive research of underlining issues. If more time is required,
the affected resident or member will be notified of this fact.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Can you believe it? In my case they failed in their responsibilities! Did Fred Thomas have to wait 10 days? No, he did not. His letter to President Walton was received on July 9th and by noon of the same day DeMarchi was calling Wijthoff. For me, I'm way past a month. I have reached the point where I will publish all my correspondence to the Board here, as I send it off to the Board.
My June 12th letter to the Board follows. Please note that the original letter will appear in black and my answers in red.
_________________________________________________________________________________
June 20, 2012
TO: WPA BOARD c/o Mr. LaFrance, William Douglas
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: Request for Copy
Clarification and Provision of Information
Objection & Clarification
Request for Copy of Archival Documentation
Request for Copy
I am requesting a copy of Attorney Moody’s legal opinion regarding the confidentiality statement. Please let me know when I can pick it up at the office.
ANSWER: First organized "officials" whose intent is to "serve" their public would have looked at this letter, determined what they could respond to quickly and emailed me and gave me a date and time to come into the office and either review the document or provide a copy. Remember confidentiality isn't an issue because Garrison read portions of the opinion during a open Board Meeting. Our By-Laws State: ARTICLE XII, BOOKS AND RECORDS, Section 1: "All books and records of The Association may be inspected by any member; or his agent or attorney, for any proper purpose at any reasonable time."
First, I was within "reasonable time". I asked when, as in at your convenience. Second, I asked for a copy. The Board COULD HAVE ANSWERED, maybe said I could only review it, or relied on the wonderful word so many use here, "PRECEDENT, and allowed me a copy, as has been the practice for YEARS. So, I get to see or have a copy of the document. THIS IS JUST SELECTIVE GOVERNANCE. Before I leave this question it should be noted that until we elected Secretary DeMarchi, we could go and view records, receive copies, WITHOUT A BOARD MEMBER PRESENT. The By-Laws do not require it, only Secretary DeMarchi.
Provision of Information
I was surprised, and am skeptical about the statement made that committee members are indemnified through the Board’s insurance. Please provide a copy of the section of the Board’s Insurance policy, or quote the section’s specific language, regarding this coverage.
ANSWER: Again I was reasonable and within the By-Laws, as noted above. THE BOARD EITHER HAS THE DOCUMENT or THERE IS A LIE IN HERE SOME PLACE. Did they really speak the truth from the Board table?
Clarification
I believe I heard Legal Chair Bob Garrison state that committee members and Board Members could be removed if they violated the Confidentiality Agreement. I credit myself with a clear understanding and thorough knowledge of our governing documents.
Please provide the section and language in our governing documents that would allow removal of a Board Member under those circumstances. My reading indicates that unless a Board Member has not paid their assessment, has committed a crime against the association and been found guilty, that there is no avenue to remove a Board Member short of a recall.
ANSWER: I've reviewed the By-Laws. These are the only instances I can find that refer to the removal of a Board Member. ARTICLE VII, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Section3 - (c): "Removal. Any Directr may be removed from office with or without cause by concurrence of two-thirds of the eligible votes of the entire membership at a specail meeting of the members called for that purpose." More information foolows but this covers the subject.
Again under the same section: "If any Director fails to pay any annual assessment within thirty (30) days after its due date, or is in violation of any of the Covenants and who fails to remedy the violation within 30 days written notice by the Board of Directors, he/she shall be removed as a Director and the remaining Directors shall select a successor to serve the unexpired portion of the term of said removed Director."
If you are a committee member I believe you are there at the pleasure of the Board. They can remove you, but if they do I would scream the circumstances from the roof tops if they claim you violated the Confidentiality Agreement and you were guilty, unless you are quilty of relaying PRIVATE MEMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION, because that is all that the agreement insists you remain silent about!
Since the Board failed to answer I rate this as a plain old lie or deception on the part of your Board.
The answer is important, as we have had several Board Members publicly violate the Confidentiality Agreement. Jude Davis mentioned the very public disclosure in the Wragg earlier this year. At last months meeting the payment status of Mr. Grey was discussed openly at the Board Meeting. What will happen to these Board Members?
Who will enforce the policy?
This Board wants to silence YOU. Trust me they won't and can't start legally removing each other. NONE OF THIS HAS TEETH OR ENFORCEMENT AND THEY TOOK IT TOO FAR ON A BOGUS DOCUMENT - more later.
Request for Archival Documentation
During the June Meeting it was stated that the Confidentiality Agreement has been in place for many years. It wasn’t mandatory that it be signed but it was in the Policy Manual.. As a former Board Member I have numerous old copies of the Policy Manual and can’t find it. Please provide a properly dated copy of this section of the Policy Manual.
ANSWER: This is another case of if they had it, they would produce it and do it quickly. THE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT IS NOT A HISTORICAL, UTILIZED BEFORE, POLICY. You know I always tell you when something is a RUMOR and this is. It is rumored that even your Board feels that they were lied to about this document. First some were told it was old and yellowed, when actually it is quite white and fresh looking and was found in a file unrelated to policy. THIS WHOLE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND ITS USE WAS INITIATED WITH A LIE.
Objection & Clarification
At least as of yesterday, I was a member of the Water Amenities Committee, assigned to the Canal subcommittee. I have not signed the Confidentiality Agreement on the advice of my attorney. I have not hidden the fact that I have not signed it. In fact I made Board Members McBride, Garrison, and Anderson aware of the fact. I have been allowed to attend meetings with the promise of my silence on the items discussed. I have kept my word.
I am considering signing the Confidentiality Agreement, after the items listed above have been provided, against my attorney’s advice. I am in agreement that any contact Board Member, or committee member has with individual resident financial information, should be held confidential. In fact, the document relates only to confidentiality of that information. I believe I could sign and agree to that. However, if I did sign it and were allowed to sit on committees that is the ONLY information I would find it necessary to hold confidential. The rest would be at my discretion.
It appears this Board has taken an agreement utilized for the sole purpose of protecting individual residents, and used it as a broad brush to silence and hide information from the residents. They are destroying the best attributes of the committee process. It appears that they are afraid of residents having and discussing information.
ANSWER: Here is the confidentiality statement. It doesn't take an attorney, or a great deal of brain power to see THAT IT RELATES ONLY TO FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING ELSE THAT A COMMITTEE DISCUSSES UNLESS THE COMMITTEE CHAIR DOUBTS THAT THE MOVES PROPOSED ARE NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY. ADDITIONALLY, YOUR BOARD APPEARS TO THINK THEY CAN HERD YOU INTO FOLLOWING LIKE CATTLE, AND THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO READ AND APPLY THE CONTENT OF WHAT YOU READ. This whole thing is based on a lie and used to selectively silence you.
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 member through Wedgefield Plantation Association office and is an important part of Wedgefield Plantation Association business.
CONFIDENTALITY 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.
Board/Staff Name: ___________________________________
Date: _____________________
Board/Staff Signature: _________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________
My verbal agreement went against every principle I ever had as I worked with and on committees and Boards, over 25 years in the non profit arena. Any appearance of secrecy at this point in our history will come back to bite this Board. How insulting to the residents intelligence, for Garrison to make a motion to spend Association funds, on seeking advice regarding a “secret option” for the canals! Most of us don’t spend money until we know what we are buying. Right now, we are contributing to a secret.
Board, please provide the information requested above so I can make a good decision for myself. If the Board has made a decision as to whether I will be allowed to remain on the committee, please be decent and professional enough to notify me.
If you don't write and demand that the secrecy stop then you deserve what you are getting - lies, selective governance, and secrets that insult the average persons intelligence. Again, why did your Board SELECT Thomas for immediate attention against their own policy, and ignore the policy for me?
CC: WPA BOARD
Have a comment? Send it to wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Be sure and note whether you want your name published.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
DETAILS & DOCUMENTS FROM THE BOARD DEBACLE REGARDING 31 LOTS
This report is going to be short on words from me. I'll present documentation and you will be the judge.
Simply, Fred Thomas wrote the Board questioning Taco Wijthoff's ability to vote 31 lots. On the very day this Board receives his letter (The Board that hasn't answered my questions in six weeks.) begins to investigate Thomas' question. Board Secretary, Al DeMarchi places a call to Wijthoff. You'll read for yourself how insulting Wijthoff found this call.
Once again, your Board puts our association in jeopordy when they ignore procedure to RUSH to answer sterling member, Thomas. A copy of a letter from Wijthoff's attorney is included in the article.
We have also included a copy of Wijthoff's documents. Note in Thomas' letter that he says "we" couldn't find documentation. Who is we?
Will the Board respond to Wijthoff's question regarding the resident who had three lots and split them into five? Follow the blog. We'll see how long it takes.
The documents follow and are all labeled prior to their presentation.
THOMAS' LETTER- Please note that I have cut off his email address and telephone #:
WIJTHOFF'S LETTER TO THE BOARD (page one):
WIJTHOFF'S LETTER TO THE BOARD (page two):
WIJTHOFF'S ATTORNEY WRITES THE BOARD:
WIJTHOFF'S DOCUMENTS (page one):
Simply, Fred Thomas wrote the Board questioning Taco Wijthoff's ability to vote 31 lots. On the very day this Board receives his letter (The Board that hasn't answered my questions in six weeks.) begins to investigate Thomas' question. Board Secretary, Al DeMarchi places a call to Wijthoff. You'll read for yourself how insulting Wijthoff found this call.
Once again, your Board puts our association in jeopordy when they ignore procedure to RUSH to answer sterling member, Thomas. A copy of a letter from Wijthoff's attorney is included in the article.
We have also included a copy of Wijthoff's documents. Note in Thomas' letter that he says "we" couldn't find documentation. Who is we?
Will the Board respond to Wijthoff's question regarding the resident who had three lots and split them into five? Follow the blog. We'll see how long it takes.
The documents follow and are all labeled prior to their presentation.
THOMAS' LETTER- Please note that I have cut off his email address and telephone #:
WIJTHOFF'S LETTER TO THE BOARD (page one):
WIJTHOFF'S LETTER TO THE BOARD (page two):
WIJTHOFF'S ATTORNEY WRITES THE BOARD:
WIJTHOFF'S DOCUMENTS (page one):
WIJTHOFF'S DOCUMENTS (page two):
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER'S VACATION IS OVER......MUCH HAS HAPPENED WHILE WE WERE GONE
It is great to be back from vacation. Brady and I have kept a distant pulse on things. Ever wonder if things can get worse? Well, they have.
First, it is six weeks and counting since I wrote the Board. As of today, July 18th, no answer. Yet, Fred Thomas wrote the Board and Secretary DeMarchi was on the job for him. Is Fred Thomas a member? Will someone please check? If you recall, about a year ago he was about to be removed from the Board. He didn't own his property. It was in his wife's name. Then he got a quit claim deed to make himself legal????? You and I, didn't elect him in 2011. Is he still on the legal papers? If not, why is DeMarchi doing hand stands to answer him? I'm a member, and he hasn't bothered to get the Board, or the management company to answer my letter. The question isn't just about DeMarchi, but the entire Board. Is it a matter of selective responsibility?
There was a Board Meeting on Tuesday July 17th. I'm told, that we didn't hear about the secret canal option. Where are the Concerned Citizens? They easily claim secrets, etc. Aren't they worried? Don't they have questions? It has been over 60 days since Garrison sought the opinion of the Board Attorney. What is holding this up. Don't the residents, all those who paid for the opinion on the secret option, have a right to an answer? Maybe the Concerned Citizens know what the option is. Can't prove it, but their silence is suspicious.
Did anyone go to the office and ask to see the correspondence file? Was Fred's letter in it? I understand Wijthoff sent a letter to the Board. Has anyone seen it?
Why did the Nominating Committee Chair resign? I'm sure there is an answer. I'm curious because she is a outstanding member of our association and the larger community.
Well, time to unpack and get busy. Stay tuned!
First, it is six weeks and counting since I wrote the Board. As of today, July 18th, no answer. Yet, Fred Thomas wrote the Board and Secretary DeMarchi was on the job for him. Is Fred Thomas a member? Will someone please check? If you recall, about a year ago he was about to be removed from the Board. He didn't own his property. It was in his wife's name. Then he got a quit claim deed to make himself legal????? You and I, didn't elect him in 2011. Is he still on the legal papers? If not, why is DeMarchi doing hand stands to answer him? I'm a member, and he hasn't bothered to get the Board, or the management company to answer my letter. The question isn't just about DeMarchi, but the entire Board. Is it a matter of selective responsibility?
There was a Board Meeting on Tuesday July 17th. I'm told, that we didn't hear about the secret canal option. Where are the Concerned Citizens? They easily claim secrets, etc. Aren't they worried? Don't they have questions? It has been over 60 days since Garrison sought the opinion of the Board Attorney. What is holding this up. Don't the residents, all those who paid for the opinion on the secret option, have a right to an answer? Maybe the Concerned Citizens know what the option is. Can't prove it, but their silence is suspicious.
Did anyone go to the office and ask to see the correspondence file? Was Fred's letter in it? I understand Wijthoff sent a letter to the Board. Has anyone seen it?
Why did the Nominating Committee Chair resign? I'm sure there is an answer. I'm curious because she is a outstanding member of our association and the larger community.
Well, time to unpack and get busy. Stay tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)