Wednesday, December 18, 2013
A QUICK REVIEW OF THE DECEMBER 17 WPA BOARD MEETING AND POSSIBLY ANOTHER MYSTERIOUS SECTION ADDED TO THE POLICY MANUAL
The member attendance for this meeting equaled the number serving and present on the board - 9! Thanks were given to the election committee and the people who decorated for the holidays. Minutes from the October regular board meeting were approved and the minutes to two "open meetings" called by the board. A reserve account will be opened at a new bank (more to follow).
Overall the meeting moved quickly and without the usual drama.
What was interesting was that as almost every committee chair gave their report they also sought approval for committee members for 2014. We'll analyze the members approved for each committee later on. De Marchi gave a Compliance Committee report for the first time in months. He sought to change language under petty cash. He did not name, or list, committee membership as many of the others did. What is the treasurer of the organization - finance chair, member of several committees, doing serving as Compliance Chair? Look at the conflict alone of the treasurer - finance chair, bringing a proposed change to the policy manual to the board for a vote.
A quick review of the current policy manual and those from 2002 and 2006 brought more questions than answers. Shouldn't the list provided by the board on the website that lists the approved changes to the manual include the fact that Audit Committee was removed and a brand new one added - Compliance? Will Compliance end up having the same strange undocumented appearance that the Confidentiality Agreement had? We'll see as we look into it after the new year.
More to follow on the December meeting after the new year.
Overall the meeting moved quickly and without the usual drama.
What was interesting was that as almost every committee chair gave their report they also sought approval for committee members for 2014. We'll analyze the members approved for each committee later on. De Marchi gave a Compliance Committee report for the first time in months. He sought to change language under petty cash. He did not name, or list, committee membership as many of the others did. What is the treasurer of the organization - finance chair, member of several committees, doing serving as Compliance Chair? Look at the conflict alone of the treasurer - finance chair, bringing a proposed change to the policy manual to the board for a vote.
A quick review of the current policy manual and those from 2002 and 2006 brought more questions than answers. Shouldn't the list provided by the board on the website that lists the approved changes to the manual include the fact that Audit Committee was removed and a brand new one added - Compliance? Will Compliance end up having the same strange undocumented appearance that the Confidentiality Agreement had? We'll see as we look into it after the new year.
More to follow on the December meeting after the new year.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
IN WEDGEFIELD HOPE DOESN'T SPRING ETERNALLY - MEET YOUR 2014 OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS - SAME OLD, SAME OLD - IT MAY BE A LANDMARK YEAR - MAYBE WE'LL HAVE RISEN TO THE HEIGHT OF TOTAL DYSFUNCTION
You know the old saying hope springs eternal? At the advent of a new year you'll often hear that phrase. With the annual meeting comes a reorganization meeting. The board elects new officers. The president of the new board has the privilege of naming committee chairs. Hope for change, even in the circumstance where we only really got one new board member, went out the door when you review the new officers - nothing changed, and committee chairs - minor cosmetic change in two areas.
PRESIDENT: Walton, VICE PRESIDENT: Garrison, TREASURER: De Marchi, SECRETARY: Cline. Nothing changed. Once again your board elected Walton president. Walton, as president, has the power to name the committee chairs. Little changed in the committee chairs. New board member, Keith Johnson was named ARC chair. Adam Anderson was named Community Liaison. Johnson has served on ARC for some time. Anderson replaces Barrier as Community Liaison. It shouldn't be a big job because your board hasn't answered residents in well over a year and infrequently before that. When we had a management company whose responsibility was to answer residents, certain board members strangled the process to the point that no one got answered.
The point is that this board let Walton return to a job he has failed to handle. His record speaks for itself. As president, he should provide oversight to his board and their committee responsibilities. The president should distance himself from sitting on individual committees, receive information and recommendations from them, and work with the chairs through scheduling their reports on the agenda, noting motions to come to the table for a board vote, etc. In his role of board and committee supervisor, if he stays out of committee membership, he observes with clean hands. Instead, Walton has placed our governance in a incestuous position and exhibited total disregard of the benefits of true committee structure.
Incestuous? Yes. Your board doesn't publish the names of the individuals serving on committees. I'm going to have to rely on memory. If there is an error, please let me know and I'll will print a correction. For the most part, your board stacks the committees with board members, rather than building committees in the true spirit of committees, that is the inclusion of new faces, ideas, etc. Yes, our committees are incestuous, and built to keep out more people and their ideas, monitoring and contributing to our governance. Take a look at the committees. They are loaded with board members and our president's participation, rather than supervision.
ARC: Walton, De Marchi, Johnson
LEGAL: Garrison, Walton, De Marchi, (one resident)
FINANCE: De Marchi, (3 residents)
ROADS: Anderson (unsure whether any others are on the committee)
DRAINAGE: De Marchi, Walton, (unsure if others are on the committee)
WATER AMENITIES: Mc Millin, Anderson, Walton (John), Johnson, (some residents) Should be noted that McBride had served on this committee but was thrown off the committee when he brought the dock in the canal issue to the board table.
GROUNDS: Mc Millin (No one else, I called the office about this committee a few months ago.)
WELCOME: McBride (Has resident participation.)
COMPLIANCE: De Marchi (Uncertain if he has anyone left on this committee. No reports in months.) Note the committees De Marchi sits on and the fact that he is the treasurer and this is just a big NO, NO!
COMMUNICATION: Cline
This committee set up, failure to list committee members, failure to post committee meeting reports, etc., just leads to secret deals, and poor governance, while taking away the power and benefits that real committee structure provides.
President Walton fails to oversee because he is in the middle of it all, rather than supervising it. He has allowed chairs to remain in place who fail, not only to serve, but fail to perform at all - COMMUNITY LIAISON. He sits by, or participates in the ugliness that takes place at the board table almost monthly, and speaks often in behalf of motions, that at times violate our governing documents.
Hope doesn't spring eternal for 2014 in Wedgefield.
PRESIDENT: Walton, VICE PRESIDENT: Garrison, TREASURER: De Marchi, SECRETARY: Cline. Nothing changed. Once again your board elected Walton president. Walton, as president, has the power to name the committee chairs. Little changed in the committee chairs. New board member, Keith Johnson was named ARC chair. Adam Anderson was named Community Liaison. Johnson has served on ARC for some time. Anderson replaces Barrier as Community Liaison. It shouldn't be a big job because your board hasn't answered residents in well over a year and infrequently before that. When we had a management company whose responsibility was to answer residents, certain board members strangled the process to the point that no one got answered.
The point is that this board let Walton return to a job he has failed to handle. His record speaks for itself. As president, he should provide oversight to his board and their committee responsibilities. The president should distance himself from sitting on individual committees, receive information and recommendations from them, and work with the chairs through scheduling their reports on the agenda, noting motions to come to the table for a board vote, etc. In his role of board and committee supervisor, if he stays out of committee membership, he observes with clean hands. Instead, Walton has placed our governance in a incestuous position and exhibited total disregard of the benefits of true committee structure.
Incestuous? Yes. Your board doesn't publish the names of the individuals serving on committees. I'm going to have to rely on memory. If there is an error, please let me know and I'll will print a correction. For the most part, your board stacks the committees with board members, rather than building committees in the true spirit of committees, that is the inclusion of new faces, ideas, etc. Yes, our committees are incestuous, and built to keep out more people and their ideas, monitoring and contributing to our governance. Take a look at the committees. They are loaded with board members and our president's participation, rather than supervision.
ARC: Walton, De Marchi, Johnson
LEGAL: Garrison, Walton, De Marchi, (one resident)
FINANCE: De Marchi, (3 residents)
ROADS: Anderson (unsure whether any others are on the committee)
DRAINAGE: De Marchi, Walton, (unsure if others are on the committee)
WATER AMENITIES: Mc Millin, Anderson, Walton (John), Johnson, (some residents) Should be noted that McBride had served on this committee but was thrown off the committee when he brought the dock in the canal issue to the board table.
GROUNDS: Mc Millin (No one else, I called the office about this committee a few months ago.)
WELCOME: McBride (Has resident participation.)
COMPLIANCE: De Marchi (Uncertain if he has anyone left on this committee. No reports in months.) Note the committees De Marchi sits on and the fact that he is the treasurer and this is just a big NO, NO!
COMMUNICATION: Cline
This committee set up, failure to list committee members, failure to post committee meeting reports, etc., just leads to secret deals, and poor governance, while taking away the power and benefits that real committee structure provides.
President Walton fails to oversee because he is in the middle of it all, rather than supervising it. He has allowed chairs to remain in place who fail, not only to serve, but fail to perform at all - COMMUNITY LIAISON. He sits by, or participates in the ugliness that takes place at the board table almost monthly, and speaks often in behalf of motions, that at times violate our governing documents.
Hope doesn't spring eternal for 2014 in Wedgefield.
Friday, December 6, 2013
MORE QUESTIONS ARISE REGARDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CONTRACTING & PROCUREMENT, INTEGRITY, AND CODE OF ETHICS
If you haven't read the article immediately following this one, please read it before you proceed. I'm sick of this board's lack of ability to conduct business in an open, ethical manner. I'm sick of them not answering residents through legitimate correspondence, playing god (small "g" on purpose because it is an insult to the standard), and arrogantly handling business in a dictator style, and treating members as though they aren't smart enough to see what the board doing. If you've read the previous article you'll note for yourself that your entire board - minus one, ignored the "Conflict of Interest", that each and everyone of them signed. The second document - our own WPA document, that they have failed for forever to follow, even though they all signed it, is the Code of Ethics. This was supposedly so important that they had a signing of the Code of Ethics, AT THE BOARD TABLE. I'm surprised they didn't each receive a signing pen like the president of the US does. Every time they have been reasonably questioned by a board member on issues such as conflict of interest, they have abused the questioning board member - read the transcripts and listen to the tapes. At one point Garrison called the questioning on conflict of interest moronic. It is MORONIC that anyone would accept anything that comes out of their mouths, when they fail to live up to documents that they signed!
De Marchi's email to me calling for a retraction did nothing but send the mind to wondering why he protests too much. If anything, it has caused further questions to arise out of the whole conflict of interest, regarding President Walton bidding and your board awarding him the contract to fix some aspects of the gate house. The reasonable question, now moves to the bidding and contracting itself. It is a question, not a statement of fact. The blog is the only vehicle left. Your board won't answer questions, make it difficult to review records - if they will allow it, and the questioner is demonized for asking. Here's the question: Was there conflict of interest in the bidding process for the gate house contract itself - even before the award? You'll have to decide. If it generates the question in your mind maybe you'll write and ask. If you don't question and document, then you put wind beneath the wings of their poor, convoluted governance.
Think about the lead up to the contract award. It appears your board doesn't have an approved bidding list. A list of qualified vendors who they have checked credentials, insurance, previous performance, etc. That would be good business. We are told that the bid package was sent to three vendors. I won't name the company that De Marchi noted in his email. Read it for yourself. We'll call it company "B". De Marchi tells us that he had worked for company "B". To my knowledge, company "B" hasn't bid on projects before. When all is said and done (read the numbers), Walton's bid is very low, and company "B", is very high. Since there was no approved bidding list to send requests for proposal to, was this a staged set up to give Walton the award? Just asking? Was the pricing staged? It could easily appear to be that. Just asking - not accusing anyone. It looks bad. So, your board has ignored strong standard procurement, two of the very documents they approved at the board table - Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics, the advise of the experts that prepared the Reserve Study and constantly advise them to get outside vendors to handle the contract process and oversight and to seek engineering services, and awarded a contract to our president.
This whole thing, as so many others, looks tainted, shabby, and unethical. Who is responsible? Everyone on that board, minus one. In regard to contracting, if they ever answered anyone, they'd sing their favorite song, "no one wants to work in Wedgefield". Several years ago, a board sang a similar song and we paid one vendor over $700,000, built an office without a public - at the board table vote, and paid a "builder", who had to use someone else's license. As we approached a new election, Mc Millin verbally made contracting part of his platform. When he was first elected, he proved over and over again that plenty of contractors were willing to work here - even on small $400 contracts. Do we ever hear him go after this contracting mess now? No. You see, it could appear he gets what he wants when he cooperates and keeps his mouth shut like he did when your board approved one of his contracts that has all of us partially paying for individual lot mowing.
Who amongst you will ask the questions and start to resolve this board regime and stop conflict of interest, intimidation at the board table, and bring ethics and strong governance, back to Wedgefield's board table?
P.S. I finished this article and pushed the publish button and took a break. Do you think the questions are "hard" on this cohesive board and some of the individual board members? Think about this. Much of this relates to contracting and contract awards and doing business openly and honestly. Do the questions make you feel like there should be distrust of action and motive? Possibly you don't attend the miserable monthly meetings, follow up with questions, and want the best for the place you call home. In regard to contracting, I went to the office to review one of DeMarchi's first drainage projects in the Enclave. There was NO written requests for bids with specs. I reviewed the bids. There were two. One was a known contractor in good standing - Great Lawns. Their bid was TWENTY DOLLARS more that the winning bid. As I reviewed the second bid there were scratch outs on the typed bid with figures changed that brought the bid which was originally higher than Great Lawns, to $20 LESS. Just one example. You be the judge as to whether any thing looked SUSPICOUS to the average person.
De Marchi's email to me calling for a retraction did nothing but send the mind to wondering why he protests too much. If anything, it has caused further questions to arise out of the whole conflict of interest, regarding President Walton bidding and your board awarding him the contract to fix some aspects of the gate house. The reasonable question, now moves to the bidding and contracting itself. It is a question, not a statement of fact. The blog is the only vehicle left. Your board won't answer questions, make it difficult to review records - if they will allow it, and the questioner is demonized for asking. Here's the question: Was there conflict of interest in the bidding process for the gate house contract itself - even before the award? You'll have to decide. If it generates the question in your mind maybe you'll write and ask. If you don't question and document, then you put wind beneath the wings of their poor, convoluted governance.
Think about the lead up to the contract award. It appears your board doesn't have an approved bidding list. A list of qualified vendors who they have checked credentials, insurance, previous performance, etc. That would be good business. We are told that the bid package was sent to three vendors. I won't name the company that De Marchi noted in his email. Read it for yourself. We'll call it company "B". De Marchi tells us that he had worked for company "B". To my knowledge, company "B" hasn't bid on projects before. When all is said and done (read the numbers), Walton's bid is very low, and company "B", is very high. Since there was no approved bidding list to send requests for proposal to, was this a staged set up to give Walton the award? Just asking? Was the pricing staged? It could easily appear to be that. Just asking - not accusing anyone. It looks bad. So, your board has ignored strong standard procurement, two of the very documents they approved at the board table - Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics, the advise of the experts that prepared the Reserve Study and constantly advise them to get outside vendors to handle the contract process and oversight and to seek engineering services, and awarded a contract to our president.
This whole thing, as so many others, looks tainted, shabby, and unethical. Who is responsible? Everyone on that board, minus one. In regard to contracting, if they ever answered anyone, they'd sing their favorite song, "no one wants to work in Wedgefield". Several years ago, a board sang a similar song and we paid one vendor over $700,000, built an office without a public - at the board table vote, and paid a "builder", who had to use someone else's license. As we approached a new election, Mc Millin verbally made contracting part of his platform. When he was first elected, he proved over and over again that plenty of contractors were willing to work here - even on small $400 contracts. Do we ever hear him go after this contracting mess now? No. You see, it could appear he gets what he wants when he cooperates and keeps his mouth shut like he did when your board approved one of his contracts that has all of us partially paying for individual lot mowing.
Who amongst you will ask the questions and start to resolve this board regime and stop conflict of interest, intimidation at the board table, and bring ethics and strong governance, back to Wedgefield's board table?
P.S. I finished this article and pushed the publish button and took a break. Do you think the questions are "hard" on this cohesive board and some of the individual board members? Think about this. Much of this relates to contracting and contract awards and doing business openly and honestly. Do the questions make you feel like there should be distrust of action and motive? Possibly you don't attend the miserable monthly meetings, follow up with questions, and want the best for the place you call home. In regard to contracting, I went to the office to review one of DeMarchi's first drainage projects in the Enclave. There was NO written requests for bids with specs. I reviewed the bids. There were two. One was a known contractor in good standing - Great Lawns. Their bid was TWENTY DOLLARS more that the winning bid. As I reviewed the second bid there were scratch outs on the typed bid with figures changed that brought the bid which was originally higher than Great Lawns, to $20 LESS. Just one example. You be the judge as to whether any thing looked SUSPICOUS to the average person.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
DE MARCHI WANTS A RETRACTION. WE'LL LOOK AT THE FACTS AND WHERE HE GOES TO TRY AND JUSTIFY OUR BOARD'S MISERABLE OPERATING AND VOTING METHODS. DID HE ACTUALLY BY PASS THE POLICY MANUAL HE ALL BUT AUTHORED ???
The Wedgefield Examiner is back after a Thanksgiving break. As the blog was being closed for the break, I came across an email from De Marchi. The email was sent to my private email address regarding The Wedgefield Examiner. It was sent from De Marchi's private email address. You'll note as you read it that he signs off as a private individual, but speaks about an action of the board, along with what he feels is inaccurate information regarding some of his transactions as a resident who also conducts business. It was some what humorous that he responded at all, as he claims he NEVER reads the blog. My private email address is available for friends, family, and the board, if they are corresponding to me as a resident. The Wedgefield Examiner has an email address for individuals who want to comment on articles: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com In the future I would expect that De Marchi, or anyone else, email any comments about the blog to that address. I've retyped De Marchi's email below (copy of actual on file).
"SUBJECT: The law and other errors
Read the law! According to the SC Non Profit Corp. Act, if the board approves the work, there is no conflict.
Also, just for clarification, I have never sold a lot in Wedgefield as your blog contends. The homes I constructed were done under Brinson Enterprises license and I, as an employee of the company, worked as a construction supervisor.
Do you ever get tired of distorting the facts? I am anxious to see if you print a retraction regarding the facts you misstated. I sincerely wish you would work as diligently with the board as you do against it. Please let me know if you ever have a change of heart.
Respectfully,
Alan A. De Marchi"
COMMENTS:
In regard to his "READ THE LAW", I am sick of how far DeMarchi and others on this board will reach in an attempt to convince you they did the right thing! This board has an attorney of record who ignored state law when he advised the 2011 board that the 2011 Recall effort should not proceed under the same state non profit law that the 2010 Recall was allowed, in the courts. Within the last year when I requested reviewing records, De March sent me an email holding me to the time lines of state law. When I asked for a meeting with the board and wanted to know whether we would all be governed under our own documents or the state law, or whether the state law was just being applied to me, De Marchi told me he never sent the email. I was able to provide the email that had been authored by him and he had advised the office to send it to me. Looks like he'll revert to state law if he has dug himself into a deep hole.
There are statements similar to the one he quotes regarding the board's power in our own governing documents. Basically, they say decisions of the board are final. I have two issues with his methods. First, what he quotes does not remove the true meaning of conflict of interest. It just says the board has power. It doesn't say there was any principle, or true governance under the concept and meaning of conflict of interest. He appears to be referring to the situation of our then president, receiving funds to do work from his business and receive assessment dollars for work on the gate house.. It is conflict of interest. Some might call it nepotism in this cohesive board situation.
The biggest insult to any one's intelligence is that DeMarchi chaired the group that updated our policy manual. Every board member has signed a conflict of interest statement. Did he forget that in his staged offense? I would hope not because DeMarchi and this board shoved a lot of things down our resident throats as he worked "cleaning up" the policy manual. Go to the WPA website and review the policy manual. The table of contents IV, 1.02 states, "A "Conflict of Interest Statement" form is to be signed by each Director". See Appendix IV-2. Read the entire "Conflict of Interest Statement". I'm not going to retype, or post the entire document. Item # 2 on the document states: "We recognize that Board Members have outside business, professional and personal interests. Board Members, however, may not profit in any way in their outside business, professional or personal interests from their association with Wedgefield Plantation Association. During Board meetings, members must disclose any conflict of interest involving an issue before the board, and abstain from discussion or voting on the issue." Where's compliance? I forget myself, DeMarchi is compliance. No retraction on conflict of interest.
Next, DeMarchi seeks clarification and retraction on facts about whether he sold lots in Wedgefield. First, remember that he appears to refer to articles that I have written about drainage contracts for the Enclave. DeMarchi, not only bought and built on the lot he currently lives on, but he bought additional lots. Go back and read transcriptions on this blog, of WPA meeting tapes, go listen to the tapes of the last several months regarding DeMarchi's statements about drainage and the Enclave. Several times he states that every body was wrong about drainage before him.. The engineering company, previous board's etc. At the same time he won't get real engineers involved in cleaning up these so called mistakes. According to him, he and President Walton have expertise and know just what needs to be done. The Wedgefield Examiner has repeatedly asked how much expertise DeMarchi could have if he bought into what he himself says was a bad drainage situation, not once, but at least three times - at least 3 lots. The Wedgefield Examiner has said that he bought and sold. Now just as noted above on conflict of interest, he parses words - seeks to right himself with outlandish reach. He did buy more than one lot. I have personally been introduced to people by De Marchi, who he stated and they stated, that he had built their homes. If De Marchi wants clarification, according to him, he never sold the lots, that the homes he built were on. Well, in his world that may remove principle and tarnish, but not in the usual principled world. I've had three homes built in my life time. The on site construction supervisor was the go to person for me, the company who sold me the lot and housing construction contract, and also kept permits from the larger governing entity legit. I would still call that selling. Did he reassure the purchaser that this was a great house plan and everything was in great shape and move in ready? Did he assure the county and city permitting entities that everything was to code? Did he reassure his employer that everything was moving forward to a positive out come? Did he meet the requirements of the WPA? Well then, he was the front line person who continued to sell to all entities, including our new resident buyers. Wait, maybe he told them that drainage was all wrong, always had been, and that they would have problems! If he was that honest, he should have it documented and I'll retract then, not now.
DeMarchi "sincerely wish you would work as diligently with the board as you do against it". Mr. DeMarchi, Board Member De Marchi, I will work with a board, and have worked with many, when the board has principle, follows the governing documents in all cases, and each individual board member votes with principle, and according to the governing documents at all times. Right now, just in the instances you harp righteously on in your email, your indignant, misplaced, arrogant, righteousness, I wouldn't waste my principled, informed, experienced time! Who are the biggest board offenders in the instances that DeMarchi brings up? Top of the list: DeMarchi, Garrison, President Walton. Why? Because when a single board member - McBride, has tried to bring sense and governance to the drainage and conflict of interest discussions and votes, he has been disrespected, and harassed at the board table, by these three. In the case of the gate house, our conflicted President, told the board he would pull his bid, and DeMarchi said he wouldn't accept the withdrawal, and on weak principle the motion passed. I don't have time to discuss the weakness of all the other board members who sit by month after month and let it all happen, and go as far as to forget what they signed. It appears to be a twisting of words and lack of principle and good governance, by most of them.
"SUBJECT: The law and other errors
Read the law! According to the SC Non Profit Corp. Act, if the board approves the work, there is no conflict.
Also, just for clarification, I have never sold a lot in Wedgefield as your blog contends. The homes I constructed were done under Brinson Enterprises license and I, as an employee of the company, worked as a construction supervisor.
Do you ever get tired of distorting the facts? I am anxious to see if you print a retraction regarding the facts you misstated. I sincerely wish you would work as diligently with the board as you do against it. Please let me know if you ever have a change of heart.
Respectfully,
Alan A. De Marchi"
COMMENTS:
In regard to his "READ THE LAW", I am sick of how far DeMarchi and others on this board will reach in an attempt to convince you they did the right thing! This board has an attorney of record who ignored state law when he advised the 2011 board that the 2011 Recall effort should not proceed under the same state non profit law that the 2010 Recall was allowed, in the courts. Within the last year when I requested reviewing records, De March sent me an email holding me to the time lines of state law. When I asked for a meeting with the board and wanted to know whether we would all be governed under our own documents or the state law, or whether the state law was just being applied to me, De Marchi told me he never sent the email. I was able to provide the email that had been authored by him and he had advised the office to send it to me. Looks like he'll revert to state law if he has dug himself into a deep hole.
There are statements similar to the one he quotes regarding the board's power in our own governing documents. Basically, they say decisions of the board are final. I have two issues with his methods. First, what he quotes does not remove the true meaning of conflict of interest. It just says the board has power. It doesn't say there was any principle, or true governance under the concept and meaning of conflict of interest. He appears to be referring to the situation of our then president, receiving funds to do work from his business and receive assessment dollars for work on the gate house.. It is conflict of interest. Some might call it nepotism in this cohesive board situation.
The biggest insult to any one's intelligence is that DeMarchi chaired the group that updated our policy manual. Every board member has signed a conflict of interest statement. Did he forget that in his staged offense? I would hope not because DeMarchi and this board shoved a lot of things down our resident throats as he worked "cleaning up" the policy manual. Go to the WPA website and review the policy manual. The table of contents IV, 1.02 states, "A "Conflict of Interest Statement" form is to be signed by each Director". See Appendix IV-2. Read the entire "Conflict of Interest Statement". I'm not going to retype, or post the entire document. Item # 2 on the document states: "We recognize that Board Members have outside business, professional and personal interests. Board Members, however, may not profit in any way in their outside business, professional or personal interests from their association with Wedgefield Plantation Association. During Board meetings, members must disclose any conflict of interest involving an issue before the board, and abstain from discussion or voting on the issue." Where's compliance? I forget myself, DeMarchi is compliance. No retraction on conflict of interest.
Next, DeMarchi seeks clarification and retraction on facts about whether he sold lots in Wedgefield. First, remember that he appears to refer to articles that I have written about drainage contracts for the Enclave. DeMarchi, not only bought and built on the lot he currently lives on, but he bought additional lots. Go back and read transcriptions on this blog, of WPA meeting tapes, go listen to the tapes of the last several months regarding DeMarchi's statements about drainage and the Enclave. Several times he states that every body was wrong about drainage before him.. The engineering company, previous board's etc. At the same time he won't get real engineers involved in cleaning up these so called mistakes. According to him, he and President Walton have expertise and know just what needs to be done. The Wedgefield Examiner has repeatedly asked how much expertise DeMarchi could have if he bought into what he himself says was a bad drainage situation, not once, but at least three times - at least 3 lots. The Wedgefield Examiner has said that he bought and sold. Now just as noted above on conflict of interest, he parses words - seeks to right himself with outlandish reach. He did buy more than one lot. I have personally been introduced to people by De Marchi, who he stated and they stated, that he had built their homes. If De Marchi wants clarification, according to him, he never sold the lots, that the homes he built were on. Well, in his world that may remove principle and tarnish, but not in the usual principled world. I've had three homes built in my life time. The on site construction supervisor was the go to person for me, the company who sold me the lot and housing construction contract, and also kept permits from the larger governing entity legit. I would still call that selling. Did he reassure the purchaser that this was a great house plan and everything was in great shape and move in ready? Did he assure the county and city permitting entities that everything was to code? Did he reassure his employer that everything was moving forward to a positive out come? Did he meet the requirements of the WPA? Well then, he was the front line person who continued to sell to all entities, including our new resident buyers. Wait, maybe he told them that drainage was all wrong, always had been, and that they would have problems! If he was that honest, he should have it documented and I'll retract then, not now.
DeMarchi "sincerely wish you would work as diligently with the board as you do against it". Mr. DeMarchi, Board Member De Marchi, I will work with a board, and have worked with many, when the board has principle, follows the governing documents in all cases, and each individual board member votes with principle, and according to the governing documents at all times. Right now, just in the instances you harp righteously on in your email, your indignant, misplaced, arrogant, righteousness, I wouldn't waste my principled, informed, experienced time! Who are the biggest board offenders in the instances that DeMarchi brings up? Top of the list: DeMarchi, Garrison, President Walton. Why? Because when a single board member - McBride, has tried to bring sense and governance to the drainage and conflict of interest discussions and votes, he has been disrespected, and harassed at the board table, by these three. In the case of the gate house, our conflicted President, told the board he would pull his bid, and DeMarchi said he wouldn't accept the withdrawal, and on weak principle the motion passed. I don't have time to discuss the weakness of all the other board members who sit by month after month and let it all happen, and go as far as to forget what they signed. It appears to be a twisting of words and lack of principle and good governance, by most of them.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Thursday, November 21, 2013
A FEW MORE QUESTIONS COME TO MIND
After I prepared the article containing questions posed by a resident regarding engineering, roads, and drainage, a few questions came to mind. They are my questions. I won't write the board. I attend about 80% of the meetings, listen to the tapes of all the meetings, and periodically check the correspondence book. Your board doesn't answer residents. There haven't been any reports for about a year at the board table from the Community Liaison. We'll leave the questions and comment alone posed by the resident. Back to drainage.
We've been told that drainage work has to be done in the Enclave because everything was done wrong. Previous engineering companies were bad. Apparently, previous boards, without DeMarchi and President Walton's input, were wrong - made bad decisions. This board is willing to pay for work that previously new home builders (residents) were expected to pay. We'll leave that alone for now.
We've been told that they need to get the work in the Enclave done because there are new homes about to be built. Based on the inconsistency, conflict of interest, and self interest projects, I have a few questions, because I don't believe much of what this board says.
1) How many homes in the Enclave has ARC (Walton, DeMarchi, and now Johnson) received permit requests for?
2) Who are the builders of record, named in the documents?
Suspicious? Yes, with every reason to be so. Remember, DeMarchi is on about his 3rd drainage project for that area. Over the months he has talked about his property, his expertise, previous board failure, etc., regarding drainage. At the same time he bought more than one lot in that deplorable area (bad drainage), and sold some lots, and built homes on them, and sold them to people under what must have been deplorable conditions. Is he, or one of his friends, building in that area again? He listed some of his friends during a meeting in the last two months.
Just a few questions. No accusations. Where is the Compliance Committee in answering any of these type questions about conflict of interest, possible self gain, contracting, anything? I forgot for a minute, President Walton put DeMarchi, our treasurer, on ARC, Drainage, and Legal, in charge of Compliance! Maybe you will write and ask for an answer. Since the board fails to answer, I have no place to go but this blog and hope it will spur others on to ask the questions, maybe they'll answer you, if you have the right board connections.
We've been told that drainage work has to be done in the Enclave because everything was done wrong. Previous engineering companies were bad. Apparently, previous boards, without DeMarchi and President Walton's input, were wrong - made bad decisions. This board is willing to pay for work that previously new home builders (residents) were expected to pay. We'll leave that alone for now.
We've been told that they need to get the work in the Enclave done because there are new homes about to be built. Based on the inconsistency, conflict of interest, and self interest projects, I have a few questions, because I don't believe much of what this board says.
1) How many homes in the Enclave has ARC (Walton, DeMarchi, and now Johnson) received permit requests for?
2) Who are the builders of record, named in the documents?
Suspicious? Yes, with every reason to be so. Remember, DeMarchi is on about his 3rd drainage project for that area. Over the months he has talked about his property, his expertise, previous board failure, etc., regarding drainage. At the same time he bought more than one lot in that deplorable area (bad drainage), and sold some lots, and built homes on them, and sold them to people under what must have been deplorable conditions. Is he, or one of his friends, building in that area again? He listed some of his friends during a meeting in the last two months.
Just a few questions. No accusations. Where is the Compliance Committee in answering any of these type questions about conflict of interest, possible self gain, contracting, anything? I forgot for a minute, President Walton put DeMarchi, our treasurer, on ARC, Drainage, and Legal, in charge of Compliance! Maybe you will write and ask for an answer. Since the board fails to answer, I have no place to go but this blog and hope it will spur others on to ask the questions, maybe they'll answer you, if you have the right board connections.
A FEW RESIDENT QUESTIONS THAT AREN'T SENT TO THE BOARD BECAUSE THEY DON'T ANSWER. IN THIS CASE THEY COULDN'T BECAUSE IT APPEARS THERE IS NO CONSISTENCY OR LOGIC TO WHAT THEY ARE DOING
The questions pertained to roads and drainage. You'll remember the board brought real engineers into the current road projects. One area that is being repaired again is Duck Pond. Anyone would probably agree that engineering for projects on our roads is necessary. In the case of Duck Pond, it was repaired in 2010 or 11 when Huggins headed roads. He, and the board, except for one, refused to bring in engineers. Apparently, they were needed, because this board is investing our funds, once again, due to poorly planned past projects. Many who were sitting on the board during the last project continue to sit at the board table today. You might say, "give them credit for lessons learned". That's logical, except for the following resident questions.
(1)Why is it that this board will embrace engineering for road repair and not drainage? Good question. If you read the Reserve Study, at every turn of the page, the excerpts are advising the use of engineering services. Once again, there is no consistency of good business and administrative judgment. President Walton and DeMarchi are our resident experts and apparently don't feel the need for engineers. How does a road chair who brings engineering to the board table for his project, vote drainage projects without the support of engineering? How does anyone on that board who supported the vote for engineering on roads, vote for drainage projects that DeMarchi says were done incorrectly by all in the past, vote for drainage projects without the support of engineering, in the best interests of Wedgefield and the use of our assessment dollars, ignoring the advice in the Reserve Study and basic common sense?
(2) How does the road committee determine which projects are "most in need"? Do they ever take numbers into consideration? This resident thought that since road repair is needed in so many areas of the plantation, that they might consider high usage areas first. How many people are impacted by bad roads and travel on Duck Pond, compared to maybe, Wedgefield Road? We don't know the answer.
You can write the board and see if they answer. Visit the office and look at the correspondence book, review board reports, because the board doesn't respond and we haven't had a report from the Community Liaison in over a year. If you write and get an answer, please share it. I'd love to see how the board answers these two questions. Don't hold your breath, if you write to them.
(1)Why is it that this board will embrace engineering for road repair and not drainage? Good question. If you read the Reserve Study, at every turn of the page, the excerpts are advising the use of engineering services. Once again, there is no consistency of good business and administrative judgment. President Walton and DeMarchi are our resident experts and apparently don't feel the need for engineers. How does a road chair who brings engineering to the board table for his project, vote drainage projects without the support of engineering? How does anyone on that board who supported the vote for engineering on roads, vote for drainage projects that DeMarchi says were done incorrectly by all in the past, vote for drainage projects without the support of engineering, in the best interests of Wedgefield and the use of our assessment dollars, ignoring the advice in the Reserve Study and basic common sense?
(2) How does the road committee determine which projects are "most in need"? Do they ever take numbers into consideration? This resident thought that since road repair is needed in so many areas of the plantation, that they might consider high usage areas first. How many people are impacted by bad roads and travel on Duck Pond, compared to maybe, Wedgefield Road? We don't know the answer.
You can write the board and see if they answer. Visit the office and look at the correspondence book, review board reports, because the board doesn't respond and we haven't had a report from the Community Liaison in over a year. If you write and get an answer, please share it. I'd love to see how the board answers these two questions. Don't hold your breath, if you write to them.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
THE WPA ANNUAL MEETING: (1) THE NUMBERS, (2) CONCERNS, (3) ON PRINCIPLE & FOR THE RECORD
THE NUMBERS:
*214 votes were cast - slightly over 1/3 of the total residents voted
*The candidates, though uncontested (3 board slots & 3 candidates) received the following votes out of the 214 cast: Garrison - 164, Keith Johnson -194, Jacky Walton -169. That must mean that each of the following numbers represent the number of residents who took the time to write in "NO" next to the individual candidate names: Garrison - 50 NO, Johnson - 20 - NO, Walton - 45 - NO. A recommendation follows in the article for those who took the time to take this extra step and send a message to the individual candidates.
*By-Law Amendment # 1, restricting the power of the board to enter into loans, etc., above $15,000 passed. 142 votes were required to pass. 151 voted in favor, 63 opposed.
*By-Law Amendment # 2, requiring that the board contract the services of a certified Public Accountant failed. 142 votes were required to pass. 127 voted in favor, 87 opposed.
THE CONCERNS:
First, slightly over 1/3 of the total residents voted. This is down from over 50% in 2012. This board that fails to answer residents, fails to provide review of records for review by residents, recently failed to post meeting tapes on the WPA website for 10 months, failed to appropriately file and include the last by-law amendment for over two years and failed to live by it in the interim, fails to acknowledge actual costs of our "accounting function", forces us to pay for services to individual lot owners out of general funds, finds accounting records in private individual resident homes, fails to hold to their own votes, accepts poor contracting and individual board member self interest projects, contracts - conflict of interest - with not only a board member (self gain) but contracts with our president for services, abuses certain board members who question and fail to capitulate to their poor standards, appoints individual board members with poor records to chair positions etc., HAS CREATED THIS APATHY. Residents must be left feeling that they won't be heard and there is no road to good governance, or exit from bad governance.
Some residents have stated that they didn't bother to vote because they couldn't vote for these guys. When advised to at least make a statement on principle and write "NO" next to their names, they said they couldn't because there were people on the election committee who would note how they voted. They said they golf with some of those members, or certain board members would find out how they voted and those board members help them in their homes, with their boats, yards, etc. They need them. The question is one of principle. Why would you want people in your life helping you, who violate your principles and standards, for a game of golf, cards, social group, or work on your home projects? Where is individual integrity of principle? If you feel retaliation might occur, why wouldn't you want to make things better at the heart of your day to day life - your HOME and your neighborhood? Even in these circumstances, why are you willing to sit by and watch them not only abuse individual board members - your former friends at the board table, and assist them in pulling them from social circles in our near (here) and greater community (outside the gates)?
Does that sound hard? Look at a simple, relevant example, of how far the individual CURRENT board members have fallen in principle and decency, let alone good governance, and integrity of action and word. In 2011 there was a recall effort, under the state law used in the 2010 recall. We won't take the time now to go into detail. The basic fact is that SIX of the CURRENT BOARD were so appalled by the behavior and governance of five of the 2011 board, Garrison being one of them up for recall, that they signed petitions to call for a special meeting and REMOVE them, solicited signatures from other residents, and helped with the planning. Yet, five of the six who have tenure of 1- 4 years, have supported Garrison in votes, kept quiet while he called a questioning board member moronic, and overall attempted to make an elected board member look like a fool. I'd hate be one of you who might call them friend and expect that they would do the right thing in a desperate situation. They were elected for governance, nothing else. That is the only reason. What reason could you possibly give for allowing Garrison to be legal chair, vote to appoint one of his cohorts who authored letters to residents telling them not to pay their assessments - starve a board - to a committee, and then allow him month after month to come to the board table without written legal opinion, and vote his recommendation?
Some say, I'm not the kind to stand up and argue a point? While that is somewhat gutless, all it would take, whether board member or resident, is the bravery to do the right thing, by simply voting "NO", when it went against principle, good business practice, consistency, and the best interests of Wedgefield. Your board was elected to do the right thing. If they don't have the bravery to at least vote "NO" when needed, they need to resign. YOU NEED TO QUIT STANDING BY AND WATCHING THE DETERIORATION OF OUR HOMES AND COMMUNITY.
RECOMMENDATION TO THOSE WHO WERE BRAVE ENOUGH TO WRITE "NO" BY CANDIDATE NAMES: Get to the meetings, write the board even if they don't answer your questions, write and tell the board you will be coming to the office to review records because it is your right and THEY shouldn't have to go to a private residence to find all the records. When you find board votes and behaviors that are objectionable, ask to speak at a meeting and address your concern, it becomes part of the record. VOTE EVERY YEAR WITH YOUR CONSCIENCE AND DON'T BE AFRAID WHO WILL SEE HOW YOU VOTED. Don't call people friends easily. Right now it could appear that you don't mind being part of the destruction of other people you ONCE called friend, as you sit by in silence afraid of retaliation. Don't say "I just want peace", and let people abuse those you use to call friend. Friend or not, why would you allow it to happen to anyone? I don't know of anyone who is so financially desperate that they need the free services, or social club and gatherings, that they need to sit by and watch this kind of behavior, at the expense of other of their friends or neighbors. Don't you want your friends and neighbors to have principle?
ON PRINCIPLE AND FOR THE RECORD:
Does it hurt to find out that people you formerly called "friend", worked along side in promotion of good governance, will stand by and let others you both called "mutual friends" turn on you and hurt you? Yes, it does. I'm not special, but I'm old enough to know what my principles are and I won't give them up. It would hurt me in the long term, and I couldn't live with the lack of integrity. Have I lost some of what I use to call "friends"? Not really, because I misjudged them and didn't realize how little principle they had, and how willing they were to sit back and let our home and community be harmed by "special interests". In the end, I'd want to hold to principle, character, and moral values, and call people friends who don't give them up for what one of my friends said, "is just politics".
FOR THE RECORD IS IMPORTANT. I have been sued and put through a long legal tangled process. One of the things that stands out is "THE RECORD". Our minutes are sanitized, our association records often closed to us, our very meeting tapes kept off the WPA website for months, etc., so I will continue to transcribe tapes, gather information to the best of my ability, and make it available - FOR THE RECORD.
ADDED 11/21/13:
I posted the article above on the 20th. This morning a reader sent me the following:
"When you are in the final days of your life, what will you want? Will you hug that college degree in the walnut frame? Will you ask to be carried to the garage so you can sit in your car? Will you find comfort rereading your financial statement? Of course no, what will matter then will be PEOPLE. If relationships will matter then, shouldn't they matter now?" - Max Lucado
*214 votes were cast - slightly over 1/3 of the total residents voted
*The candidates, though uncontested (3 board slots & 3 candidates) received the following votes out of the 214 cast: Garrison - 164, Keith Johnson -194, Jacky Walton -169. That must mean that each of the following numbers represent the number of residents who took the time to write in "NO" next to the individual candidate names: Garrison - 50 NO, Johnson - 20 - NO, Walton - 45 - NO. A recommendation follows in the article for those who took the time to take this extra step and send a message to the individual candidates.
*By-Law Amendment # 1, restricting the power of the board to enter into loans, etc., above $15,000 passed. 142 votes were required to pass. 151 voted in favor, 63 opposed.
*By-Law Amendment # 2, requiring that the board contract the services of a certified Public Accountant failed. 142 votes were required to pass. 127 voted in favor, 87 opposed.
THE CONCERNS:
First, slightly over 1/3 of the total residents voted. This is down from over 50% in 2012. This board that fails to answer residents, fails to provide review of records for review by residents, recently failed to post meeting tapes on the WPA website for 10 months, failed to appropriately file and include the last by-law amendment for over two years and failed to live by it in the interim, fails to acknowledge actual costs of our "accounting function", forces us to pay for services to individual lot owners out of general funds, finds accounting records in private individual resident homes, fails to hold to their own votes, accepts poor contracting and individual board member self interest projects, contracts - conflict of interest - with not only a board member (self gain) but contracts with our president for services, abuses certain board members who question and fail to capitulate to their poor standards, appoints individual board members with poor records to chair positions etc., HAS CREATED THIS APATHY. Residents must be left feeling that they won't be heard and there is no road to good governance, or exit from bad governance.
Some residents have stated that they didn't bother to vote because they couldn't vote for these guys. When advised to at least make a statement on principle and write "NO" next to their names, they said they couldn't because there were people on the election committee who would note how they voted. They said they golf with some of those members, or certain board members would find out how they voted and those board members help them in their homes, with their boats, yards, etc. They need them. The question is one of principle. Why would you want people in your life helping you, who violate your principles and standards, for a game of golf, cards, social group, or work on your home projects? Where is individual integrity of principle? If you feel retaliation might occur, why wouldn't you want to make things better at the heart of your day to day life - your HOME and your neighborhood? Even in these circumstances, why are you willing to sit by and watch them not only abuse individual board members - your former friends at the board table, and assist them in pulling them from social circles in our near (here) and greater community (outside the gates)?
Does that sound hard? Look at a simple, relevant example, of how far the individual CURRENT board members have fallen in principle and decency, let alone good governance, and integrity of action and word. In 2011 there was a recall effort, under the state law used in the 2010 recall. We won't take the time now to go into detail. The basic fact is that SIX of the CURRENT BOARD were so appalled by the behavior and governance of five of the 2011 board, Garrison being one of them up for recall, that they signed petitions to call for a special meeting and REMOVE them, solicited signatures from other residents, and helped with the planning. Yet, five of the six who have tenure of 1- 4 years, have supported Garrison in votes, kept quiet while he called a questioning board member moronic, and overall attempted to make an elected board member look like a fool. I'd hate be one of you who might call them friend and expect that they would do the right thing in a desperate situation. They were elected for governance, nothing else. That is the only reason. What reason could you possibly give for allowing Garrison to be legal chair, vote to appoint one of his cohorts who authored letters to residents telling them not to pay their assessments - starve a board - to a committee, and then allow him month after month to come to the board table without written legal opinion, and vote his recommendation?
Some say, I'm not the kind to stand up and argue a point? While that is somewhat gutless, all it would take, whether board member or resident, is the bravery to do the right thing, by simply voting "NO", when it went against principle, good business practice, consistency, and the best interests of Wedgefield. Your board was elected to do the right thing. If they don't have the bravery to at least vote "NO" when needed, they need to resign. YOU NEED TO QUIT STANDING BY AND WATCHING THE DETERIORATION OF OUR HOMES AND COMMUNITY.
RECOMMENDATION TO THOSE WHO WERE BRAVE ENOUGH TO WRITE "NO" BY CANDIDATE NAMES: Get to the meetings, write the board even if they don't answer your questions, write and tell the board you will be coming to the office to review records because it is your right and THEY shouldn't have to go to a private residence to find all the records. When you find board votes and behaviors that are objectionable, ask to speak at a meeting and address your concern, it becomes part of the record. VOTE EVERY YEAR WITH YOUR CONSCIENCE AND DON'T BE AFRAID WHO WILL SEE HOW YOU VOTED. Don't call people friends easily. Right now it could appear that you don't mind being part of the destruction of other people you ONCE called friend, as you sit by in silence afraid of retaliation. Don't say "I just want peace", and let people abuse those you use to call friend. Friend or not, why would you allow it to happen to anyone? I don't know of anyone who is so financially desperate that they need the free services, or social club and gatherings, that they need to sit by and watch this kind of behavior, at the expense of other of their friends or neighbors. Don't you want your friends and neighbors to have principle?
ON PRINCIPLE AND FOR THE RECORD:
Does it hurt to find out that people you formerly called "friend", worked along side in promotion of good governance, will stand by and let others you both called "mutual friends" turn on you and hurt you? Yes, it does. I'm not special, but I'm old enough to know what my principles are and I won't give them up. It would hurt me in the long term, and I couldn't live with the lack of integrity. Have I lost some of what I use to call "friends"? Not really, because I misjudged them and didn't realize how little principle they had, and how willing they were to sit back and let our home and community be harmed by "special interests". In the end, I'd want to hold to principle, character, and moral values, and call people friends who don't give them up for what one of my friends said, "is just politics".
FOR THE RECORD IS IMPORTANT. I have been sued and put through a long legal tangled process. One of the things that stands out is "THE RECORD". Our minutes are sanitized, our association records often closed to us, our very meeting tapes kept off the WPA website for months, etc., so I will continue to transcribe tapes, gather information to the best of my ability, and make it available - FOR THE RECORD.
ADDED 11/21/13:
I posted the article above on the 20th. This morning a reader sent me the following:
"When you are in the final days of your life, what will you want? Will you hug that college degree in the walnut frame? Will you ask to be carried to the garage so you can sit in your car? Will you find comfort rereading your financial statement? Of course no, what will matter then will be PEOPLE. If relationships will matter then, shouldn't they matter now?" - Max Lucado
Friday, November 15, 2013
DON'T FORGET TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL MEETING AND VOTE - PLUS A RUMOR THAT HAS NO VALIDITY!
The Annual Meeting is the most important WPA meeting of the year. It will determine three individuals who will sit at the board table "in the best interests" of the association. We have opportunity to review the budget. It is really the only meeting when residents may speak during a meeting. Take time to consider whether we have been provided leadership by individuals who literally determine the quality of life where we live - Wedgefield. Have we been guided legally, ethically, and with strong business decisions? Can we trust what our board members say from meeting to meeting? Is there consistency in benefit to our residents? Does our board respond openly and honestly to our questions?
If not, put a big "NO" next to each of the candidate names. Put a big "NO" next to the by-law amendment that may be violating our covenants. Vote "YES" to bring in an accountant to manage our funds.
Don't forget to VOTE!
There is a rumor that The Wedgefield Examiner is losing interest in the blog. Not true! Family comes first. Our family has been on a year long journey with our daughter in Florence, who is in the process of adopting 3 more children. It is a international adoption. We've been helping out with errands, etc., as they go through the process. The children are siblings - two girls ages 4 and 9, and a boy - age 6. They will be home for Christmas.
If not, put a big "NO" next to each of the candidate names. Put a big "NO" next to the by-law amendment that may be violating our covenants. Vote "YES" to bring in an accountant to manage our funds.
Don't forget to VOTE!
There is a rumor that The Wedgefield Examiner is losing interest in the blog. Not true! Family comes first. Our family has been on a year long journey with our daughter in Florence, who is in the process of adopting 3 more children. It is a international adoption. We've been helping out with errands, etc., as they go through the process. The children are siblings - two girls ages 4 and 9, and a boy - age 6. They will be home for Christmas.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
NON PROFIT PUBLICATION ARTICLE ASSUMES TOO MUCH! DO WE HAVE THE PROFESSIONALS WE NEED TO GUIDE OUR HOA ADMINISTRATION?
PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AFTER YOU HAVE READ THE ARTICLE BELOW IT.
The following article was sent to me by a HOA president. Over the years we've discussed the boards of our respective HOAs. Our recent discussions have gone to the declared expertise of the WPA board, ever changing treasurers and their reporting, and the need for residents to have the assurance of qualified experts. Reserve studies entered conversation and the fact that up until this year we had drainage, roads, etc. on our operating budget, and now that was no longer the case. Look at DeMarchi's projected 2014 budget. These items no longer exist in the ever, all knowing, expertise of finance in the world of DeMarchi. After reading just one relevant article, you may find that you should be voting "YES" on the amendment calling for a real professional. What is the first thing this HOA advisor group recommends - "check with your accountant". They assume too much. Our all knowing self clamed expert board says we don't need one.
The following article was sent to me by a HOA president. Over the years we've discussed the boards of our respective HOAs. Our recent discussions have gone to the declared expertise of the WPA board, ever changing treasurers and their reporting, and the need for residents to have the assurance of qualified experts. Reserve studies entered conversation and the fact that up until this year we had drainage, roads, etc. on our operating budget, and now that was no longer the case. Look at DeMarchi's projected 2014 budget. These items no longer exist in the ever, all knowing, expertise of finance in the world of DeMarchi. After reading just one relevant article, you may find that you should be voting "YES" on the amendment calling for a real professional. What is the first thing this HOA advisor group recommends - "check with your accountant". They assume too much. Our all knowing self clamed expert board says we don't need one.
TWO ARTICLES COMBINED: (1) REMINDER TO GET YOUR PROXY INTO THE WPA OFFICE TODAY, (2) PART II - DO MEMBERS OF THIS CURRENT COHESIVE BOARD SUPPPORT THE POTENTIAL ILLEGAL MOVES OF SOME ON THIS BOARD TO KEEP THEIR PET PROJECTS COMING? WILL OUR PRESIDENT INVESTIGATE BY TAKING THE NECESSARY STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT A PROPOSED BY-LAW CHANGE DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH OUR COVENANTS?
TODAY, YOUR PROXY IS DUE IN THE OFFICE BY 2:00pm. PROTECT YOUR VOTE BY GETTING IT TO THE OFFICE TODAY, EVEN IF YOU PLAN ON ATTENDING THE MEETING. LIFE HAPPENS AND OFTEN OUR PLANS ARE TURNED AROUND.
Whether you vote by proxy, or attend the annual meeting on Saturday, consider writing in "NO" along side of the candidates names on your ballot . There are three board openings and THREE CANDIDATES. Your board has positioned us to have no choice but to continue to live with their brand of administration. As to the amendments, consider voting "YES" for the amendment requiring an accountant. See the article immediately following this one. It will be posted in the next hour. The material posted is from a publication for non profits. As to the amendment restricting future boards, that probably violates our covenants, consider voting "NO". No matter what your Wedgefield political persuasion is, remember even Ms. Zieske noted in 2010, that she felt that similar restrictions violated our covenants (See immediate previous article for her own words.). Will your principles determine your vote?
(1) DO MEMBERS OF THIS CURRENT COHESIVE BOARD SUPPORT THE POTENTIAL ILLEGAL MOVES OF SOME ON THIS BOARD TO KEEP THEIR PET PROJECTS COMING?
In order to address the question we only need to look at the history of what actually occurred at WPA meetings since last January. At the same time if you follow the facts, are honest with yourself in evaluating what actually occurred, you would have to write in a big "NO" on each of the candidates offered on the ballot this year and hope that the rumors (brought about by one of the board members himself) about resigning after the first of the year, are true.
If we start reviewing the WPA meetings, the first item up is the replacement of the old dock at the landing. Current board member, Garrison stated clearly at the board table, that it was not to end up in our back yard - the canals. In the end the Water Amenities Committee pulled it into the canals and for at least three months we watched Garrison (played out with him as sole player) play good cop - bad cop. During good cop meetings he wanted that dock out of the canals because the committee had gone against the vote of the board. Had you been there you would have been proud of him. If you have been a follower of this good cop-bad cop behavior over the last three or four years, you knew when the bad cop might surface and how it would end. You see the bad cop part turns a blind eye and let's whatever is on the board table - contrary to what the good cop said, slide by. This particular drama ended with no final report to the residents after the dock was finally moved out, the silent sanctioning by every member of this board but one, and the renegade Water Amenities Committee throwing McBride off their committee - the only board member who questioned the inappropriate violation by a committee, of a legal motion of the board. While the whole board is at fault for remaining silent, Garrison as a board member, as legal chair, and President Walton, blatantly violated ethics, at the board table. Both are running (?????? - no other candidates presented) for board along with Keith Johnson, who served on the very Water Amenities Committee that not only voted the questioning board member - McBride, off the committee, but should have been aware that it didn't end there. Members of this committee then worked to exclude McBride in private clubs and social circles outside of the board table. Consider writing "NO" next to each of their names. Send a message to this board.
This year's meetings brought the DeMarchi development of "the accounting function". Garrison and DeMarchi played dictionary games as to whether the individual was an accountant, or not, when asked by McBride. Finally, McBride got the answer from the contractor. We are left with DeMarchi and two bookkeepers. According to DeMarchi he knows exactly what needs to be done. DeMarchi has changed, changed, and changed again, the reports to residents. He has never, nor has the rest of the board, disclosed how much the "accounting function" is costing you. He just has unfavorable comments regarding CPAs. Candidate Garrison added to the negative comments regarding accountants as he gave UNBIASED??????? - (biased) information regarding the amendment calling for a professional to do our books. This occurred during the same meeting that DeMarchi thanked Ms. Zieske for providing financial records that weren't in the office. Think again, about your vote, and write "NO" to Garrison who has failed to handle his board responsibilities in an open, unbiased, legal manner. Vote "NO" for President Walton, who condones, at times outright supports this behavior, with his silence.
We've seen conflict of interest. There is no other way to put it. The WPA President will contract his company to fix the gatehouse. DeMarchi played a key role in this adventure. Since he isn't on the ballot, we have to live with him (Previously he did tell certain people, he would resign after the election. Can we hope he'll stick to his word?), but Walton stands up like a SORE THUMB in this administration escapade. He is supported by candidate, Garrison, who ran questioning around the verbal flag pole, that appeared to be done with intent to make the questioning board member look bad. That is hard to do because conflict of interest is easily understood by all.
We don't have a lot of time. Our voting deadlines are near. There are at least a dozen more examples similar to these that could be viewed as "not in the best interests of Wedgefield", failure to comply to sound business and solid non profit administration, and quite frankly a play against truth and OPEN, honest governance. Who is our compliance committee chair? Our treasurer! Thank candidate Walton for that appointment. What a mess!
We aren't going to cover the topic about whether our PRESIDENT will ensure the necessary steps to make sure that Garrison//Concerned Citizen amendment is not in conflict with our covenants. The limited subjects posted above already indicate that he'll do what it takes to keep a board seat with his cohorts in poor administration.
What can you do? Write "NO" by each of the candidates names. Listen to Ms. Zieske's advice regarding the amendment restricting the power of the board and probably conflicting with our covenants. Attend the meeting and WRITE IN ADDITIONAL CANDIDATES. Your board had three slots and they only provided you three candidates. They are restricting the power of your vote - choice, to keep what they call their "cohesive board". Unfortunately, if you look at the examples throughout this year alone it might be said that they are operating under ORCHESTRATED DECEIT.
Whether you vote by proxy, or attend the annual meeting on Saturday, consider writing in "NO" along side of the candidates names on your ballot . There are three board openings and THREE CANDIDATES. Your board has positioned us to have no choice but to continue to live with their brand of administration. As to the amendments, consider voting "YES" for the amendment requiring an accountant. See the article immediately following this one. It will be posted in the next hour. The material posted is from a publication for non profits. As to the amendment restricting future boards, that probably violates our covenants, consider voting "NO". No matter what your Wedgefield political persuasion is, remember even Ms. Zieske noted in 2010, that she felt that similar restrictions violated our covenants (See immediate previous article for her own words.). Will your principles determine your vote?
(1) DO MEMBERS OF THIS CURRENT COHESIVE BOARD SUPPORT THE POTENTIAL ILLEGAL MOVES OF SOME ON THIS BOARD TO KEEP THEIR PET PROJECTS COMING?
In order to address the question we only need to look at the history of what actually occurred at WPA meetings since last January. At the same time if you follow the facts, are honest with yourself in evaluating what actually occurred, you would have to write in a big "NO" on each of the candidates offered on the ballot this year and hope that the rumors (brought about by one of the board members himself) about resigning after the first of the year, are true.
If we start reviewing the WPA meetings, the first item up is the replacement of the old dock at the landing. Current board member, Garrison stated clearly at the board table, that it was not to end up in our back yard - the canals. In the end the Water Amenities Committee pulled it into the canals and for at least three months we watched Garrison (played out with him as sole player) play good cop - bad cop. During good cop meetings he wanted that dock out of the canals because the committee had gone against the vote of the board. Had you been there you would have been proud of him. If you have been a follower of this good cop-bad cop behavior over the last three or four years, you knew when the bad cop might surface and how it would end. You see the bad cop part turns a blind eye and let's whatever is on the board table - contrary to what the good cop said, slide by. This particular drama ended with no final report to the residents after the dock was finally moved out, the silent sanctioning by every member of this board but one, and the renegade Water Amenities Committee throwing McBride off their committee - the only board member who questioned the inappropriate violation by a committee, of a legal motion of the board. While the whole board is at fault for remaining silent, Garrison as a board member, as legal chair, and President Walton, blatantly violated ethics, at the board table. Both are running (?????? - no other candidates presented) for board along with Keith Johnson, who served on the very Water Amenities Committee that not only voted the questioning board member - McBride, off the committee, but should have been aware that it didn't end there. Members of this committee then worked to exclude McBride in private clubs and social circles outside of the board table. Consider writing "NO" next to each of their names. Send a message to this board.
This year's meetings brought the DeMarchi development of "the accounting function". Garrison and DeMarchi played dictionary games as to whether the individual was an accountant, or not, when asked by McBride. Finally, McBride got the answer from the contractor. We are left with DeMarchi and two bookkeepers. According to DeMarchi he knows exactly what needs to be done. DeMarchi has changed, changed, and changed again, the reports to residents. He has never, nor has the rest of the board, disclosed how much the "accounting function" is costing you. He just has unfavorable comments regarding CPAs. Candidate Garrison added to the negative comments regarding accountants as he gave UNBIASED??????? - (biased) information regarding the amendment calling for a professional to do our books. This occurred during the same meeting that DeMarchi thanked Ms. Zieske for providing financial records that weren't in the office. Think again, about your vote, and write "NO" to Garrison who has failed to handle his board responsibilities in an open, unbiased, legal manner. Vote "NO" for President Walton, who condones, at times outright supports this behavior, with his silence.
We've seen conflict of interest. There is no other way to put it. The WPA President will contract his company to fix the gatehouse. DeMarchi played a key role in this adventure. Since he isn't on the ballot, we have to live with him (Previously he did tell certain people, he would resign after the election. Can we hope he'll stick to his word?), but Walton stands up like a SORE THUMB in this administration escapade. He is supported by candidate, Garrison, who ran questioning around the verbal flag pole, that appeared to be done with intent to make the questioning board member look bad. That is hard to do because conflict of interest is easily understood by all.
We don't have a lot of time. Our voting deadlines are near. There are at least a dozen more examples similar to these that could be viewed as "not in the best interests of Wedgefield", failure to comply to sound business and solid non profit administration, and quite frankly a play against truth and OPEN, honest governance. Who is our compliance committee chair? Our treasurer! Thank candidate Walton for that appointment. What a mess!
We aren't going to cover the topic about whether our PRESIDENT will ensure the necessary steps to make sure that Garrison//Concerned Citizen amendment is not in conflict with our covenants. The limited subjects posted above already indicate that he'll do what it takes to keep a board seat with his cohorts in poor administration.
What can you do? Write "NO" by each of the candidates names. Listen to Ms. Zieske's advice regarding the amendment restricting the power of the board and probably conflicting with our covenants. Attend the meeting and WRITE IN ADDITIONAL CANDIDATES. Your board had three slots and they only provided you three candidates. They are restricting the power of your vote - choice, to keep what they call their "cohesive board". Unfortunately, if you look at the examples throughout this year alone it might be said that they are operating under ORCHESTRATED DECEIT.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
AS PROMISED: DOES WEDGEFIELD'S TWISTED BY-LAW AMENDMENT HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF? DO MEMBERS OF THIS CURRENT COHESIVE BOARD SUPPORT THE POTENTIAL ILLEGAL MOVES OF SOME ON THIS BOARD TO KEEP THEIR PET PROJECTS COMING? WILL OUR PRESIDENT INVESTIGATE BY TAKING THE NECESSARY STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT A PROPOSED BY-LAW CHANGE DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH OUR COVENANTS? WHAT IS THE TAINTED HISTORY OF THE CONCERNED CITIZENS IN A CHANGE THAT COULD CONFLICT WITH OUR COVENANTS?
DOES WEDGEFIELD'S TWISTED BY-LAW AMENDMENT HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF?
The Wedgefield Examiner has gone back in the history of proposed by-law changes and firmly believes that we are in another twisted period, possibly illegal period - again. Many of the players and moves remain the same. We only have to go back to the 2010 Annual Meeting. Then treasurer, Roger Armistead along with current board member Garrison, supported by the Concerned Citizens, put forth four by-law amendments. For a complete review of the amendments proposed in 2010, go to The Wedgefield Times, article #29, "Preview of Proposed WPA By-Law Amendments". Here are the first few lines of each of the Armistead/ Garrison/Concerned Citizen Amendments:
1. "Under no circumstance shall the Board of Directors incur any debt service or indenture to any lender, (etc.) public or private, without securing the approval of the membership of the Association by a referendum, executed at a duly called meeting of said membership......"
2. "The Board of Directors shall be prohibited from raising the annual assessment to property owners in any given year (defined by billing cycle for annual assessments) by more than 10% in any given year, or by more than 30% in any five consecutive year periods......"
3. "The Board of Directors shall authorize no expenditure in excess of $50,000 except for the following....."
4) "Reserve Fund Accounts shall be designated by specific category. A reserve study shall determine the required categories and the amounts of each category. No transfer of funds between or among fund categories shall be made, nor shall any category be deleted and funds assigned to that category be designated unallocated, unless approved by the membership......."
Briefly, the Armistead/Garrison/Concerned Citizen amendments restricted the ability of the board in spending our assessment dollars, as the current proposed amendment does. Many felt that they violated # 9 of the Covenants. At one point the 2010 board pulled the 4 amendments and after some battle, put them back on the ballot. Then, the board would not answer questions regarding violation of the Covenants. Residents also submitted 5 additional amendment changes. At least one of the resident amendments was pulled off the ballot by the 2010 board. At the same time the Concerned Citizens were holding meetings and sending letters endorsing a vote for the Armistead/Garrison/Concerned Citizen amendments. You might say, "well there were opinions on both sides." One of the key players in both the promotion of Concerned Citizen Candidates and the 4 amendments was Ms. Zieske. In the midst of all of this, prior to the annual meeting, she sent the following to approximately 50 Concerned Citizens, and Garrison, Wilson and Thomas.
Sent Sunday, October 17, 2010 @ 9:38 PM, Subject: Amendments to Our ByLaws (Quoted and typed as printed. Underlines added in key areas.): "Hey Guys: First of all, I am done trying to help these guys on this Board. I give up! They think they know it all, so be it. You will not hear from me again. I have no idea when we will get to court or how those issues will be resolved.
To my knowledge you cannot approve an amendment to our Bylaws that is in conflict with our Covenants. This has been supported by my research, but at any rate we need our attorney's opinion. I would really like the amendments that Roger and Bob Garrison approved, but not at the cost of violating our Covenants. If the legal committee approved the first four amendments provided on the ballot without legal counsel then they could be accused of "not acting in good faith". Everything I have been able to research is that the Covenants trump the Bylaws.
I have advised this Board to only put forward only one amendment that would allow for a Special Meeting to be held a few months from now to properly address these proposed changes. That would give them the time to get proper legal counsel. However, they ignored my advice and are going to put all of the nine on the ballot. Consequently, I am no longer in a position where I can promote their election to the Board.
I will not be sending out a letter to promote our slate. They will be defeated and you will end up with board members that are canal property owners or supporters. I am totally defeated. As ever, Carol"
The same person who then board member Armistead insisted on calling "advisor", was provided unfettered access to your records (Some of our records are missing now and DeMarchi thanks her for providing them.), is telling them that they are failing "to act in good faith" and may be violating our covenants. She tells the Concerned Citizens that Armistead and Garrison's amendments are a problem. So at times in the run up to the 2010 Annual Meeting they cut the resident by-law submissions and then put them back again, except one.
Here we are again with a submission that appears to be in violation of our Covenants and Garrison is telling us the attorney reviewed them. He probably did. Can you trust the opinion? The Concerned Citizen Board of 2010-11 - Wilson, Huggins, Barrier, Thomas, etc., lawyer shopped and through out board attorney of record - Moran for Moody, after Moran wrote an opinion stating the 2011 recall petitions were valid, as they were called under the same state law that allowed the Concerned Citizen recall of 2010.
Back to 2010, Ms. Zieske wasn't done yet. After standing on principle, she changes her mind and will support them, regardless. All ethics go out the door the following morning and she sends the following to the group noted above.
Mon, Oct 18, 2010 @ 11:20AM, "Subject: I was angry and upset"
"Hey Guys: Most of you do not know about the additional five amendments that their group put forward to be voted on. Those are terrible and should not even be approved by the Legal Committee to be included on the ballot. However, if our guys send out only the ones we want approved, then they will catch "hell" from that group. I was trying to get them to "buy us some time" to properly educate our membership on the ones we want passed and to get them to vote no on the ones that are terrible. I lost and I was angry. I have had two years of this stress and I "lost it".
So forget my prior email. I am still out there working hard to get our guys re-elected. We must get them elected! The other four people are all canal supporters. Carol"
Zieske's's letters were shared with current sitting board members. Some were amongst those she sent it to. Others received a copy through me. One of the apparent authors of the suspect amendments in 2010 according to Ms. Zieske herself, is our very own current legal chair, Garrison. What is he promoting now? Another suspicious amendment that appears to be in violation of our Covenants. McMillin, Garrison, Barrier, were all on the board when this was coming down. They've seen first hand just how far this group will go to get what they want. Is Garrison at it again? Where is your board? Many sitting at the board table today were provided this information.
Wednesday: Do Members Of This Current Cohesive Board Support The Potential Illegal Moves of Some On This Board To Keep Their Pet Projects Coming?
Monday, November 4, 2013
COMING TUESDAY EVENING: DOES WEDGEFIELD'S TWISTED BY-LAW AMENDMENT HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF? DO MEMBERS OF THIS CURRENT COHESIVE BOARD SUPPORT THE POTENTIAL ILLEGAL MOVES OF SOME ON THIS BOARD TO KEEP THEIR PET PROJECTS COMING? WILL OUR PRESIDENT INVESTIGATE BY TAKING THE NECESSARY STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT A PROPOSED BY-LAW CHANGE DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH OUR COVENANTS? WHAT IS THE TAINTED HISTORY OF THE CONCERNED CITIZENS IN CHANGES THAT COULD CONFLICT WITH OUR COVENANTS?
Thursday, October 31, 2013
DOES BY-LAW ONE STAND IN CONFLICT WITH OUR COVENANTS? WHAT DO THE COVENANTS SAY? WHAT DOES OUR LEGAL CHAIR SAY? WHAT DOES THE BOARD ATTORNEY OF RECORD SAY? DO YOU TRUST THEM? HOW WILL YOU VOTE?
We'll take these issues in order. First, here is the proposed by-law:
"Under no circumstance shall the Board of Directors enter into an agreement with any lender, public or private, for the purpose of procuring funds in excess of $15,000 without securing the approval of the membership of the Association by a referendum, executed at a duly called meeting of said membership as identified in article VI, Sections 2 and 3 of the By-laws. Said meeting must conform to the guidelines set forth in article VI, Sections 2 and 3 of the By-laws. A Quorum of 1/3 of eligible voters (members in good standing) must be present in person or by proxy at the duly called meeting for the vote to be valid. The vote may also be obtained at the annual meeting. The referendum must pass by a simple majority of votes cast."
The Covenants (Final lines of section (9).) say:
"The funds derived from said assessment shall be used for the payment of maintenance expenses of the subdivision and for any other purposes necessary or desirable in the opinion of the Board of Directors of Wedgefield Plantation Association for the general benefit of the subdivision. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WEDGEFIELD PLANTATION ASSOCIATION IN THE EXPENDITURE OF SAID FUNDS SHALL BE FINAL."
The by-law allowing the membership to bring a change to a vote states:
ARTICLE XIII, AMENDMENTS TO BY-LAWS, Section 1: "Proposed alterations, amendments, or proposals to repeal the By-Laws can be made only by WPA members in good standing, and must be submitted to and approved by the Legal Committee prior to being voted on by the WPA Membership. These By-Laws may be altered, amended, or repealed and new By-Laws may be adopted by two-thirds of the votes in good standing present at the Annual Members' meeting either in person or by proxy provided that notice thereof is mailed to the eligible voters not less than twenty days prior to the date of the meeting."
NO OPTION IS AVAILABLE TO THE MEMBERSHIP, OR THE BOARD IN REGARD TO THE COVENANTS. THEY STAND AND CANNOT BE CHANGED. In the past, this very legal committee, has denied putting a by-law change on the ballot because it conflicted with our covenants.
Residents have the right to submit their by-law changes to the board to be considered as to whether they meet a legal test, and if so, brought to a vote by the general membership, at the annual meeting. First, our submissions must pass the scrutiny of our legal committee, who may in turn take it to the attorney for review and opinion, in determination as to whether it can appear on the ballot. Did the legal committee send this by-law change to the attorney of record? Did your legal chair get the opinion in writing so the legal committee, fellow board members, and the membership can request the opportunity to review it?
The October legal report has been reviewed. Listen the tape at the Wedgefield Times. In regard to this by-law moving to ballot, our legal chair reports that it can. He tells us that it "limits" the board's ability to barrow money beyond $15,000. He states that he did get the legal opinion in writing and it is available for review. It is a surprise in the respect that it limits the power set forth in the covenants. We will write the board and ask to review the opinion.
In closing, it comes as a surprise that the legal chair got the opinion in writing. This very same legal chair refuses to get opinions in writing in almost every other instance. We'll review the opinion. This particular by-law reeks of our own home grown legal party - the concerned citizens. Our legal chair and at least one other member of his committee have been active members in that party. Both of these individuals wrote to residents and advised them to hold their assessment payments in escrow, in what could be viewed as an attempt to cause default on the last loan. As to the legal opinion, you'll remember that each side of the last lawsuit, had written legal opinions, supporting their side. It looks as though our board attorney of record supports not all of the membership, but our legal chairs' side in allowing this to go to ballot. This very same attorney denied the 2011 recall petition that utilized the same state law used in 2010 by one of its leaders - our legal chair. In the past, fear tactics were used in regard to our reserves and expenditures. They'd ask, "What if a big storm devastated our community?" What if a huge storm hit and we didn't have enough money for clean up and recovery? Read the restrictions for calling for a vote. We'd be from now until forever, before the vote could be taken. Currently, our roads, drainage, etc., projects come out of reserves, at the whim of this board. They've even made changes to the reserve study. What if we were hit by that big storm and didn't have reserves? Would $15,000 take care of it?
I'd suggest you vote "NO" on this by-law. It reeks of prejudice. It is in conflict with our covenants. Right now if you live in the Enclave, or take your request to your favorite board member, you get served. That is the kind of power this board wants to maintain, they aren't worried about the future and how future fair minded, boards' hands might be tied. Think that is hard? I listened to this very same unbiased (????) legal chair speak about the other by-law change appearing on the ballot. If approved it would insist the board hire a CPA to do our books. He tainted everything when he cast his opinion on it saying that we had done that before (CPA handling the books), "without a whole lot of success". His opinion. He spent far more time embellishing the benefits of restricting the board's ability to borrow. More tainting.
"Under no circumstance shall the Board of Directors enter into an agreement with any lender, public or private, for the purpose of procuring funds in excess of $15,000 without securing the approval of the membership of the Association by a referendum, executed at a duly called meeting of said membership as identified in article VI, Sections 2 and 3 of the By-laws. Said meeting must conform to the guidelines set forth in article VI, Sections 2 and 3 of the By-laws. A Quorum of 1/3 of eligible voters (members in good standing) must be present in person or by proxy at the duly called meeting for the vote to be valid. The vote may also be obtained at the annual meeting. The referendum must pass by a simple majority of votes cast."
The Covenants (Final lines of section (9).) say:
"The funds derived from said assessment shall be used for the payment of maintenance expenses of the subdivision and for any other purposes necessary or desirable in the opinion of the Board of Directors of Wedgefield Plantation Association for the general benefit of the subdivision. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WEDGEFIELD PLANTATION ASSOCIATION IN THE EXPENDITURE OF SAID FUNDS SHALL BE FINAL."
The by-law allowing the membership to bring a change to a vote states:
ARTICLE XIII, AMENDMENTS TO BY-LAWS, Section 1: "Proposed alterations, amendments, or proposals to repeal the By-Laws can be made only by WPA members in good standing, and must be submitted to and approved by the Legal Committee prior to being voted on by the WPA Membership. These By-Laws may be altered, amended, or repealed and new By-Laws may be adopted by two-thirds of the votes in good standing present at the Annual Members' meeting either in person or by proxy provided that notice thereof is mailed to the eligible voters not less than twenty days prior to the date of the meeting."
NO OPTION IS AVAILABLE TO THE MEMBERSHIP, OR THE BOARD IN REGARD TO THE COVENANTS. THEY STAND AND CANNOT BE CHANGED. In the past, this very legal committee, has denied putting a by-law change on the ballot because it conflicted with our covenants.
Residents have the right to submit their by-law changes to the board to be considered as to whether they meet a legal test, and if so, brought to a vote by the general membership, at the annual meeting. First, our submissions must pass the scrutiny of our legal committee, who may in turn take it to the attorney for review and opinion, in determination as to whether it can appear on the ballot. Did the legal committee send this by-law change to the attorney of record? Did your legal chair get the opinion in writing so the legal committee, fellow board members, and the membership can request the opportunity to review it?
The October legal report has been reviewed. Listen the tape at the Wedgefield Times. In regard to this by-law moving to ballot, our legal chair reports that it can. He tells us that it "limits" the board's ability to barrow money beyond $15,000. He states that he did get the legal opinion in writing and it is available for review. It is a surprise in the respect that it limits the power set forth in the covenants. We will write the board and ask to review the opinion.
In closing, it comes as a surprise that the legal chair got the opinion in writing. This very same legal chair refuses to get opinions in writing in almost every other instance. We'll review the opinion. This particular by-law reeks of our own home grown legal party - the concerned citizens. Our legal chair and at least one other member of his committee have been active members in that party. Both of these individuals wrote to residents and advised them to hold their assessment payments in escrow, in what could be viewed as an attempt to cause default on the last loan. As to the legal opinion, you'll remember that each side of the last lawsuit, had written legal opinions, supporting their side. It looks as though our board attorney of record supports not all of the membership, but our legal chairs' side in allowing this to go to ballot. This very same attorney denied the 2011 recall petition that utilized the same state law used in 2010 by one of its leaders - our legal chair. In the past, fear tactics were used in regard to our reserves and expenditures. They'd ask, "What if a big storm devastated our community?" What if a huge storm hit and we didn't have enough money for clean up and recovery? Read the restrictions for calling for a vote. We'd be from now until forever, before the vote could be taken. Currently, our roads, drainage, etc., projects come out of reserves, at the whim of this board. They've even made changes to the reserve study. What if we were hit by that big storm and didn't have reserves? Would $15,000 take care of it?
I'd suggest you vote "NO" on this by-law. It reeks of prejudice. It is in conflict with our covenants. Right now if you live in the Enclave, or take your request to your favorite board member, you get served. That is the kind of power this board wants to maintain, they aren't worried about the future and how future fair minded, boards' hands might be tied. Think that is hard? I listened to this very same unbiased (????) legal chair speak about the other by-law change appearing on the ballot. If approved it would insist the board hire a CPA to do our books. He tainted everything when he cast his opinion on it saying that we had done that before (CPA handling the books), "without a whole lot of success". His opinion. He spent far more time embellishing the benefits of restricting the board's ability to borrow. More tainting.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
CONFLICT OF INTEREST - LACK OF COMMON SENSE & ETHICS - The Latest Example - The Gate House Fix
NOTE: The Wedgefield Examiner has transcribed a tape of the October WPA Board Meeting to the best of our ability. It is advised that you go to The Wedgefield Times and review this portion of the Grounds' Report, given by Al DeMarchi. The article presented below will relate what occurred, and at times include direct quotes. Quotes will be presented in quotation marks, in blue type, and underlined ( Please remember that the board's conversation is often interrupted, disjointed, etc.). Comments will be provided in red type and inserted as necessary. Events, flow of information (non quotes, non comments) will be in black type.
DeMarchi begins the report stating that he has a couple of things to talk about under grounds. The first item will be the gate house. He states, "We went out and solicited bids for the repair of the gate house out here. It was basically a two stage process. What we did, we asked them to do the repair - replace windows and the door jams, take a look at the removal of the dry wall, because of extensive mold in there and do other repairs and putting the gutter up. So they were given a scope of work that included gutters, door jams, doors, windows, etc., and they got three bids, OK." Cline, "Wow, we're as close to getting....." DeMarchi, "We have a bid of $1,298.98 from WALTON CONSTRUCTION. We have from (sounds like Recorder - name of company. We'll refer to it as the "R" company.)) a bid of $1,303 but he has a subject to here. He needs to inspect the dry wall & look behind it an - and will only provide a cost estimate on that portion of the work after he has done an inspection. The last one here is Brinnson Enterprises. He has a price of $3,415 on the gate house. The other item was to replace four pane down in the marina house and that one bid is $250, the other bid was for $125, and this one here - $63.58. There are three bids. This does not include doing all of the inside of the gate house. We don't... know what the condition is....(something about dry wall and two by fours)...save that place but it does include windows, DOORS, GUTTER....." Someone on the board asks a question that isn't clear on the tape. Garrison asks how many windows and DeMarchi answers. President Walton, " says doors were not included - just windows" DeMarchi mumbles something as it appears he is reading specs. DeMarchi continues saying, "In some cases, he's replacing the doors. In this case that probably why price is so astronomical. This one is going to replace & repair door jams, etc." McBride says, "THESE ARE NOT IDENTICAL SPECS AND BIDS AT ALL." DeMarchi, "They were. The scopes of work went out the same. The contractor, likely what they do, if he doesn't want to fool with replacing the jams, he's electing to replace the entire door, which is his prerogative." President Walton, "It's spelled out in here." DeMarchi, "Yes he did spell it out." Cline, "Should the doors be replaced?" DeMarchi, "They are steel doors and going to last longer than you and I." Garrison, "Now we're talking about....Not interior work , right?" DeMarchi, "Right, this does not include interior work. We don't know. We don't know what condition is, other than in the specifications it does call for the replacement of trim around the windows and stuff provided the dry wall - the structure is sound and worth repairing." Garrison, "So what we are likely to find is that replacing windows......door on spending $1,300 or there about and basically .....and gutters. Basically have the outer shell straightened out." DeMarchi, " Yes, repair outside, electrical plug. My recommendation would be to get a timer & set up a dehumidifier in there to run like four hours a day because the mold will just come back. It is shameful to allow it to deteriorate to this point, OK.
COMMENTS: We pause here. The quotes above bring the first indications of conflict of interest and the related benefits of being a contractor bidder, who happens to be a board member. Before we get into the direct benefits of President Walton knowing intimately the property involved, think about the ethics. Board members, let alone board members of a non profit, let alone the fact that it is the president, should act and govern in such a manner that there is no possible hint of conflict of interest or self gain - employment and direct compensation. That is just an ethical basic in the realm of non profit governance.
Remember, Walton has intimate knowledge of any of the buildings, drainage, etc., because of his role of board member and president.
Look at the bid responses. One bidder wants the opportunity to look at the dry wall. One bidder is going to replace the doors. DeMarchi, in his initial statements, includes the doors and mentions dry wall. Later, Walton tells us it doesn't include the doors. What kind of expert writes this mess, this so called solicitation? Who determined the entities that would get the solicitation? Was there a mailing list of prospective bidders? Did ANYONE on this board make phone calls and discuss this project with any of those who bid? Who on the board determined that they would ask Walton to bid? What discussions took place amongst board members before they included Walton in the bidding process? Who on the board were privy to discussions? It wasn't the full board. You'll note later that McBride is surprised, he asks for clarification as to whether our president is the Walton who is bidding.
As far as the grand specs of this mess, they believe there is damage under the dry wall. I certainly am not a builder. I have had door jams replaced and there is face trim on the interior and exterior. The same thing with the windows. Why would you attempt to lay new wood on what they seem to believe is damaged, possibly mold ridden dry wall and you'll see later they aren't sure of the two by fours under it.? Why wouldn't reliable contractors want to look at the conditions, prior to bidding. We know one bidder, our president has that advantage.
I don't trust their bidding process. Your board members have let it slide on one another's word. I personally went to the office and reviewed the bids for DeMarchi's first drainage project in HIS home grounds - the Enclave. He wanted Walton to bid then. There was no spec package. There were two bids. Great Lawns was one of the bidders and lost the bid to a second bidder by $20. The second bid had crossed out figures on it that lowered the bid to the degree that there was only a $20 difference in their favor..
So far this project appears in conflict of interest, poorly developed specs, poor management, and lacks common sense, and once again you'll see some of these members take liberties in verbally abusing a questioning board member. You've let them get away with it before so you've added wind beneath their wings in doing it again. Perhaps this is why no one would run for board this year, except these same players.
More discussion follows about maintaining the outside of the gate house because it is a historical monument for Wedgefield. They talk about DeMarchi's humidifier, not maintaining the inside of the gate house, etc. Interestingly enough you hear a lot of discussion at the board table that doesn't come through clearly on the tape. Many board members are speaking. The gavel never hits the table, except once. We'll go back to transcription as DeMarchi prepares to ask the board for the funding for this project.
DeMarchi, "At this time I'd like to have the money approved." There is a question from someone on the board that can't be heard on the tape that sounds like someone is asking about the two lowest bids. DeMarchi says, "....quotes "R" company and Walton's bids." McBride, 'IS THAT JACKY WALTON?" Watch DeMarchi try taking the question around the pole instead of answering it directly. Really, his answer looks like an insult to the intelligence of any person witnessing, or listening to this meeting. DeMarchi, "Walton Construction Company, 2610 South Island Road." McBride, " I would think Jacky, this is a conflict of interest for you." President Walton, "Well I want to just say that - let me explain something. Al, had given these contractors a scope of work. Are you going to set me aside just because I'm a board member trying to help out the plantation?" McBride, "All I'm saying is - covenants and by-laws - this would be a conflict of interest for you." DeMarchi, "I don't see that." McBride, "Explain." President Walton, "I would like to know why....if it comes to me being a contractor, how could it be a conflict of interest. I sent in a sealed bid like everybody else." DeMarchi, "Let me clarify something here. I - since I just opened these bids, OK. Walton Construction, Jacky Walton is the only one of the three, I'm sorry, Walton responded to item 3 which is the gate house proposal. As far as the dry wall and doing all the replacement work there and Brinnson's price was $5,610 and Walton's price was $1,609. Now John these were sealed bids. They all received the same scope of work. Mr. Walton, OUR PRESIDENT, did not receive any preferential treatment. He's done work in the plantation here for years, and I think your remarks rather discriminatory." McBride, "I don't agree." DeMarchi, "You have no basis for it." McBride, "It's a conflict of interest. You get any attorney and suggest you do this. They'll say that having someone on the board work for the plantation is a conflict of interest because first, he's our president. This is good enough? This is the way it is going to be?" Yelling begins at the board table and the gavel is pounded. President Walton, "...like every contractor, I submitted a sealed bid. I don't know who came in first or whatever, because I have not talked to...So where is the conflict, is what I don't understand."
Please listen to this portion of the tape at the Wedgefield Times. I've transcribed more but it is long and ugly. McBride continues to make the point that he feels this is conflict of interest. Walton says he'll withdraw his bid. DeMarchi says he won't allow it. Garrison jumps in and just keeps it going, in Garrison fashion. McBride, ASKS TWO, IF NOT THREE TIMES, FOR GARRISON TO GET A LEGAL OPINION ON THIS. McBride fights for his point speaking to Wedgefield's long history of mishandled contracting. Garrison quibbles. Cline interjects and laughs at points. DeMarchi adds more argument. He begins to name all the people in the contracting business he knows. Garrison tells McBride his exceptions are MORONIC. Cline begins to talk about discussing it as a human being and Walton has done work here and there aren't complaints and we know where he lives. Anderson looks up conflict of interest and reads a definition. In the end DeMarchi wants to put forth a motion to do stage I and stage II (inside of the gate house). Garrison just wants stage I done. DeMarchi puts forth a motion to do stage I and the window of the marina house. Your board votes 5 - 1 to approve. McBride has voted no. Walton abstains.
COMMENTS: As I listened and transcribed the tape over a few days, there came times when I had to shut it off and walk away. I won't call myself an expert, as so many on this board easily and frequently do. I have been on boards, worked for non profit boards - large and small, over 25 years. I have never seen the ugly behavior of this board, the disregard for other elected or appointed to the board, the disregard for "above board" management, disregard for common sense and ethics, and the plain disregard for the audience they were to serve, in this case - you.
As you listen to the tape you'll note that Walton jumps in to defend himself several times - his right to bid. If his business is doing so well, why would he ever put himself, or our association in this position? If his goal is for the good of Wedgefield and he feels his contract work is so valuable to all of us, he has options. He can resign from the board and remove himself from the ballot, and bid like anyone else. If your legal chair is so confident that his opinion is correct, why wouldn't he go to the attorney for an opinion? Walton, Garrison, and DeMarchi labor at this too long in their attacks and they protest far too much. EVERY BOARD MEMBER SHOULD HAVE DEMANDED A WRITTEN OPINION ON THIS SUBJECT IN ORDER TO MAKE A LEGAL, ETHICAL DECISION ON THIS MATTER.
As I worked to listen and transcribe, I also read the most recent Wedgefield Wragg. Garrison is so pleased that the board had not had to defend themselves against law suit in 2013. Our governance is so tangled in Wedgefield that most members probably nodded yes - good. You are as responsible as this dysfunctional board if you don't attend meetings and don't follow what is happening in the very place you live. If you were responsible enough to keep abreast of the facts, take exception to what this board is doing, you would have been insulted enough to take action. Garrison played a huge role in the history of the last lawsuit, he even helped fund it. This abrasive board may have caused you to fear taking action, fear questioning, because they have wore you out with their antics.
DeMarchi begins the report stating that he has a couple of things to talk about under grounds. The first item will be the gate house. He states, "We went out and solicited bids for the repair of the gate house out here. It was basically a two stage process. What we did, we asked them to do the repair - replace windows and the door jams, take a look at the removal of the dry wall, because of extensive mold in there and do other repairs and putting the gutter up. So they were given a scope of work that included gutters, door jams, doors, windows, etc., and they got three bids, OK." Cline, "Wow, we're as close to getting....." DeMarchi, "We have a bid of $1,298.98 from WALTON CONSTRUCTION. We have from (sounds like Recorder - name of company. We'll refer to it as the "R" company.)) a bid of $1,303 but he has a subject to here. He needs to inspect the dry wall & look behind it an - and will only provide a cost estimate on that portion of the work after he has done an inspection. The last one here is Brinnson Enterprises. He has a price of $3,415 on the gate house. The other item was to replace four pane down in the marina house and that one bid is $250, the other bid was for $125, and this one here - $63.58. There are three bids. This does not include doing all of the inside of the gate house. We don't... know what the condition is....(something about dry wall and two by fours)...save that place but it does include windows, DOORS, GUTTER....." Someone on the board asks a question that isn't clear on the tape. Garrison asks how many windows and DeMarchi answers. President Walton, " says doors were not included - just windows" DeMarchi mumbles something as it appears he is reading specs. DeMarchi continues saying, "In some cases, he's replacing the doors. In this case that probably why price is so astronomical. This one is going to replace & repair door jams, etc." McBride says, "THESE ARE NOT IDENTICAL SPECS AND BIDS AT ALL." DeMarchi, "They were. The scopes of work went out the same. The contractor, likely what they do, if he doesn't want to fool with replacing the jams, he's electing to replace the entire door, which is his prerogative." President Walton, "It's spelled out in here." DeMarchi, "Yes he did spell it out." Cline, "Should the doors be replaced?" DeMarchi, "They are steel doors and going to last longer than you and I." Garrison, "Now we're talking about....Not interior work , right?" DeMarchi, "Right, this does not include interior work. We don't know. We don't know what condition is, other than in the specifications it does call for the replacement of trim around the windows and stuff provided the dry wall - the structure is sound and worth repairing." Garrison, "So what we are likely to find is that replacing windows......door on spending $1,300 or there about and basically .....and gutters. Basically have the outer shell straightened out." DeMarchi, " Yes, repair outside, electrical plug. My recommendation would be to get a timer & set up a dehumidifier in there to run like four hours a day because the mold will just come back. It is shameful to allow it to deteriorate to this point, OK.
COMMENTS: We pause here. The quotes above bring the first indications of conflict of interest and the related benefits of being a contractor bidder, who happens to be a board member. Before we get into the direct benefits of President Walton knowing intimately the property involved, think about the ethics. Board members, let alone board members of a non profit, let alone the fact that it is the president, should act and govern in such a manner that there is no possible hint of conflict of interest or self gain - employment and direct compensation. That is just an ethical basic in the realm of non profit governance.
Remember, Walton has intimate knowledge of any of the buildings, drainage, etc., because of his role of board member and president.
Look at the bid responses. One bidder wants the opportunity to look at the dry wall. One bidder is going to replace the doors. DeMarchi, in his initial statements, includes the doors and mentions dry wall. Later, Walton tells us it doesn't include the doors. What kind of expert writes this mess, this so called solicitation? Who determined the entities that would get the solicitation? Was there a mailing list of prospective bidders? Did ANYONE on this board make phone calls and discuss this project with any of those who bid? Who on the board determined that they would ask Walton to bid? What discussions took place amongst board members before they included Walton in the bidding process? Who on the board were privy to discussions? It wasn't the full board. You'll note later that McBride is surprised, he asks for clarification as to whether our president is the Walton who is bidding.
As far as the grand specs of this mess, they believe there is damage under the dry wall. I certainly am not a builder. I have had door jams replaced and there is face trim on the interior and exterior. The same thing with the windows. Why would you attempt to lay new wood on what they seem to believe is damaged, possibly mold ridden dry wall and you'll see later they aren't sure of the two by fours under it.? Why wouldn't reliable contractors want to look at the conditions, prior to bidding. We know one bidder, our president has that advantage.
I don't trust their bidding process. Your board members have let it slide on one another's word. I personally went to the office and reviewed the bids for DeMarchi's first drainage project in HIS home grounds - the Enclave. He wanted Walton to bid then. There was no spec package. There were two bids. Great Lawns was one of the bidders and lost the bid to a second bidder by $20. The second bid had crossed out figures on it that lowered the bid to the degree that there was only a $20 difference in their favor..
So far this project appears in conflict of interest, poorly developed specs, poor management, and lacks common sense, and once again you'll see some of these members take liberties in verbally abusing a questioning board member. You've let them get away with it before so you've added wind beneath their wings in doing it again. Perhaps this is why no one would run for board this year, except these same players.
More discussion follows about maintaining the outside of the gate house because it is a historical monument for Wedgefield. They talk about DeMarchi's humidifier, not maintaining the inside of the gate house, etc. Interestingly enough you hear a lot of discussion at the board table that doesn't come through clearly on the tape. Many board members are speaking. The gavel never hits the table, except once. We'll go back to transcription as DeMarchi prepares to ask the board for the funding for this project.
DeMarchi, "At this time I'd like to have the money approved." There is a question from someone on the board that can't be heard on the tape that sounds like someone is asking about the two lowest bids. DeMarchi says, "....quotes "R" company and Walton's bids." McBride, 'IS THAT JACKY WALTON?" Watch DeMarchi try taking the question around the pole instead of answering it directly. Really, his answer looks like an insult to the intelligence of any person witnessing, or listening to this meeting. DeMarchi, "Walton Construction Company, 2610 South Island Road." McBride, " I would think Jacky, this is a conflict of interest for you." President Walton, "Well I want to just say that - let me explain something. Al, had given these contractors a scope of work. Are you going to set me aside just because I'm a board member trying to help out the plantation?" McBride, "All I'm saying is - covenants and by-laws - this would be a conflict of interest for you." DeMarchi, "I don't see that." McBride, "Explain." President Walton, "I would like to know why....if it comes to me being a contractor, how could it be a conflict of interest. I sent in a sealed bid like everybody else." DeMarchi, "Let me clarify something here. I - since I just opened these bids, OK. Walton Construction, Jacky Walton is the only one of the three, I'm sorry, Walton responded to item 3 which is the gate house proposal. As far as the dry wall and doing all the replacement work there and Brinnson's price was $5,610 and Walton's price was $1,609. Now John these were sealed bids. They all received the same scope of work. Mr. Walton, OUR PRESIDENT, did not receive any preferential treatment. He's done work in the plantation here for years, and I think your remarks rather discriminatory." McBride, "I don't agree." DeMarchi, "You have no basis for it." McBride, "It's a conflict of interest. You get any attorney and suggest you do this. They'll say that having someone on the board work for the plantation is a conflict of interest because first, he's our president. This is good enough? This is the way it is going to be?" Yelling begins at the board table and the gavel is pounded. President Walton, "...like every contractor, I submitted a sealed bid. I don't know who came in first or whatever, because I have not talked to...So where is the conflict, is what I don't understand."
Please listen to this portion of the tape at the Wedgefield Times. I've transcribed more but it is long and ugly. McBride continues to make the point that he feels this is conflict of interest. Walton says he'll withdraw his bid. DeMarchi says he won't allow it. Garrison jumps in and just keeps it going, in Garrison fashion. McBride, ASKS TWO, IF NOT THREE TIMES, FOR GARRISON TO GET A LEGAL OPINION ON THIS. McBride fights for his point speaking to Wedgefield's long history of mishandled contracting. Garrison quibbles. Cline interjects and laughs at points. DeMarchi adds more argument. He begins to name all the people in the contracting business he knows. Garrison tells McBride his exceptions are MORONIC. Cline begins to talk about discussing it as a human being and Walton has done work here and there aren't complaints and we know where he lives. Anderson looks up conflict of interest and reads a definition. In the end DeMarchi wants to put forth a motion to do stage I and stage II (inside of the gate house). Garrison just wants stage I done. DeMarchi puts forth a motion to do stage I and the window of the marina house. Your board votes 5 - 1 to approve. McBride has voted no. Walton abstains.
COMMENTS: As I listened and transcribed the tape over a few days, there came times when I had to shut it off and walk away. I won't call myself an expert, as so many on this board easily and frequently do. I have been on boards, worked for non profit boards - large and small, over 25 years. I have never seen the ugly behavior of this board, the disregard for other elected or appointed to the board, the disregard for "above board" management, disregard for common sense and ethics, and the plain disregard for the audience they were to serve, in this case - you.
As you listen to the tape you'll note that Walton jumps in to defend himself several times - his right to bid. If his business is doing so well, why would he ever put himself, or our association in this position? If his goal is for the good of Wedgefield and he feels his contract work is so valuable to all of us, he has options. He can resign from the board and remove himself from the ballot, and bid like anyone else. If your legal chair is so confident that his opinion is correct, why wouldn't he go to the attorney for an opinion? Walton, Garrison, and DeMarchi labor at this too long in their attacks and they protest far too much. EVERY BOARD MEMBER SHOULD HAVE DEMANDED A WRITTEN OPINION ON THIS SUBJECT IN ORDER TO MAKE A LEGAL, ETHICAL DECISION ON THIS MATTER.
As I worked to listen and transcribe, I also read the most recent Wedgefield Wragg. Garrison is so pleased that the board had not had to defend themselves against law suit in 2013. Our governance is so tangled in Wedgefield that most members probably nodded yes - good. You are as responsible as this dysfunctional board if you don't attend meetings and don't follow what is happening in the very place you live. If you were responsible enough to keep abreast of the facts, take exception to what this board is doing, you would have been insulted enough to take action. Garrison played a huge role in the history of the last lawsuit, he even helped fund it. This abrasive board may have caused you to fear taking action, fear questioning, because they have wore you out with their antics.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
UPDATED OCT. 28, AM: IS THERE EVER A TIME WHEN A BOARD DOESN'T QUESTION ENOUGH AT THE BOARD TABLE? ARE OUR BOARD MEMBERS FAILING TO FULFILL THEIR RESPECTIVE INDIVIDUAL AND COMMITTEE CHAIR RESPONSIBILITIES? YOU'LL BE THE JUDGE. WE'VE TRANSCRIBED A PORTION OF THE TREASURER'S REPORT
UPDATE APPEARS AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE IN BLACK
NOTE: The Wedgefield Examiner has transcribed a portion of the treasurer's report. It is transcribed from a tape of the October WPA Meeting, to the best of our ability. Verify the transcription of this section of the report for yourself by visiting The Wedgefield Times. Your board appears to have determined that it isn't necessary to put the tapes of the meeting on the WPA website. The decision wasn't made at the board table, so once again, it must have been one of those cohesive, behind the scenes decisions. Sorry members, it appears you get what YOU vote for - those you put in office. Transcription is in BLUE, IN QUOTATIONS, AND UNDERLINED. Comments will be in RED.
DeMarchi, "I would like to express my thanks to Carol Zieske.....She did an excellent job of helping me with the accountant by providing me with past records that were either unavailable, or unlocateable (Spell check indicates it is not a word, but it was used by the board member.)."
COMMENTS:
Read the transcription. Listen to the tape. What follows DeMarchi's thank you, is a thank you by our President to DeMarchi for his report. What should have followed was questions. Unless our president and the bulk of the board was completely aware of the record situation mentioned above, a lot of questions should have followed.
*Exactly, what were the records that DeMarchi secured from a resident that should have been in the office?
*Why weren't the records in the office? Has our board become that sloppy with pertinent records?
*How did the resident obtain these records? What other records does she have?
*How did DeMarchi know to go to this resident with a records question? Who did DeMarchi inform on the board that records were missing?
Our president thanks DeMarchi and doesn't have questions. Our Legal Chair doesn't have questions. That is strange. Not one board member asks how we will keep this from happening again. Where's our compliance committee? I forget myself. DeMarchi is in charge of compliance. Unheard of in any strictly run organization, because he is the Treasurer. Up until he changed so many items in the policy manual, the treasurer could not sit on the compliance committee.
Ms. Zieske has not served on the board since late 2008. That year was audited. How could she possess financial records that could be that relative to what DeMarchi is doing in audit or finance now? The board attorney of record in 2009 wrote Ms Zieske asking that she turn over all the records that she had. In 2009 Ms Zieske, along with Wilson and Thomas sued the 2009 board. Why would DeMarchi be thanking her, or seeking records from her, without bringing legal into the conversation? Only in Wedgefield, particularly with this so called cohesive board, could you sue a previous sitting board, and be trusted to provide lost records. It just appears to be more of their good old boy, I'll wash your back you wash mine, board. As members, we are thrown out with the dirty bath water, and lack solid representation. Think that is hard? Read, Conflict of Interest - Lack of Common Sense & Ethics, on this site late Tuesday.
UPDATE: Just a thought about what we are about to face as a membership. President Walton and Legal Chair, Garrison are running unopposed for board this year. There will be three vacancies on the board and your board offers you three candidates. If you review your proxy you will note that you aren't even given the privilege of voting yes or no. If you feel that they are not the men for the job, write "NO" on the line beside their name. If nothing else it is a statement of principle. These men are failing to serve in the best interests of the association. They continually diminish our right to information as residents, abuse the only board member who does question, and conduct our business behind a wall of "we are the experts and we know best", as though we have less intelligence than a herd of cattle. In the next article we'll address their most recent escapade - conflict of interest.
NOTE: The Wedgefield Examiner has transcribed a portion of the treasurer's report. It is transcribed from a tape of the October WPA Meeting, to the best of our ability. Verify the transcription of this section of the report for yourself by visiting The Wedgefield Times. Your board appears to have determined that it isn't necessary to put the tapes of the meeting on the WPA website. The decision wasn't made at the board table, so once again, it must have been one of those cohesive, behind the scenes decisions. Sorry members, it appears you get what YOU vote for - those you put in office. Transcription is in BLUE, IN QUOTATIONS, AND UNDERLINED. Comments will be in RED.
DeMarchi, "I would like to express my thanks to Carol Zieske.....She did an excellent job of helping me with the accountant by providing me with past records that were either unavailable, or unlocateable (Spell check indicates it is not a word, but it was used by the board member.)."
COMMENTS:
Read the transcription. Listen to the tape. What follows DeMarchi's thank you, is a thank you by our President to DeMarchi for his report. What should have followed was questions. Unless our president and the bulk of the board was completely aware of the record situation mentioned above, a lot of questions should have followed.
*Exactly, what were the records that DeMarchi secured from a resident that should have been in the office?
*Why weren't the records in the office? Has our board become that sloppy with pertinent records?
*How did the resident obtain these records? What other records does she have?
*How did DeMarchi know to go to this resident with a records question? Who did DeMarchi inform on the board that records were missing?
Our president thanks DeMarchi and doesn't have questions. Our Legal Chair doesn't have questions. That is strange. Not one board member asks how we will keep this from happening again. Where's our compliance committee? I forget myself. DeMarchi is in charge of compliance. Unheard of in any strictly run organization, because he is the Treasurer. Up until he changed so many items in the policy manual, the treasurer could not sit on the compliance committee.
Ms. Zieske has not served on the board since late 2008. That year was audited. How could she possess financial records that could be that relative to what DeMarchi is doing in audit or finance now? The board attorney of record in 2009 wrote Ms Zieske asking that she turn over all the records that she had. In 2009 Ms Zieske, along with Wilson and Thomas sued the 2009 board. Why would DeMarchi be thanking her, or seeking records from her, without bringing legal into the conversation? Only in Wedgefield, particularly with this so called cohesive board, could you sue a previous sitting board, and be trusted to provide lost records. It just appears to be more of their good old boy, I'll wash your back you wash mine, board. As members, we are thrown out with the dirty bath water, and lack solid representation. Think that is hard? Read, Conflict of Interest - Lack of Common Sense & Ethics, on this site late Tuesday.
UPDATE: Just a thought about what we are about to face as a membership. President Walton and Legal Chair, Garrison are running unopposed for board this year. There will be three vacancies on the board and your board offers you three candidates. If you review your proxy you will note that you aren't even given the privilege of voting yes or no. If you feel that they are not the men for the job, write "NO" on the line beside their name. If nothing else it is a statement of principle. These men are failing to serve in the best interests of the association. They continually diminish our right to information as residents, abuse the only board member who does question, and conduct our business behind a wall of "we are the experts and we know best", as though we have less intelligence than a herd of cattle. In the next article we'll address their most recent escapade - conflict of interest.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
HAS THIS WPA BOARD TAKEN AWAY ANOTHER PIECE OF INFORMATION FROM THE MEMBERSHIP? THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER BELIEVES IT HAS. YOU'LL DECIDE
NOTE: Before we begin, the following is not casting blame, nor the spotlight on our paid WPA staff.
Previous Boards have had a long history of taping our monthly meetings and posting the tape on the WPA website. That hasn't been the case since January of 2013. Go to the WPA website and verify it for yourself. The Wedgefield Examiner has always used, and recommended readers go to The Wedgefield Times to listen to the tape and verify that the transcriptions posted on this blog are accurate. The Wedgefield Examiner has felt that we had complete information when we listened to the tape posted there, rather than the WPA website. Why? I haven't trusted the WPA recordings since 2011 when McMillin learned that the association president had asked the paid staff to erase part of the tape. While McMillin shared the information with a committee and swore them to secrecy, he later made attacks against the individuals who repeated the story, but never brought the information to the board table. Board member, McBride questioned the president at the board table and our president admitted he had asked that a portion of the tape be erased. Garrison, Jacky Walton, McMillin, and Barrier were all board members at the time, and no action was taken against a president who admitted he attempted to alter an association record.
Whether you completely trust the tape, or not, the posted recordings have been a long standing information service to the residents. When, where (It wasn't at the board table.), and why did your board decide to no longer provide the tapes to the membership? We can't depend on the minutes. The minutes have been sanitized. There was a long history of transcribing the tapes word for word and providing the transcription of EXACTLY what was said as the monthly minutes. Many sitting at this very board table determined that was unnecessary. Quite frankly, The Wedgefield Examiner believes it could be that they don't want their unprofessional behavior at the board table revealed anywhere. Their behavior at the board table is often vicious toward anyone on the board that questions their actions and motions, that at times, could be viewed in violation of sound business judgment, and possibly in violation of our governing documents.
The limiting of information to the membership runs rampart with this board. This is just one more example. They don't answer resident questions. If you write to review documents, you often are denied and told they are confidential, receive piece meal documents for review, and are treated like a pariah for asking. If you have an opinion contrary to that of the board, one of the board member's wives might take one of the two monthly residents speaker spots to dress you down during a meeting.. It happened here. We can't review legal opinions because they don't get them in writing.
Who is at fault? Frankly, the entire board, because they have sat back and let this crew diminish our right to information. Your board elects the officers. Do you think our president was unaware that the recordings haven't been available since January 2013? Next in line are the Board Secretary, and because of our bizarre office set up, the Board Treasurer. In the past our paid staff person has put the recording up on the WPA website. Historically, the Board Secretary supervised the office staff. Now, the Treasurer (We don't know for how many hours each week. He hasn't told us.) has made our only paid staff person, part of his "accounting function". In any case, provision of information to the membership isn't important to this board. In fact, failure to post the recordings may be intentional on the part of your board.
We owe a huge thank you to The Wedgefield Times for providing a service that your board fails to.
Previous Boards have had a long history of taping our monthly meetings and posting the tape on the WPA website. That hasn't been the case since January of 2013. Go to the WPA website and verify it for yourself. The Wedgefield Examiner has always used, and recommended readers go to The Wedgefield Times to listen to the tape and verify that the transcriptions posted on this blog are accurate. The Wedgefield Examiner has felt that we had complete information when we listened to the tape posted there, rather than the WPA website. Why? I haven't trusted the WPA recordings since 2011 when McMillin learned that the association president had asked the paid staff to erase part of the tape. While McMillin shared the information with a committee and swore them to secrecy, he later made attacks against the individuals who repeated the story, but never brought the information to the board table. Board member, McBride questioned the president at the board table and our president admitted he had asked that a portion of the tape be erased. Garrison, Jacky Walton, McMillin, and Barrier were all board members at the time, and no action was taken against a president who admitted he attempted to alter an association record.
Whether you completely trust the tape, or not, the posted recordings have been a long standing information service to the residents. When, where (It wasn't at the board table.), and why did your board decide to no longer provide the tapes to the membership? We can't depend on the minutes. The minutes have been sanitized. There was a long history of transcribing the tapes word for word and providing the transcription of EXACTLY what was said as the monthly minutes. Many sitting at this very board table determined that was unnecessary. Quite frankly, The Wedgefield Examiner believes it could be that they don't want their unprofessional behavior at the board table revealed anywhere. Their behavior at the board table is often vicious toward anyone on the board that questions their actions and motions, that at times, could be viewed in violation of sound business judgment, and possibly in violation of our governing documents.
The limiting of information to the membership runs rampart with this board. This is just one more example. They don't answer resident questions. If you write to review documents, you often are denied and told they are confidential, receive piece meal documents for review, and are treated like a pariah for asking. If you have an opinion contrary to that of the board, one of the board member's wives might take one of the two monthly residents speaker spots to dress you down during a meeting.. It happened here. We can't review legal opinions because they don't get them in writing.
Who is at fault? Frankly, the entire board, because they have sat back and let this crew diminish our right to information. Your board elects the officers. Do you think our president was unaware that the recordings haven't been available since January 2013? Next in line are the Board Secretary, and because of our bizarre office set up, the Board Treasurer. In the past our paid staff person has put the recording up on the WPA website. Historically, the Board Secretary supervised the office staff. Now, the Treasurer (We don't know for how many hours each week. He hasn't told us.) has made our only paid staff person, part of his "accounting function". In any case, provision of information to the membership isn't important to this board. In fact, failure to post the recordings may be intentional on the part of your board.
We owe a huge thank you to The Wedgefield Times for providing a service that your board fails to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)