I've listened to the tape of the April 16 WPA board meeting. I'm not going to transcribe every word of each report. I'm reporting what I heard to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape yourself. TRANSCRIPTION IS UNDERLINED.
All of the board members are present for this meeting except John Walton. As they move to the first items on the agenda, we come to approval of the minutes. Progress, thankfully, is halted by McBride, who has questions. He says, "Larry look at the addendum, your report there and if you look at the last full paragraph- the canal maintenance proposal" DeMarchi, "page 5". McBride goes over the figures as to what canal lot owners would have to pay. The figures don't add up. McMillin explains some of the problem by saying that there was a typing error, and then adds that the figures were for a 5 year period of time. He's using $640 per year for canal lot owners for 5 years. His plan looks at dredging 5 years from the last dredge. McBride reminds him that he said two years. Garrison jumps in and asks what the original said, was it the same as this? DeMarchi says, yes. Garrison then says, "that would be how the minutes would be accepted even if it is wrong, because that's what the report was." Jacky Walton says, "Larry stated that that was his opinion." McMillin, "All those figures were approximate and I believe I made mention up front that these were just approximations. They were only my...nothing was set in stone. They were just from information that I had gathered and I believe I may even have mentioned there may be mistakes involved. It was a proposal only. It was just a guess." McBride, "it would be nice to have reported correct numbers, if you could." McMillin, "Alright, Alright." Cline, "I have a comment. These are shown before the meeting for any board members to make corrections or comments". McBride, "This was not. This was given to us at the meeting." Cline, "Ok, at the last meeting, so you've had a month." McBride, "We didn't get them at the meeting. Larry ....." Cline, "I'm just asking that we do this before the meeting, so we don't take another 10 minutes to hash over stuff that we could discuss before the meeting." McBride, "Corrections....we shouldn't ask for them?" DeMarchi, "Well John, it's not a correction to the minutes." Garrison, "The addendum was presented as you see it, right, wrong, or indifferent. I agree that the numbers don't add up. I think that, I think we all agree that the numbers don't add up, but in terms of the minutes, this is a copy of what was presented last month. As such, I don't see where you can change it. It's not an explanation of what took place at the meeting. It is a verbatim recitation of what was presented. So in my mind there is no need to amend it. You're not amending the minutes. You'd be amending Larry's report. I don't think that's proper." Cline, "No, it's not" Garrison, "Even though you are correct that it is wrong." McMillin, "We don't even have any firm numbers to do this with." Cline, "All right, let's not get this (laughing). Can we approve the minutes?" A vote is taken and the minutes are approved.
COMMENTS:
It was difficult to sort all of this out from a solid administrative perspective. We'll start at the very beginning.
*McMillin's canal proposal was listed as a March agenda item. He presented the proposal in line with the agenda. He presented it after the meeting was called to order and before the meeting was adjourned. This proposal should appear in the minutes of the meeting. Why was the proposal a so called, "addendum"? It SOUNDS like (listening to the tape) that the board was asked to approve the March minutes WITHOUT a review of the addendum proposal. WHY? As secretary, why does Cline question McBride? Why does Garrison, and at times, DeMarchi, both support and knock down John's questioning, and not question why it isn't contained in the minutes?
*McMillin jumps in and says it was a guess, some figures HE pulled together. A few more questions. How did McMillin get a speaking, presentation part on the official WPA March agenda with a WATER AMENITIES TOPIC? I've done some research and I've checked with two people on the WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE and there wasn't an official WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE MEETING called to develop and outline this proposal. In fact, where was the committee in this and where was the WATER AMENITIES CHAIR, John Walton? My own thoughts are that it is entirely possible that once again, your board is ignoring, going around certain board members, and basic committee structure and function, in this "old boys" network - "I'll wash your back, you wash mine", to pull off some of the ridiculous moves that follow in almost all of our meetings! Dependent on your Wedgefield political convictions, this might appear to suit your agenda. Over the long haul it will come back to bite you and these good old boys, in the backside - royally. Once again, I ask you and the board, how these rash actions would stand up in court if it came to that? Far fetched? I don't think so. What is sick is that you have both sides of the 2009 lawsuit sitting at that table and they seem to forget that it could happen again.
*We go from bad to worse. As the figures are questioned, McMillin adds that this proposal is based on dredging 5 years since the last dredge. Think about it. Our last dredge started with work on the spoil site (remember McMillin has land grabbed that too) in late 2009 and completed in early 2010. We are in 2013. Does that mean that his proposal would have us dredging in 2015? Yet, McMillin doesn't bother to tell you how they will legally handle what is going to end up being "differential assessments"? Canal lot owners would pay more. In March, Garrison tells canal lot owners to start putting money in jars. Is McMillin planning on "back billing" canal lot owners at $640/year for 3 or 4 years?
*Remember at the March meeting, McMillin throws out professional expertise, and ramrods his figures. MY SPECULATION is that he wants to back the dredging figure down to accommodate what DeMarchi decided would be the accumulated canal reserve. I'll wash your back, you wash mine?
Finally, where did the rules governing meeting minutes, structure, real committee work, etc., go? Right down the drain. Who is responsible? Those board members who allow a board member, or members, to put an item on the agenda that doesn't come out of committee, ignore board members who legitimately question, and then start playing with terms like minutes and addendum's? Remember board, that just because you sanitize the minutes, doesn't mean these items won't come out just the way you let it happen, because there are tapes of the meetings. We can hear what you won't put in the minutes. Possibly, a court will hear what you wouldn't put in the minutes. Will you be able to defend your actions?
