The May WPA board meeting started promptly at 7:00PM. We left at 8:45PM for a scheduled phone call at our home, and the board hadn't gotten all the way through committee reports. The reports will be transcribed over the next several days. All nine board members were at the table.
COVER -UPS:
Old landing dock number one continues to reside in the canals and will for at least a month. The Water Amenities Report glowed with the delight in the completion of the replacement dock project. I had been to the office earlier in the day to review the correspondence file. This is what DeMarchi wrote to the Board on May 11: "Yesterday I went to the marina to see the new dock. WHAT A SHOCK!!!! (presented as he wrote it) Hole cut in wrong place, piling collars not around pilings. I hope we did not pay for this piece of junk yet. It must be fixed before payment is made. Regarding the old dock, the board was told it would be disposed of and yet it sits in the canal and has to be brought to he boards attention by a resident accusing the board of lying. Was the old dock sold to a canal lot owner? How did it turn up at its current location?" It appears this group is so focused on each of their individual projects that they will shut up in order to get what they want. The invoice for the dock was presented for payment. It should be noted that the contractor who was suppose to pull the dock out to be dissembled, towed it into the canals at the direction of some on the Water Amenities Committee. (Full report later.)
As reported earlier, Garrison was to check to see if the newest by-law had been registered. Last night he reported it had. He didn't report when, or the implications of the board not following it in making all of the policies manual changes, without following it. Your board was aware of the by-law because they went to all the staging of half hazard reading(????) 2 times on each change. They NEVER provided the proposed changes on the WPA website for resident review and comment. (Full report to follow.)
POUTS:
McMillin opened bids for the grounds contract. More to follow with transcriptions. The grounds contract currently includes work on the spoil site and mowing of vacant lots with owners paying. First remember McMillin, who sits on the Water Amenities Committee, but chairs Grounds, dragged a Water Amenities asset into Grounds some time ago, as your board sat back and so did the committee. There has been discussion at the board table in the past that McMillin is not billing individual lot owners enough to cover the cost of the mowing. In the past, he has stood adamantly in behalf of the lot owners, unwilling to raise the cost to them, to sufficiently cover the expense. From the figures reported in the contract for the mowing last night, it roughly appears that we - YOU AND ME, are covering as much as 40 - 50% of the mowing.
At some points the cost of mowing for each lot owner came into question. A board member felt that the work at the spoil site should be separate. McMillin pouted, at times was adamant. The board let it slide much like the old dock in the canals, and held approval of the grounds contract for two months. Watch where this goes. Will pouting work and behind the scene deals be made that will make McMillin smile again? Full report later.
DECLARATIONS:
DeMarchi has completed the first stage of the project and contract reported on earlier DeMarchi declares that "five or six drainage committees have known since 2007 the issues (must be around the area he lives and built homes) and he will fix it. He will be the first one to fix it." Your board ignores McBride as he asks, "We're saying grading of lots is our responsibility? Will he ever have to explain, why this PARTICULAR area and not the others brought to his attention at the board table? More to follow.
IN GENERAL:
First, "Code of Ethics" President Walton pretty much sat by. Anything that should have been handled to completion laid on the table, was moved to later, are more deals in process? Like the lead in to the Wedgefield soap opera, - Will McMillin get to keep the spoil site under grounds against all reasonable business or board line structure? Will McMillin continue to be able to provide unbelievable deals to lot owners, as you help pay for their mowing? Will the Water Amenities Committee sigh and say, "We did it, we placed our old unrepairable dock in the canals, contrary to board approval, listed the poor wreck for sale, and the board barely slapped our hands." Will DeMarchi continue to ignore all the problems in other areas, and use our funds to fix his favorite land charity? Will you take it upon yourself to call the water regulatory agencies and ask them to come in and look at the size of this huge dock, placed in one of our smallest canals? Will you ask them to look at whether it meets environment requirements? There were questions at the board table but your board ignored them. Will Garrison ever have to explain why he sat back and allowed the board to make all those policy manual changes without following the "letter of the law - a by-law that you voted to put in place"? Will DeMarchi really get to continue calling a person who is a bookkeeper our accountant and pay for their bonding, because as McMillin says, "they work cheap", even though he brought up the fact that a previous contractor in this role had to pay for their own? We'll see as the Wedgefield board churns.
