Sunday, June 30, 2013
Saturday, June 29, 2013
WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER CELEBRATES 25,000 VISITS TO THE BLOG
News dog, Brady is pleased to announce over 25,000 visits to the Wedgefield Examiner in less than 18 months. Stay tuned. Here's just another example of what he is keeping his eyes on-
Brady wonders how we'll be able to trust the board when its treasurer said he never sent this response to Mrs. Claveloux. Take a look at the document for yourself. Your board president and legal chair sat by, as he said it. They heard him blame the paid office staff. How can she be to blame, when his instructions are to "in form me"? You decide where the truth is on this matter and so many others.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| | |||||||
|
Friday, June 28, 2013
IS THE WPA BOARD IN COMPLIANCE? A SUBJECT MADE DIFFICULT BY THE BOARD ITSELF
Briefly, the question arises because of the actions of the board. Several policy manual changes were made over 8-9 months, without following the dictates of a 2011 bylaw change that our membership voted in. The by-law requires that any proposed changes to the policy manual be read at two meetings and posted for resident review and comment. During the months of change your board sometimes read the change (The word sometimes because the accounting function description was never completely read out loud.) at two meetings but NEVER posted them on the on the website. Additionally, they never posted the new bylaw (2011) until May of 2013, even though all the rest of the bylaw document was posted on the WPA website. Additionally, the Policy Manual was taken off the WPA website for about 2 months, put back on about a week prior to the June board meeting, and removed again. During the June board meeting your board re approved all of the previous changes to the policy manual stating that they had been posted (The entire document, just prior to the meeting.) and that they didn't receive one comment! Who did they advise that this was going to be your one and only opportunity to review all those changes for review and comment?
The issues with the Policy Manual and recent failure for board members and committees to follow through with their own motions and statements at the board table cause the question of compliance. Today, once again you can't review the Policy Manual to determine the responsibility of answering whether the board is in compliance. You'll decide. After research and review of available records, I don't believe they are, nor do I believe that they have a legitimate compliance committee, or appropriately approved board member to serve on the committee, based on the research presented below.
RESEARCH:
During 2012 DeMarchi formed a committee to update the Policy Manual. At that time he was secretary of the board. I'm aware of at least two of the committee members who resigned during their work on the committee. One of the problems was DeMarchi's insertion of what he first termed as a historical or legitimate document, the Confidentiality Agreement. Since we are first left without the ability to review the current Policy Manual, skeptical of the legality according to our bylaws of the changes, recent conflicting actions versus motions at the board table, we are forced to review previous Policy Manuals, the last Compliance Report that DeMarchi himself was a committee member and author of, and board minutes.
THE 2009 COMPLIANCE REPORT:
You can read the report in its entirety by going to Information From The Board at the WPA website. DeMarchi is one of three who served on the committee. None of the three were serving on the board at that time. You'll note the following regarding the necessity of the committee in the following quote from the document itself, "It should also be noted that a standing Compliance Committee, operating all year and performing its responsibilities on an ongoing basis is required by WPA regulations." Objectives from page one of the document:
*2011 Bylaw & Changes to the Policy Manual:
Based on the information provided in the first paragraph of this article do you think the board was in compliance with the changes they voted in at the June meeting after failing to post or follow all of the requirements of the 2011 bylaw? My opinion - NO. What do you think?
*Verbal Legal Opinions:
Your board, including the board legal chair, have failed to secure legal opinions in writing. One board member has questioned this more than once. During the resident comments at the end of the May meeting a resident commented that legal opinions should be in writing so that residents can review them. If you review item number 5 of the last compliance report, how could a committee review legal invoices and verify whether an opinion was provided if opinions aren't in writing? As residents we are left with the word of the reigning legal chair.
Recently I wrote the board and requested a review of specific records, provided the date I would like to visit the office, and as required by our governing documents, I provided the reason for my request. I published my request and the response I received which was authored by our treasurer on the blog. The response quoted state law rather than our governing documents. I asked for a meeting with our board president and legal committee. I wanted to know when the board made a decision to revert to state law versus our governing documents and when they had applied state law to any other resident request to review files? I met with the president, legal chair, and unrequested - the treasurer who had authored the answer to me and shared it with the board. I took the response I had received via email with me. The treasurer told me he had not sent the email to me. Please go back and review the email sent TO ME. He blamed the staff secretary. While we won't labor on the point, he prepared the response to my request and sent it out to the board and the office. Why all that effort directed at me? This was nothing more than your board splicing words. It was intended for me, sent out from the WPA office?????? Should the treasurer, or anyone else on this board be operating without a real COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE?
You'll decide!
The issues with the Policy Manual and recent failure for board members and committees to follow through with their own motions and statements at the board table cause the question of compliance. Today, once again you can't review the Policy Manual to determine the responsibility of answering whether the board is in compliance. You'll decide. After research and review of available records, I don't believe they are, nor do I believe that they have a legitimate compliance committee, or appropriately approved board member to serve on the committee, based on the research presented below.
RESEARCH:
During 2012 DeMarchi formed a committee to update the Policy Manual. At that time he was secretary of the board. I'm aware of at least two of the committee members who resigned during their work on the committee. One of the problems was DeMarchi's insertion of what he first termed as a historical or legitimate document, the Confidentiality Agreement. Since we are first left without the ability to review the current Policy Manual, skeptical of the legality according to our bylaws of the changes, recent conflicting actions versus motions at the board table, we are forced to review previous Policy Manuals, the last Compliance Report that DeMarchi himself was a committee member and author of, and board minutes.
THE 2009 COMPLIANCE REPORT:
You can read the report in its entirety by going to Information From The Board at the WPA website. DeMarchi is one of three who served on the committee. None of the three were serving on the board at that time. You'll note the following regarding the necessity of the committee in the following quote from the document itself, "It should also be noted that a standing Compliance Committee, operating all year and performing its responsibilities on an ongoing basis is required by WPA regulations." Objectives from page one of the document:
The Objectives of the committee are as follows:
1. Review all minutes of Board Meetings for the prior year. Verify all items approved in the minutes were implemented as approved.
2. Review all Board activity – Verify all Board actions are supported by the Deeds, Covenants, and By-Laws.
3. Review all bids processed by the Board. Verifying that the bidding process, as documented in the procurement procedure was followed. Verify each bid as to accuracy and legitimacy and that all bidders were viable business entities.
4. Review all contracts awarded. Verify all work required in the contract was performed as specified.
5. Examine all law suites filed, court judgments issued, and related legal costs involved. Summarize all findings and current status for review by the members of the Plantation.
6. Review and verify all financial matters approved by the Board were performed within the guidelines of the Deeds, Covenants, and by-laws.
7. Review all activities and decisions made by the ARC.
8. Present all findings to the Board and members of the Association.
The committee has collected and compiled both financial and operational information regarding the Boards activity for the past year through December 2008.
Previously, the Compliance Committee had been called the Audit Committee. Other than the current Policy Manual, which we can't review today, we go back to the 2006 version of the Policy Manual which states the following regarding committee responsibility and membership: "In lieu of a yearly outside audit by a CPA firm, and in order to assure the accuracy of the Association financial record-keeping and reporting, and to assure there are proper safeguards to assure there are proper safeguards to protect the Association's assets, and to assure compliance to The Association's Charter, By-Laws, Policies & Procedures, and all laws, and rules (local, state & federal) affecting Home Owner Associations, the Board shall establish an Auditing Committee." MEMBERS: "The Auditing Committee shall be comprised of three (3) or more members. The Auditing Committee shall be appointed by the Board from among the members of The Association, one of who may be a director other than TREASURER."
If you review the 2006 Policy Manual Audit Committee responsibilities and the objectives of the Compliance Committee noted above, along with the fact the Compliance Committee members who authored the report, were not board members, certainly did not have a sitting board treasurer on the team, you could begin to wonder how our board treasurer reports on compliance each month.
Should the treasurer of the board speak to compliance? Who is on the compliance committee? When have they met? When did anybody on the committee provide written statements to the board? You'll have to decide these questions for yourself. I do not believe based on a compliance report DeMarchi himself prepared, that he should speak to compliance. Additionally, if you review the committee's objectives he should not speak to it. Any board member who carries the responsibility of all the functions he specifically does, should not be involved. Think about it. He is treasurer, compiled the Policy Manual, sits on ARC, and is Drainage chair seeking and accepting bids himself. Don't forget he, our president, all other board members also sat back while fellow board member McBride was denied the requested ability to review the draft of the Reserve Study. This is compliance?
Should the treasurer of the board speak to compliance? Who is on the compliance committee? When have they met? When did anybody on the committee provide written statements to the board? You'll have to decide these questions for yourself. I do not believe based on a compliance report DeMarchi himself prepared, that he should speak to compliance. Additionally, if you review the committee's objectives he should not speak to it. Any board member who carries the responsibility of all the functions he specifically does, should not be involved. Think about it. He is treasurer, compiled the Policy Manual, sits on ARC, and is Drainage chair seeking and accepting bids himself. Don't forget he, our president, all other board members also sat back while fellow board member McBride was denied the requested ability to review the draft of the Reserve Study. This is compliance?
BRIEFLY, CONSIDERING SOME RECENT CONCERNS, DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR BOARD IS IN COMPLIANCE, OR THAT WE HAVE ANY KIND OF COMPLIANCE REVIEW AT ALL?
WE WILL USE THE OBJECTIVES OF DEMARCHI'S CO-AUTHORED REPORT.
Before I began the final part of this article I went to what I call your board's sanitized minutes. Is that unfair - sanitized? You will decide as we interject the May minutes, those just approved, and determine whether any legitimate compliance committee would be able to determine compliance. As you make your determinations go back to the transcribed board tapes at this blog for verification.
*Grounds Contact: The discussion regarding subsidized lot mowing and concern for the fact that the spoil site should be separated from the grounds contract do not enter the May minutes. From a compliance stand point our by-laws don't support subsidized private lot mowing. Are the minutes and the board actions in May and June when the contract was approved with both of these items in the contract in compliance? My opinion NO. What do you think?
*Water Amenities: During the February 2013 board meeting the Water Amenities Committee sought and secured approval to replace the old landing dock with a new one, and have the contractor haul the old dock onto the landing to be dismantled. The board was told it could not be repaired. At the May meeting the Water Amenities Chair reported that the dock had been hauled into the canals and listed for sale. Read the May minutes, read the transcription of the meeting report in earlier articles on the blog. If you listen to the tape or read the transcription you'll see that the board discussed that the dock was never to go into the canals. From a compliance stand point when did the board approve for it to be dragged into the canals? Recently when I asked board members who gave the committee approval to sell WPA property I was told they gave approval at the May board meeting. Yet, I have pictures of the dock in the canals with a for sale sign on it weeks before the May meeting. Are the minutes of the May meeting, the actions of the Water Amenities Committee, the actions of the board, in compliance? My opinion - NO. What do you think?
*Drainage:
The Drainage Chair, also treasurer, and ARC member, determines compliance, sought approval of drainage work on Francis Parker and Joanna Gillard, stating everything done in drainage for the past 6-7 years was wrong and he was going to fix it. Go back to the April and May minutes and see if they reflect what happened, review transcription of the meeting tapes at this blog, listen to the meeting tapes. Do the minutes reflect what happened? Will the board be in compliance if they pay for what his vendor's own words, calls "lot maintenance? Could DeMarchi be in a conflict of interest situation when he lives on Francis Parker, owned lots, sold them and built homes for other residents on Joanna Gillard? Would a real compliance committee find him in conflict if they reviewed the tapes of the meetings where he speaks to his house and his problems? Maybe you will when you consider his words. FROM THE APPROVED MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2012 MINUTES:
years ago.
Al stated several policy sections on the property owner keeping their ditches clean.
Letters will be sent to owners to clean ditches, if lot owners do not participate in this
effort there is very little the drainage committee can do."
If you look at the objectives of the compliance report written by a team that our Drainage Chair sat on you'll note that they reviewed bidding processes, including bids, and certifications of insurance and license. I wrote the office and asked to review the request for proposal, insurance and license, bids, and contract for the projects on Francis Parker and Joanna Gillard. I was only provided the bids and the contract. When I asked the office staff person about the rest of the documents I was told that that was all she was given to give to me. She must follow the directives of the board. Review of the bids could indicate that there wasn't a written request for proposal. I can't speak to insurance and license because they weren't provided.
HERE IS WHAT THE BIDS REVEALED:Great Lawns of Georgetown submitted a bid on March 18, with a note that said they had met and discussed the work with DeMarchi. The bid was for $1,100. There is a bid from DE&GC, originally in the amount of $1,160.00 dated March 25. Then there are scratch off areas with initials, and the bid drops to a total of $1,085.00. A contract is written and when the invoice is submitted for payment, it is submitted for $1,160.00. Again there are cross off and initials and the total due changed to $1,085.00. It could appear that the second bidder was assisted in lowering their bid just below the first bidders price. Interestingly, The bidder thanks Wedgefield for "considering us for YOUR LOT MAINTENANCE needs". Review tapes of the meetings against minutes, and ask to review files for yourself. Is your board in compliance? My opinion - NO. What do you think?
Before I began the final part of this article I went to what I call your board's sanitized minutes. Is that unfair - sanitized? You will decide as we interject the May minutes, those just approved, and determine whether any legitimate compliance committee would be able to determine compliance. As you make your determinations go back to the transcribed board tapes at this blog for verification.
*Grounds Contact: The discussion regarding subsidized lot mowing and concern for the fact that the spoil site should be separated from the grounds contract do not enter the May minutes. From a compliance stand point our by-laws don't support subsidized private lot mowing. Are the minutes and the board actions in May and June when the contract was approved with both of these items in the contract in compliance? My opinion NO. What do you think?
*Water Amenities: During the February 2013 board meeting the Water Amenities Committee sought and secured approval to replace the old landing dock with a new one, and have the contractor haul the old dock onto the landing to be dismantled. The board was told it could not be repaired. At the May meeting the Water Amenities Chair reported that the dock had been hauled into the canals and listed for sale. Read the May minutes, read the transcription of the meeting report in earlier articles on the blog. If you listen to the tape or read the transcription you'll see that the board discussed that the dock was never to go into the canals. From a compliance stand point when did the board approve for it to be dragged into the canals? Recently when I asked board members who gave the committee approval to sell WPA property I was told they gave approval at the May board meeting. Yet, I have pictures of the dock in the canals with a for sale sign on it weeks before the May meeting. Are the minutes of the May meeting, the actions of the Water Amenities Committee, the actions of the board, in compliance? My opinion - NO. What do you think?
*Drainage:
The Drainage Chair, also treasurer, and ARC member, determines compliance, sought approval of drainage work on Francis Parker and Joanna Gillard, stating everything done in drainage for the past 6-7 years was wrong and he was going to fix it. Go back to the April and May minutes and see if they reflect what happened, review transcription of the meeting tapes at this blog, listen to the meeting tapes. Do the minutes reflect what happened? Will the board be in compliance if they pay for what his vendor's own words, calls "lot maintenance? Could DeMarchi be in a conflict of interest situation when he lives on Francis Parker, owned lots, sold them and built homes for other residents on Joanna Gillard? Would a real compliance committee find him in conflict if they reviewed the tapes of the meetings where he speaks to his house and his problems? Maybe you will when you consider his words. FROM THE APPROVED MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2012 MINUTES:
"Al reported that due to the recent heavy rains some residents were contacted to discuss
problems and responsibilities. Most dealt with WPA responsibility to correct problemsyears ago.
Al stated several policy sections on the property owner keeping their ditches clean.
Letters will be sent to owners to clean ditches, if lot owners do not participate in this
effort there is very little the drainage committee can do."
If you look at the objectives of the compliance report written by a team that our Drainage Chair sat on you'll note that they reviewed bidding processes, including bids, and certifications of insurance and license. I wrote the office and asked to review the request for proposal, insurance and license, bids, and contract for the projects on Francis Parker and Joanna Gillard. I was only provided the bids and the contract. When I asked the office staff person about the rest of the documents I was told that that was all she was given to give to me. She must follow the directives of the board. Review of the bids could indicate that there wasn't a written request for proposal. I can't speak to insurance and license because they weren't provided.
HERE IS WHAT THE BIDS REVEALED:Great Lawns of Georgetown submitted a bid on March 18, with a note that said they had met and discussed the work with DeMarchi. The bid was for $1,100. There is a bid from DE&GC, originally in the amount of $1,160.00 dated March 25. Then there are scratch off areas with initials, and the bid drops to a total of $1,085.00. A contract is written and when the invoice is submitted for payment, it is submitted for $1,160.00. Again there are cross off and initials and the total due changed to $1,085.00. It could appear that the second bidder was assisted in lowering their bid just below the first bidders price. Interestingly, The bidder thanks Wedgefield for "considering us for YOUR LOT MAINTENANCE needs". Review tapes of the meetings against minutes, and ask to review files for yourself. Is your board in compliance? My opinion - NO. What do you think?
*2011 Bylaw & Changes to the Policy Manual:
Based on the information provided in the first paragraph of this article do you think the board was in compliance with the changes they voted in at the June meeting after failing to post or follow all of the requirements of the 2011 bylaw? My opinion - NO. What do you think?
*Verbal Legal Opinions:
Your board, including the board legal chair, have failed to secure legal opinions in writing. One board member has questioned this more than once. During the resident comments at the end of the May meeting a resident commented that legal opinions should be in writing so that residents can review them. If you review item number 5 of the last compliance report, how could a committee review legal invoices and verify whether an opinion was provided if opinions aren't in writing? As residents we are left with the word of the reigning legal chair.
Recently I wrote the board and requested a review of specific records, provided the date I would like to visit the office, and as required by our governing documents, I provided the reason for my request. I published my request and the response I received which was authored by our treasurer on the blog. The response quoted state law rather than our governing documents. I asked for a meeting with our board president and legal committee. I wanted to know when the board made a decision to revert to state law versus our governing documents and when they had applied state law to any other resident request to review files? I met with the president, legal chair, and unrequested - the treasurer who had authored the answer to me and shared it with the board. I took the response I had received via email with me. The treasurer told me he had not sent the email to me. Please go back and review the email sent TO ME. He blamed the staff secretary. While we won't labor on the point, he prepared the response to my request and sent it out to the board and the office. Why all that effort directed at me? This was nothing more than your board splicing words. It was intended for me, sent out from the WPA office?????? Should the treasurer, or anyone else on this board be operating without a real COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE?
You'll decide!
Thursday, June 27, 2013
NEXT - COMPLIANCE. WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE CHANGES TO THE POLICY MANUAL, FAILURE REPEATEDLY TO FOLLOW THE 2011 BY-LAW, OUR POLICY MANUAL PULLED FROM THE WPA WEBSITE FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME, AND A TREASURER DETERMINING WHETHER WE ARE 'IN COMPLIANCE (??????)". THE SUBJCT IS TAKING A LOT OF RESEARCH BUT IT IS IMPORTANT!
Where would our recent drainage projects be? Where would our recent ground's contract stand? Would we ever have had the dock drama? Would we have written legal opinion? Would every resident have a copy, or be able to view, the policy manual? Would our treasurer be the person who reports whether the board is "in compliance"? If your board was "in compliance" with our governing documents, their own motions at the board table, would we ever have had this continuing mess???
Research will follow. In the mean time I'll write the board and ask for a hard copy of the Policy Manual, even state law, which DeMarchi applied to me, allows for you and me to have a copy.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
THE GROUNDS REPORT, JUNE 18 WPA MEETING, A WORD THROWN IN THE DISCUSSION -" KICKBACKS"
PLEASE NOTE: The following is a combination of transcription, an overview of what occurred, and commentary -QUESTIONS ONLY YOU CAN ANSWER FOR YOURSELF. The actual transcription will be in quotes and underlined because that is what the blog presents to you, the words and documents of this board. I wonder if there is any reasonable way to present this as great administration. I have transcribed to the best of my ability, it is your responsibility to listen to the tape for yourself. COMMENTS WILL ALWAYS BE IN RED.
The Grounds Report is provided by chair, McMillin. He starts his report with information regarding the 2013 grounds maintenance contract. He had opened the bids during the May meeting and your board held a decision until the August meeting. The current contract would have been extended two more months. Two of the concerns that came from the board table in May were that some on the board felt that the spoil site maintenance should not be in the contract and that lot mowings for private lot owners were provided at much less than the cost to the association. We pick up transcription with McMillin,(speaking about the contract) "It will include two visits per year to the spoil site in order to maintain that area" Later, McMillin, "We have brought down the number of lot mowings from people who have not paid or have not responded, to 21 from 29. So that changed their numbers as well. Their fee for mowing is $33.33. That didn't change, but the total amount for lot mowing changed to $2,999.70 which is 90 lot mowings during the current season. Since they are behind on the lot mowings, they probably should have already had their second mowing and its caused a number of problems in the area. We've had complaints from the office." When the board held contract approval in May and extended the old contract, there weren't any lot movings left in the old contract. McMillin picks up later, "Concerning the lot mowings, Al, the total for Great Lawns would be $2999.70. We will recover $1,830.00 of that and from the fee that we are charging the property owners. So that leaves a balance of $1,169.70 to be paid by WPA to sponsor this program. I've met with Jacky and we discussed this and I know there is some opposition to anyone subsidizing, so ....that WPA is not given the benefit from...I don't exactly agree with that." He goes on to mention the mowing is a benefit to those that live near these lots. In the future the board will have to decide whether we want to continue this at a loss. He explains the new contractor invoicing and tracking of lots mowed. He goes on to talk about the provision for pine straw in the contract and reminds the board that the spoil site has been included also. The contractor hasn't had an increase in 4 1/2 yrs. As he finishes he says, "I think its in the best interests of Wedgefield Plantation to adopt this and get back on track." He makes his motion. Cline seconds and they move to discussion. DeMarchi, "That includes the 90 mowings, right Larry?" McMillin, "Yes" DeMarchi, "You have 21 lots Larry?" McMillin, "Yes" DeMarchi, "Some of those lots get six mowings." McMillin, "Three, 18 are wooded, three are grassy." DeMarchi, "We have 3 grass lots that get mowed how many times? McMillin and DeMarchi go back and forth with the number of lot mowings. Garrison steps in, "Couple of provisions here. Make sure everybody is on the same page. 1, contract is retro active to expiration date of the last contract?" McMillin, "Correct" Garrison, "This whole lot mowing business, alright, because letters have already been sent out, because you got people who have already sent money, in my view, it is too late to undo what's already 3/4 done for this year. Now, we'll pay for it this year. We'll SUBSIDIZE IT THIS YEAR, but by next year, long before we get to the mowing season, next year this board is going to need to decide what kind of letter you want to send out to these folks, whether you're going to eliminate this, whether you're going to leave it to their own devices, whether you want to manage it, get REAL COST to the people that chose to take ADVANTAGE . That's something that's going to need to be addressed in August or September, not next March when we go through this same routine again and end up back in this same routine. So let me be clear that this, if approved, and I support it with those provisions, alright that this lot mowing mess is going to get addressed by this board with a look toward making some serious changes to the way we are doing it." President Walton questions the fact that we are two lot mowings behind and Garrison wants to know the time frame for catching up. McMillin explains the schedule for catching up. Why didn't this board know what was going on with the letters to the lot owners asking if they are interested, the request for proposal that included the number of lots to be mowed - responses from lot owners must have come to the office, McMillin's setting a cost for the services? DeMarchi and McMillin had bumped heads about this around the first of the year. You can't tell by the sanitized minutes, but go back and listen to the board tapes. This is no surprise! Think about the authority structure. McMillin didn't type the letters, address envelopes and send them out. The office staff did. McMillin didn't sit in the office and receive the responses. They were sent to the office. McMillin didn't deposit the payments and make the entries into resident accounts. During the May meeting he told us that our president reviewed his request for proposal. Was there a budget developed for this? McMillin has sat at the board table in open meetings, crossed his arms and said he felt we needed to do this for the lot owners because they get nothing for their assessment. The whole board has been alerted more than once. With mailings, entries of payment, review of request for proposal, it could appear that President Walton, Cline as secretary and office supervisor, DeMarchi who seems to know all the figures and supervises the "accounting department", would know. Does McMillin even have a committee? He hasn't in the past. If so, when did they meet and discuss this? As far as Garrison saying that it should stand now because of letters and collection, really?
What could have been done if McMillin operated in the dark with no review from the board? If he really acted alone in sending out letters, request for proposal that considered HIS figures, and was responsible for directing the entries in the books, than we have a huge mess. I don't believe individual board members were unaware until it was too late. Even, if it was so, we elect the board members as individuals with their own functioning brain, talents, and individual voting power. We don't elect them as a herd with a leader of the pack. In May, your individual board members should have followed through in correcting the wrong that was laid on the board table. It would have only taken one board member to make a motion advising McMillin that letters would be sent to the then 29 residents, that there would either be no lot mowing service, or advising them of rates that covered the cost. Funds could have been returned or applied to the new rates. Instead, I think they protest too much! If you are going to provide this service to some at a subsidized rate, you offer it to all, or you are breaking the bylaws. This could look like nothing more than posturing, and moving their old boys network forward.
Back to the transcription. McBride, "Is there a way we could take these lot mowings out of this budget that they have? Its not common ground, their mowing, its private property, and we're giving them a KICKBACK. It doesn't need to be in this budget of theirs." Garrison, "KICKBACK?" McBride, "The owners are not paying for it, for all of it. So, we're giving the owners a KICKBACK, by paying for it." McMillin, "This has been going on for 8, 10, 12 years." McBride, "Can we separate this from the budget?" Many voices at the board table, "NEXT YEAR" Someone says, "Right now I think we're in to far into it..."McBride, "We could separate it out now, so that......" Garrison, "Not without backing out on people we already committed to." McBride, I'm not saying ......." Cline, "We already know what we're paying and it is pretty clear..." Garrison, "As it stands you're only going to pay for mowing done. I don't like that, but its the best we can come up with for current year." John Walton, "Did they include spoil site?" McMillin tells them the contractor wants to do it spring and fall and talks about how they'll catch up because of the contract delay.
McMillin gets his way and we pay. They vote 8-1. McBride says "NO".
Before we begin, let's settle something. There are those on the board, and amongst you that think I favor McBride. At this point you are right in one respect only! I favor him because he is the only one at that board table who votes according to the governing documents, and takes the heat and abuse from the balance of the board and committees, because it looks like HE thinks it is the right thing to do. Some on the board and amongst those reading think he brings information to me. Let me clarify, NOT ONCE! Some on this board have been around for 3-5 years. They always look, and claim that one amongst them brings me information. In the past they accused Reames and Wijthoff, it NEVER HAPPENED. There was one who did bring me things until he told a bold faced lie and I exposed it and we parted ways. I seek information through proper channels, put up with this board's nonsense and do what I think is right. With that cleared up, we can move on.
The word KICKBACK jumped out at me during the meeting and I forgot about it until I transcribed this section of the meeting tape. The word jumped out again. HMMMM, it seemed to relate to this cohesive board, I say it is I'll wash your back, you wash mine, each with the soap of choice - votes at the board table while turning a blind eye. Well that's me. I looked up the word for all of our benefit. KICKBACK: "a sum of money paid illegally in order to gain concessions or favors." How could that apply? Well, several claim it is wrong but we are going to do it "one more time, but NEVER AGAIN". If it is wrong, stand up and stop it, NOW! Otherwise it could be viewed as kickbacks! Do I believe any of the board members are receiving money? No! I do believe it could be all about votes You'll decide, because who would declare in this litigious time?. Think about the rest of the meeting. The nominating committee is announced. The deadline for resumes to run for board is posted. Now get back to practical matters. Have you or the your group, ever worked toward campaigning for certain individuals to be elected? One of the first things you do is try and contact and secure the votes of the lot owners. Is this part of what is happening? You'll decide. Why would you violate a bylaw and continue with something you blatantly declare is wrong? You'll decide. It could appear to be a kickback to private lot owners. Anything else that you might construe to be part of this? Think about the last election cycle. There was a lot of discussion and in fighting about lots. Did one lot owner actually own 3 or 5 lots? Should the largest private lot owner be allowed to vote all of their votes? A Concerned Citizen tried to put forth a bylaw change for vote so that it was one vote per member, whether you owned one or 30+ lots. You'll decide. Think of the work that is being done on Francis Parker and Joanna Gillard. There are so many lots there. The drainage chair, whose home is on Francis Parker and has sold lots and built homes on Joanna Gillard is pushing that work through claiming everybody else before him was wrong. He declared last year that drainage was the responsibility of the property owners (See quotes in previous articles.) responsibility. His own vendor for the first two stages of work in those areas called it "lot maintenance". Does he have to accept McMillin's lot maintenance, to get his "lot maintenance"? You'll be the judge. In the meantime, neither of these projects relate to common property, and you shouldn't have to pay through your assessments, for any private lot maintenance. It could appear that eight of the nine board members will do what it takes, to get the votes for their pet projects. It is RUMORED THAT Garrison and Jacky Walton are preparing to submit their names for election. You'll need to follow all of their actions, review the governing documents and decide whether there are KICKBACKS for lot owners.
P.S. One more thing. Remember, last month some on the board held up contract approval because they didn't feel the spoil site should be included in the contract. No one objected this month, or questioned. The Water Amenities Chair did ask if it was included. Yes it was. No more questions. Your board is happy to vote. Remember the Water Amenities Chair received a pass for not following the motion he presented and your board approved. We're still living with it.
The Grounds Report is provided by chair, McMillin. He starts his report with information regarding the 2013 grounds maintenance contract. He had opened the bids during the May meeting and your board held a decision until the August meeting. The current contract would have been extended two more months. Two of the concerns that came from the board table in May were that some on the board felt that the spoil site maintenance should not be in the contract and that lot mowings for private lot owners were provided at much less than the cost to the association. We pick up transcription with McMillin,(speaking about the contract) "It will include two visits per year to the spoil site in order to maintain that area" Later, McMillin, "We have brought down the number of lot mowings from people who have not paid or have not responded, to 21 from 29. So that changed their numbers as well. Their fee for mowing is $33.33. That didn't change, but the total amount for lot mowing changed to $2,999.70 which is 90 lot mowings during the current season. Since they are behind on the lot mowings, they probably should have already had their second mowing and its caused a number of problems in the area. We've had complaints from the office." When the board held contract approval in May and extended the old contract, there weren't any lot movings left in the old contract. McMillin picks up later, "Concerning the lot mowings, Al, the total for Great Lawns would be $2999.70. We will recover $1,830.00 of that and from the fee that we are charging the property owners. So that leaves a balance of $1,169.70 to be paid by WPA to sponsor this program. I've met with Jacky and we discussed this and I know there is some opposition to anyone subsidizing, so ....that WPA is not given the benefit from...I don't exactly agree with that." He goes on to mention the mowing is a benefit to those that live near these lots. In the future the board will have to decide whether we want to continue this at a loss. He explains the new contractor invoicing and tracking of lots mowed. He goes on to talk about the provision for pine straw in the contract and reminds the board that the spoil site has been included also. The contractor hasn't had an increase in 4 1/2 yrs. As he finishes he says, "I think its in the best interests of Wedgefield Plantation to adopt this and get back on track." He makes his motion. Cline seconds and they move to discussion. DeMarchi, "That includes the 90 mowings, right Larry?" McMillin, "Yes" DeMarchi, "You have 21 lots Larry?" McMillin, "Yes" DeMarchi, "Some of those lots get six mowings." McMillin, "Three, 18 are wooded, three are grassy." DeMarchi, "We have 3 grass lots that get mowed how many times? McMillin and DeMarchi go back and forth with the number of lot mowings. Garrison steps in, "Couple of provisions here. Make sure everybody is on the same page. 1, contract is retro active to expiration date of the last contract?" McMillin, "Correct" Garrison, "This whole lot mowing business, alright, because letters have already been sent out, because you got people who have already sent money, in my view, it is too late to undo what's already 3/4 done for this year. Now, we'll pay for it this year. We'll SUBSIDIZE IT THIS YEAR, but by next year, long before we get to the mowing season, next year this board is going to need to decide what kind of letter you want to send out to these folks, whether you're going to eliminate this, whether you're going to leave it to their own devices, whether you want to manage it, get REAL COST to the people that chose to take ADVANTAGE . That's something that's going to need to be addressed in August or September, not next March when we go through this same routine again and end up back in this same routine. So let me be clear that this, if approved, and I support it with those provisions, alright that this lot mowing mess is going to get addressed by this board with a look toward making some serious changes to the way we are doing it." President Walton questions the fact that we are two lot mowings behind and Garrison wants to know the time frame for catching up. McMillin explains the schedule for catching up. Why didn't this board know what was going on with the letters to the lot owners asking if they are interested, the request for proposal that included the number of lots to be mowed - responses from lot owners must have come to the office, McMillin's setting a cost for the services? DeMarchi and McMillin had bumped heads about this around the first of the year. You can't tell by the sanitized minutes, but go back and listen to the board tapes. This is no surprise! Think about the authority structure. McMillin didn't type the letters, address envelopes and send them out. The office staff did. McMillin didn't sit in the office and receive the responses. They were sent to the office. McMillin didn't deposit the payments and make the entries into resident accounts. During the May meeting he told us that our president reviewed his request for proposal. Was there a budget developed for this? McMillin has sat at the board table in open meetings, crossed his arms and said he felt we needed to do this for the lot owners because they get nothing for their assessment. The whole board has been alerted more than once. With mailings, entries of payment, review of request for proposal, it could appear that President Walton, Cline as secretary and office supervisor, DeMarchi who seems to know all the figures and supervises the "accounting department", would know. Does McMillin even have a committee? He hasn't in the past. If so, when did they meet and discuss this? As far as Garrison saying that it should stand now because of letters and collection, really?
What could have been done if McMillin operated in the dark with no review from the board? If he really acted alone in sending out letters, request for proposal that considered HIS figures, and was responsible for directing the entries in the books, than we have a huge mess. I don't believe individual board members were unaware until it was too late. Even, if it was so, we elect the board members as individuals with their own functioning brain, talents, and individual voting power. We don't elect them as a herd with a leader of the pack. In May, your individual board members should have followed through in correcting the wrong that was laid on the board table. It would have only taken one board member to make a motion advising McMillin that letters would be sent to the then 29 residents, that there would either be no lot mowing service, or advising them of rates that covered the cost. Funds could have been returned or applied to the new rates. Instead, I think they protest too much! If you are going to provide this service to some at a subsidized rate, you offer it to all, or you are breaking the bylaws. This could look like nothing more than posturing, and moving their old boys network forward.
Back to the transcription. McBride, "Is there a way we could take these lot mowings out of this budget that they have? Its not common ground, their mowing, its private property, and we're giving them a KICKBACK. It doesn't need to be in this budget of theirs." Garrison, "KICKBACK?" McBride, "The owners are not paying for it, for all of it. So, we're giving the owners a KICKBACK, by paying for it." McMillin, "This has been going on for 8, 10, 12 years." McBride, "Can we separate this from the budget?" Many voices at the board table, "NEXT YEAR" Someone says, "Right now I think we're in to far into it..."McBride, "We could separate it out now, so that......" Garrison, "Not without backing out on people we already committed to." McBride, I'm not saying ......." Cline, "We already know what we're paying and it is pretty clear..." Garrison, "As it stands you're only going to pay for mowing done. I don't like that, but its the best we can come up with for current year." John Walton, "Did they include spoil site?" McMillin tells them the contractor wants to do it spring and fall and talks about how they'll catch up because of the contract delay.
McMillin gets his way and we pay. They vote 8-1. McBride says "NO".
Before we begin, let's settle something. There are those on the board, and amongst you that think I favor McBride. At this point you are right in one respect only! I favor him because he is the only one at that board table who votes according to the governing documents, and takes the heat and abuse from the balance of the board and committees, because it looks like HE thinks it is the right thing to do. Some on the board and amongst those reading think he brings information to me. Let me clarify, NOT ONCE! Some on this board have been around for 3-5 years. They always look, and claim that one amongst them brings me information. In the past they accused Reames and Wijthoff, it NEVER HAPPENED. There was one who did bring me things until he told a bold faced lie and I exposed it and we parted ways. I seek information through proper channels, put up with this board's nonsense and do what I think is right. With that cleared up, we can move on.
The word KICKBACK jumped out at me during the meeting and I forgot about it until I transcribed this section of the meeting tape. The word jumped out again. HMMMM, it seemed to relate to this cohesive board, I say it is I'll wash your back, you wash mine, each with the soap of choice - votes at the board table while turning a blind eye. Well that's me. I looked up the word for all of our benefit. KICKBACK: "a sum of money paid illegally in order to gain concessions or favors." How could that apply? Well, several claim it is wrong but we are going to do it "one more time, but NEVER AGAIN". If it is wrong, stand up and stop it, NOW! Otherwise it could be viewed as kickbacks! Do I believe any of the board members are receiving money? No! I do believe it could be all about votes You'll decide, because who would declare in this litigious time?. Think about the rest of the meeting. The nominating committee is announced. The deadline for resumes to run for board is posted. Now get back to practical matters. Have you or the your group, ever worked toward campaigning for certain individuals to be elected? One of the first things you do is try and contact and secure the votes of the lot owners. Is this part of what is happening? You'll decide. Why would you violate a bylaw and continue with something you blatantly declare is wrong? You'll decide. It could appear to be a kickback to private lot owners. Anything else that you might construe to be part of this? Think about the last election cycle. There was a lot of discussion and in fighting about lots. Did one lot owner actually own 3 or 5 lots? Should the largest private lot owner be allowed to vote all of their votes? A Concerned Citizen tried to put forth a bylaw change for vote so that it was one vote per member, whether you owned one or 30+ lots. You'll decide. Think of the work that is being done on Francis Parker and Joanna Gillard. There are so many lots there. The drainage chair, whose home is on Francis Parker and has sold lots and built homes on Joanna Gillard is pushing that work through claiming everybody else before him was wrong. He declared last year that drainage was the responsibility of the property owners (See quotes in previous articles.) responsibility. His own vendor for the first two stages of work in those areas called it "lot maintenance". Does he have to accept McMillin's lot maintenance, to get his "lot maintenance"? You'll be the judge. In the meantime, neither of these projects relate to common property, and you shouldn't have to pay through your assessments, for any private lot maintenance. It could appear that eight of the nine board members will do what it takes, to get the votes for their pet projects. It is RUMORED THAT Garrison and Jacky Walton are preparing to submit their names for election. You'll need to follow all of their actions, review the governing documents and decide whether there are KICKBACKS for lot owners.
P.S. One more thing. Remember, last month some on the board held up contract approval because they didn't feel the spoil site should be included in the contract. No one objected this month, or questioned. The Water Amenities Chair did ask if it was included. Yes it was. No more questions. Your board is happy to vote. Remember the Water Amenities Chair received a pass for not following the motion he presented and your board approved. We're still living with it.
Why won't the board give me a kickback and pay for some of my lot maintenance? I qualify. I don't live on "common ground". Where are our condo owners? I talked to one a few days ago that told me they pay well over $200.00/month for the varied maintenance services they receive. One of the services is lot maintenance. Wouldn't it be nice if your monthly rate could be reduced and you received kickbacks on that service like the lot owners do? Call your board representative President Walton and see if he can work a deal for you like he voted to do for the lot owners.
Friday, June 21, 2013
SATURDAY: THE TRANSCRIBED GROUNDS REPORT - THE GROUNDS CREW WERE SUPPOSE TO START MOWING PRIVATE LOTS SUBSIDIZED BY YOU, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, PER THE INSTRUCTIONS AND VOTE OF YOUR BOARD
While your board speeds to get those lots mowed so we are tied to paying for private property mowing, they aren't speeding towards getting this dock out of the canals. Yes, it is still here and we don't know whether it is insured to protect damage to private property on the canals.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
TRANSCRIPTION AND COMMENT ON THE JUNE WPA WATER AMENITIES REPORT
The following is a combination of transcription, an overview of what occurred, and commentary so deplored by our treasurer's spouse. The actual transcription will be in quotes and underlined because that is what the blog presents to you, the words and documents of this board. I wonder if there is any reasonable way to present this as decent, kind, pleasant, or even great administration. I have transcribed to the best of my ability, it is your responsibility to listen to the tape for yourself. COMMENTS WILL ALWAYS BE IN RED.
John Walton is the Water Amenities Chair. John Walton, "The old dock has been sold. The bill of sale was generated and a copy was given to the new owner. The dock is no longer a responsibility of the WPA. The funds received were deposited to the WPA. The new owner is prepared to remove it to it's new home. Many thanks to the (He names a resident. I have withheld the name to protect their privacy. The resident is a member of the Water Amenities Committee.) for its keep until it could be transported." John Walton now moves his report to a boat landing update. This portion is not transcribed but I will relate the information to the best of my ability. You should listen to the tape. He discusses a card reader that will use the cards we already have. A motion is made and passed to spend no more than $100.00 including shipping to purchase the card reader. He thanks Dave Hastings for his research into the product. During this portion questions and exchange of information flows freely as President Walton, Garrison, and DeMarchi have questions or provide comment. Keep this in mind as we move forward. Next, John Walton moves to a discussion of the landing road. Here there is exchange of information and ideas from McMillin and DeMarchi. Again, respect and information flows freely. Again, keep this in mind. We go back to transcription as McBride has a question.
McBride, "I have a question for John. How much did we get for the dock?". John Walton, "That's in the correspondence file." McBride, "How much.....?" John Walton, "It is in the correspondence file." McBride, "Well I just think we all ought to know....." John Walton, "Its in the correspondence file." Around this point and time McBride gets up to go to the correspondence file. He stops. I believe I heard someone question what the problem would be. I also watched it for myself at the meeting. Back to transcription. McBride, "Al, did you get any money for the dock?" DeMarchi, "I have not seen the money. I understand it has been received and deposited, but I have been busy with relatives and grandchildren." Does DeMarchi know? You be the judge. DeMarchi sat in a room with me, President Walton, and Garrison almost a week prior to this meeting and they told me the dock was sold. I did not ask how much, but I think they all knew. If they didn't know how much it sold for how could anyone have given John Walton approval to sell it for any amount, on behalf of the WPA? Who signed the bill of sale? Who is authorized to sign it? Think about it. Walton has the board approve up to $100.00 of expense. How would the members do anything but expect than that he secure permission and inform the entire board of the amount received for the sale of WPA property? Additionally, at this very meeting and many in the past, when DeMarchi doesn't have a figure he asks the staff person, Kathy to get it for him. Why not now? Back to transcription. McBride, "I think somebody here ought to know and be able to report to the board how much we got for that dock." Someone on the board asks, "Is it a problem?" Someone on the board says, "It's not a problem. It was $1,200." Barrier, "That's awesome. Great job!" There is a lot of laughter. McBride, "What are we going to do with it?" Cline laughs. McBride, "Now, I have another question. It is important. You, no longer own that dock. Its owned by someone else. Who is that? Is it someone near here?" President Walton, "The dock will be moved off of the WPA property and out of the canal as early as convenient. It will not be on or near the WPA." McBride, "The question that this person asked me, and I assured them at the time that I was right, was, what if this dock were to break loose for some reason and come across and crush their boat, would the WPA be responsible for that? I said yes we owned that property and we would be responsible for it, but now..." President Walton, "But not....belongs to someone else." McBride, "Its in our canal so what happens?" Barrier, "Not our canal. Its a canal." Cline laughs. More laughter. Cline, "Well let's not talk about that now." McBride, What happens if it breaks loose?" Cline, "Let's wait an see" She laughs again. Garrison, "That's between him and the new owner." Cline, "Hopefully, the new owner has insurance on his new property." Garrison, "I want to see it out of here as soon as possible,. When do we expect that?" President Walton, "The time frame is set for that is going to be as soon as possible, as soon as they get a chance to get it moved, they are." McBride, "Any expectation?" John Walton, "OK, before I end my report, JOHN MCBRIDE IS NO LONGER A COMMITTEE MEBER OF THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE. End of report." President Walton, "Thank you John (Walton)."
This appears to be nothing but a cat and mouse game produced by your board's old boys network! Who could be in this network? You be the judge. Review the transcript. Could it be President Walton, Garrison, John Walton, Cline, DeMarchi, McMillin, Anderson, and Barrier? It could look that way. First, I know that President Walton, Garrison, and DeMarchi knew about the sale because they told me. Additionally, McMillin, Anderson, and John Walton are all members of the Water Amenities Committee. Cline as secretary should be aware of what is in the correspondence file. Barrier, has no questions. Besides, he gets a pass every month when the correspondence file remains unanswered and he declares, "no report." Again, you decide. When did this kind of deliberate disregard for provision of board information to a board member become OK? Wait until we get to other reports from this meeting. This behavior is right on par for several other reports. Not only did your board disrespect McBride, but they disrespected you as a resident. You and I have a right to know why your board allowed the Water Amenities Committee to go rebel, defy the motion approved at the board table, wash it under the table, drag this dock into the canals to a private residence owned by a Water Amenities Committee member, put our association at risk of incurring damage to resident property, in canals that Barrier and Cline don't want to talk about right now, and allow the Committee Chair and the rest of the board to ignore a board member during board session and before, and you and me? It could appear that they all want votes for their special projects and will keep their mouths shut to get what they want. This demonstration alone indicates that this board lacks integrity, respect for ANYBODY' S STANDARD OF A CODE OF ETHICS, and any individual leadership or governance skills.
MESSAGE TO THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE: You have, probably illegally thrown off the most knowledgeable person, McBride, on your whole committee. You have shown your true colors. You have water in your canals because of the efforts of people like John McBride, who introduced sound engineering consultants to the dredge, worked day and night with a sub committee to bring the canal loan about, and literally helped you carry docks out of the water so effective dredge could be done. You appear to have tossed out knowledge, a good friend, decency, and any apparent respect for governance, to get a landing dock. You may even have mislead the residents as to whether it had to be replaced. You ignored the words of your chair at the board table to move that dock out and take it away. You appear to have no respect for each other as committee members, or human beings. You know that your chair made physical vilolence threats against McBride and you have ignored it, because after all, you got your dock! Some of you have participated in trying to drive him and others from the social community here. You have followed board members who don't serve on the committee, who you say really want those canals maintenance dredged. Take a look at the clause in the Reserve Study. Cline and Barrier may have been laughing at you and your trusted board cohorts. You may just have sealed your future negatively, with your behind the scenes bargains with some on this board. That dock and blind following of poor judgment and poor administration must be worth a lot to you.
John Walton is the Water Amenities Chair. John Walton, "The old dock has been sold. The bill of sale was generated and a copy was given to the new owner. The dock is no longer a responsibility of the WPA. The funds received were deposited to the WPA. The new owner is prepared to remove it to it's new home. Many thanks to the (He names a resident. I have withheld the name to protect their privacy. The resident is a member of the Water Amenities Committee.) for its keep until it could be transported." John Walton now moves his report to a boat landing update. This portion is not transcribed but I will relate the information to the best of my ability. You should listen to the tape. He discusses a card reader that will use the cards we already have. A motion is made and passed to spend no more than $100.00 including shipping to purchase the card reader. He thanks Dave Hastings for his research into the product. During this portion questions and exchange of information flows freely as President Walton, Garrison, and DeMarchi have questions or provide comment. Keep this in mind as we move forward. Next, John Walton moves to a discussion of the landing road. Here there is exchange of information and ideas from McMillin and DeMarchi. Again, respect and information flows freely. Again, keep this in mind. We go back to transcription as McBride has a question.
McBride, "I have a question for John. How much did we get for the dock?". John Walton, "That's in the correspondence file." McBride, "How much.....?" John Walton, "It is in the correspondence file." McBride, "Well I just think we all ought to know....." John Walton, "Its in the correspondence file." Around this point and time McBride gets up to go to the correspondence file. He stops. I believe I heard someone question what the problem would be. I also watched it for myself at the meeting. Back to transcription. McBride, "Al, did you get any money for the dock?" DeMarchi, "I have not seen the money. I understand it has been received and deposited, but I have been busy with relatives and grandchildren." Does DeMarchi know? You be the judge. DeMarchi sat in a room with me, President Walton, and Garrison almost a week prior to this meeting and they told me the dock was sold. I did not ask how much, but I think they all knew. If they didn't know how much it sold for how could anyone have given John Walton approval to sell it for any amount, on behalf of the WPA? Who signed the bill of sale? Who is authorized to sign it? Think about it. Walton has the board approve up to $100.00 of expense. How would the members do anything but expect than that he secure permission and inform the entire board of the amount received for the sale of WPA property? Additionally, at this very meeting and many in the past, when DeMarchi doesn't have a figure he asks the staff person, Kathy to get it for him. Why not now? Back to transcription. McBride, "I think somebody here ought to know and be able to report to the board how much we got for that dock." Someone on the board asks, "Is it a problem?" Someone on the board says, "It's not a problem. It was $1,200." Barrier, "That's awesome. Great job!" There is a lot of laughter. McBride, "What are we going to do with it?" Cline laughs. McBride, "Now, I have another question. It is important. You, no longer own that dock. Its owned by someone else. Who is that? Is it someone near here?" President Walton, "The dock will be moved off of the WPA property and out of the canal as early as convenient. It will not be on or near the WPA." McBride, "The question that this person asked me, and I assured them at the time that I was right, was, what if this dock were to break loose for some reason and come across and crush their boat, would the WPA be responsible for that? I said yes we owned that property and we would be responsible for it, but now..." President Walton, "But not....belongs to someone else." McBride, "Its in our canal so what happens?" Barrier, "Not our canal. Its a canal." Cline laughs. More laughter. Cline, "Well let's not talk about that now." McBride, What happens if it breaks loose?" Cline, "Let's wait an see" She laughs again. Garrison, "That's between him and the new owner." Cline, "Hopefully, the new owner has insurance on his new property." Garrison, "I want to see it out of here as soon as possible,. When do we expect that?" President Walton, "The time frame is set for that is going to be as soon as possible, as soon as they get a chance to get it moved, they are." McBride, "Any expectation?" John Walton, "OK, before I end my report, JOHN MCBRIDE IS NO LONGER A COMMITTEE MEBER OF THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE. End of report." President Walton, "Thank you John (Walton)."
This appears to be nothing but a cat and mouse game produced by your board's old boys network! Who could be in this network? You be the judge. Review the transcript. Could it be President Walton, Garrison, John Walton, Cline, DeMarchi, McMillin, Anderson, and Barrier? It could look that way. First, I know that President Walton, Garrison, and DeMarchi knew about the sale because they told me. Additionally, McMillin, Anderson, and John Walton are all members of the Water Amenities Committee. Cline as secretary should be aware of what is in the correspondence file. Barrier, has no questions. Besides, he gets a pass every month when the correspondence file remains unanswered and he declares, "no report." Again, you decide. When did this kind of deliberate disregard for provision of board information to a board member become OK? Wait until we get to other reports from this meeting. This behavior is right on par for several other reports. Not only did your board disrespect McBride, but they disrespected you as a resident. You and I have a right to know why your board allowed the Water Amenities Committee to go rebel, defy the motion approved at the board table, wash it under the table, drag this dock into the canals to a private residence owned by a Water Amenities Committee member, put our association at risk of incurring damage to resident property, in canals that Barrier and Cline don't want to talk about right now, and allow the Committee Chair and the rest of the board to ignore a board member during board session and before, and you and me? It could appear that they all want votes for their special projects and will keep their mouths shut to get what they want. This demonstration alone indicates that this board lacks integrity, respect for ANYBODY' S STANDARD OF A CODE OF ETHICS, and any individual leadership or governance skills.
MESSAGE TO THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE: You have, probably illegally thrown off the most knowledgeable person, McBride, on your whole committee. You have shown your true colors. You have water in your canals because of the efforts of people like John McBride, who introduced sound engineering consultants to the dredge, worked day and night with a sub committee to bring the canal loan about, and literally helped you carry docks out of the water so effective dredge could be done. You appear to have tossed out knowledge, a good friend, decency, and any apparent respect for governance, to get a landing dock. You may even have mislead the residents as to whether it had to be replaced. You ignored the words of your chair at the board table to move that dock out and take it away. You appear to have no respect for each other as committee members, or human beings. You know that your chair made physical vilolence threats against McBride and you have ignored it, because after all, you got your dock! Some of you have participated in trying to drive him and others from the social community here. You have followed board members who don't serve on the committee, who you say really want those canals maintenance dredged. Take a look at the clause in the Reserve Study. Cline and Barrier may have been laughing at you and your trusted board cohorts. You may just have sealed your future negatively, with your behind the scenes bargains with some on this board. That dock and blind following of poor judgment and poor administration must be worth a lot to you.
I wonder whether the committee member who allowed this dock to be dragged to his property, secured by a WPA committee, sold, with no knowledge as to whether it is insured or not, laughed at by the board who claims they aren't responsible, has caused potential liability for his household if this thing causes any damage?
FRIDAY, TRANSCRIPTION OF THE WATER AMENITIES REPORT. READ THE STUBBORN, ALL POWERFUL, ATTEMPTED DENIAL OF INFORMATION TO A SITTING, ELECTED BOARD MEMBER, BY THE REBEL WATER AMENITIES CHAIR AND BOARD TREASURER, SUPPORTED BY THE SILENCE OF THE BOARD.
Yes, as of the June board meeting it was still in the canals. Interesting that this piece of junk, of no use to the association, dragged into the canals by the rebel (against a vote of the board ) Water Amenities Committee, listed for sale without the approval of the board (was listed for sale prior to the May board meeting) is still here! Interesting that your Water Amenities chair didn't want to publicly disclose how much it sold for, or who purchased it, and your treasurer hesitated to disclose how much he received for the association, by check.
The board was asked by board member, McBride whether it was insured? He went on to explain that a resident on the canal where the dock was stored had asked if it broke away from it's ropes and hit his boat, who would pay for the damage? We were told it was insured while it was ours. Maybe, I wonder whether the insurance company would have paid a claim if they were notified of the truth of this piece of junk and its unlawful travels? When asked if the STILL UNIDENTIFIED buyer had insurance, the board really didn't know. In fact there was laughter. Really, I wonder if the resident who has concerns for their property would find it funny?
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
WPA BOARD MEMBER'S WIFE SPEAKS, "COMMUNITY CONCERNS"
Two 5 minute speaker slots are available to the residents each month at WPA monthly meetings. It was a bit of a surprise for the speaker to be a board member's spouse. Why? It could appear that the spouse was sent to say what your board won't, or to give "self praise", during a time when there should be little. This very same person commented at the end of the May meeting that this very board had failed to answer her correspondence! What a surprise! True to form to all others, they haven't answered anyone officially in months. This was a poor time to attempt to correct someone else, when your board, her spouse included, would proceed to ignore our governing documents, blatantly deny the rights of another board member to access information prior to the meeting and at the board table, and attempt to deny information to the residents regarding the sale of a WPA asset.
We'll start with what the speaker had to say. I'll do my best to relate what happened. I encourage you to go to The Wedgefield Times and listen to the tape yourself. MY COMMENTS WILL BE IN RED .
The speaker begins to discuss an unnamed person, or entity, who is providing negative commentary against the association and board, failing to denote the countless benefits of living here with a board that follows the covenants and bylaws, possibly hurting public perception and sales of property during a depressed market, potentially keeping volunteers from coming forward to run for board, and failing to recognize the OUTSTANDING ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THIS BOARD. She encourages residents to get involved to help each other with positive goals for the benefit of the entire community.
The speaker never identified the person or entity that is single handed in bringing this community down. It could appear this was a set up by some on the board in an attempt to set the stage and cast aspersions on someone, to deflect the ugliness that was about to occur at the board table. On the very same evening, if you reviewed all that took place you might come to the conclusion that your board bullied and denied access to information to one of their own, violated bylaws, ignored violations of The Code of Ethics, and ran over your right to information. So our speaker, your board treasurer's spouse, set herself above it all, left the scene immediately following her presentation, possibly in avoidance of what was to come.
Detailed articles on each of the reports will follow. How dare this person cast accusations, when your board continues their heavy handed rule of our community?
VIOLATION OF BY-LAWS:
Your board gave the Grounds Chair a pass for another year of the use of our assessments to subsidize private lot mowing. Here is the by-law: ARTICLE V, ASSESSMENTS AND PENALTIES, Section 4: Use of Assessments Revenues: "The funds derived from said assessments shall be used for the payment of common area maintenance expenses of the subdivision". Since when did a PRIVATE LOT, LEGALLY DEEDED TO PRIVATE RESIDENTS, become a common area maintenance expense? Your board knowingly voted 8-1 to do it. McBride voted no. This has been brought to the board table in the last year to year and a half. Where are the residents who "wouldn't pay one dollar" to what they viewed as canal lot maintenance? What have you been promised by this board that seems to cut side deals, "I'll vote for what you want, if you vote for what I want'.
The Water Amenities Chair announced that the old dock that they had pulled into the canals, against the vote of your board was sold. When McBride asked what it sold for he was stone walled by this board, all who appeared to have the information, but wouldn't relate it to a fellow board member, or the residents present. McBride also asked the treasurer what he had received as funds to WPA accounts for the sale. The very man whose spouse wants no negativity was prepared to let the question hang in the air. The Water Amenities Chair also announced that McBride was no longer on the Water Amenities Committee. RUMOR is that he emailed McBride from home and kicked him off the committee. A technical point, committee chairs must bring their proposed committee members to the board for approval. Why wasn't removal of a committee member, causes/reasons, brought to the board table? Could it be that your board knew and once again let a favored committee chair do their dirty work and turned their head?
This board member's spouse asked who would want to run for board because of this negative commentator. Who would want to run for board when they observed the board denying access to information to a fellow board member? Who would want to run for board when there isn't a code of ethics standard, that is FOLLOWED? McBride ran for board and won his seat fairly in an open election. He was elected at least three times. Were each of the others awarded super clearance that we weren't aware of? NO, but it could appear that eight of them have awarded it to themselves, and each other, in denial of our vote.
Last night your board voted 8-1 to give all the policy changes a speedy pass, after ignoring the 2011 bylaw. Listen to the tape, their song and dance around don't cover what they did. Once again McBride votes no. When he asks questions during discussion, he is told by our treasurer, "don't keep dredging ????? dead home, it is going to weigh you down". When he continues to question the treasurer says, "you wasted our time on two separate occasions". Listen to the tape to catch the nasty tone and arrogance. Really? The treasurer is the ultimate judge of what should be considered?
Perhaps, the treasurer's spouse would like to review the tape of the meeting, her condemnation of someone else, and explain why any of this is positive. As to that negative person or entity commentator, you can only document and report what happens. Sorry Mrs. treasurer. you are complaining about the commentary, rather than the actors at the board table.
We'll start with what the speaker had to say. I'll do my best to relate what happened. I encourage you to go to The Wedgefield Times and listen to the tape yourself. MY COMMENTS WILL BE IN RED .
The speaker begins to discuss an unnamed person, or entity, who is providing negative commentary against the association and board, failing to denote the countless benefits of living here with a board that follows the covenants and bylaws, possibly hurting public perception and sales of property during a depressed market, potentially keeping volunteers from coming forward to run for board, and failing to recognize the OUTSTANDING ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THIS BOARD. She encourages residents to get involved to help each other with positive goals for the benefit of the entire community.
The speaker never identified the person or entity that is single handed in bringing this community down. It could appear this was a set up by some on the board in an attempt to set the stage and cast aspersions on someone, to deflect the ugliness that was about to occur at the board table. On the very same evening, if you reviewed all that took place you might come to the conclusion that your board bullied and denied access to information to one of their own, violated bylaws, ignored violations of The Code of Ethics, and ran over your right to information. So our speaker, your board treasurer's spouse, set herself above it all, left the scene immediately following her presentation, possibly in avoidance of what was to come.
Detailed articles on each of the reports will follow. How dare this person cast accusations, when your board continues their heavy handed rule of our community?
VIOLATION OF BY-LAWS:
Your board gave the Grounds Chair a pass for another year of the use of our assessments to subsidize private lot mowing. Here is the by-law: ARTICLE V, ASSESSMENTS AND PENALTIES, Section 4: Use of Assessments Revenues: "The funds derived from said assessments shall be used for the payment of common area maintenance expenses of the subdivision". Since when did a PRIVATE LOT, LEGALLY DEEDED TO PRIVATE RESIDENTS, become a common area maintenance expense? Your board knowingly voted 8-1 to do it. McBride voted no. This has been brought to the board table in the last year to year and a half. Where are the residents who "wouldn't pay one dollar" to what they viewed as canal lot maintenance? What have you been promised by this board that seems to cut side deals, "I'll vote for what you want, if you vote for what I want'.
The Water Amenities Chair announced that the old dock that they had pulled into the canals, against the vote of your board was sold. When McBride asked what it sold for he was stone walled by this board, all who appeared to have the information, but wouldn't relate it to a fellow board member, or the residents present. McBride also asked the treasurer what he had received as funds to WPA accounts for the sale. The very man whose spouse wants no negativity was prepared to let the question hang in the air. The Water Amenities Chair also announced that McBride was no longer on the Water Amenities Committee. RUMOR is that he emailed McBride from home and kicked him off the committee. A technical point, committee chairs must bring their proposed committee members to the board for approval. Why wasn't removal of a committee member, causes/reasons, brought to the board table? Could it be that your board knew and once again let a favored committee chair do their dirty work and turned their head?
This board member's spouse asked who would want to run for board because of this negative commentator. Who would want to run for board when they observed the board denying access to information to a fellow board member? Who would want to run for board when there isn't a code of ethics standard, that is FOLLOWED? McBride ran for board and won his seat fairly in an open election. He was elected at least three times. Were each of the others awarded super clearance that we weren't aware of? NO, but it could appear that eight of them have awarded it to themselves, and each other, in denial of our vote.
Last night your board voted 8-1 to give all the policy changes a speedy pass, after ignoring the 2011 bylaw. Listen to the tape, their song and dance around don't cover what they did. Once again McBride votes no. When he asks questions during discussion, he is told by our treasurer, "don't keep dredging ????? dead home, it is going to weigh you down". When he continues to question the treasurer says, "you wasted our time on two separate occasions". Listen to the tape to catch the nasty tone and arrogance. Really? The treasurer is the ultimate judge of what should be considered?
Perhaps, the treasurer's spouse would like to review the tape of the meeting, her condemnation of someone else, and explain why any of this is positive. As to that negative person or entity commentator, you can only document and report what happens. Sorry Mrs. treasurer. you are complaining about the commentary, rather than the actors at the board table.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
YES, THERE WAS A BOARD MEETING TONIGHT AND YOU DIDN'T ATTEND, A FEW HIGHLIGHTS
HERE'S A FEW HIGHLIGHTS:
*A board member's wife takes the resident speaker spot. We will cover what was said, but begin to ask yourself whether truth and back up documentation is negative? While the problems with this board are serious, tonight the performance could just appear as the association version of the song, "Stand By Your Man".
*The old dock will go soon but the integrity of this board should be questioned when the Water Amenities' Chair would not tell the membership what it sold for? Could that be negative? Depends whether you understand what they were trying to pull. We will write about it as positively as possible. When the board supports this behavior by turning a blind eye, that could be difficult. The Water Amenities Chair also put everyone on notice that they had fired the board /committee member that asked the question. Wait, is it negative to remind you that this is the same committee chair who physically threatened the very same board/committee member?
*The board allowed the Grounds Chair to continue to use our assessment dollars to underwrite the mowing of private lots. Pouting works! That's what the Grounds Chair did last month. I think they broke another by-law by supporting this.
*The board quickly by passed the 2011 bylaw, tried to make the board member who questioned it look bad, and then passed all those policy manual changes. Some of their behavior was very negative. Maybe the board member's wife will have to come back next month. They didn't learn a thing.
Complete information will follow over the next few weeks!
*A board member's wife takes the resident speaker spot. We will cover what was said, but begin to ask yourself whether truth and back up documentation is negative? While the problems with this board are serious, tonight the performance could just appear as the association version of the song, "Stand By Your Man".
*The old dock will go soon but the integrity of this board should be questioned when the Water Amenities' Chair would not tell the membership what it sold for? Could that be negative? Depends whether you understand what they were trying to pull. We will write about it as positively as possible. When the board supports this behavior by turning a blind eye, that could be difficult. The Water Amenities Chair also put everyone on notice that they had fired the board /committee member that asked the question. Wait, is it negative to remind you that this is the same committee chair who physically threatened the very same board/committee member?
*The board allowed the Grounds Chair to continue to use our assessment dollars to underwrite the mowing of private lots. Pouting works! That's what the Grounds Chair did last month. I think they broke another by-law by supporting this.
*The board quickly by passed the 2011 bylaw, tried to make the board member who questioned it look bad, and then passed all those policy manual changes. Some of their behavior was very negative. Maybe the board member's wife will have to come back next month. They didn't learn a thing.
Complete information will follow over the next few weeks!
WILL YOU ATTEND THE WPA BOARD MEETING TONIGHT? WILL THAT OLD DOCK EVER LEAVE THE CANALS? WILL WE CONTINUE TO PAY FOR PRIVATE LOT OWNERS LAWN MOWING? YOU'LL ONLY KNOW FOR SURE IF YOU ATTEND AND SEE THE TWISTS AND TURNS OF THIS BOARD
REMEMBER, YOUR BOARD SAID IT HAD TO BE REPLACED, HAD NO LIFE IN IT, AND IT WOULDN'T LAND IN OUR "BACK YARD" SINCE IT HAS, CAN WE BELIEVE THEM ABOUT SO MANY OTHER THINGS?
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER LOOSE ENDS AND A VACATION
The Wedgefield Examiner will be on vacation from today until the evening of June 18th. Family does come first, and we have a visitor from Connecticut visiting during that time. This leaves the Wedgefield Examiner with some loose ends.
*We still have to provide information on the May Water Amenities Report. We'll do that because it is important. The old dock is still residing in the canals. The June meeting is scheduled for the day we return from vacation. Perhaps we will be able to combine the May and June report. Maybe, there will be resolution to the dock at the June meeting.
*I posted my letter to the board requesting a meeting with the president and legal committee after I received an email from the WPA office, quoting appointments for access to records, etc., according to state law. I have not updated the blog. I did have a meeting with the respective parties this morning. Your board did not ask that I refrain from reporting on the meeting. I have determined for myself that the meeting was accommodated with good intention, and my questions were answered. I felt there was appropriate give and take, and will call that "it", as far as the information I share with you. Just maybe, if you want questions answered you will take the initiative to follow through to the point that you get the answers you need to satisfy your member questions. That is all, except to thank President Walton, Bob Garrison, and Al DeMarchi for their time and open discussion. We can always agree to disagree, on some topics.
*We still have to provide information on the May Water Amenities Report. We'll do that because it is important. The old dock is still residing in the canals. The June meeting is scheduled for the day we return from vacation. Perhaps we will be able to combine the May and June report. Maybe, there will be resolution to the dock at the June meeting.
*I posted my letter to the board requesting a meeting with the president and legal committee after I received an email from the WPA office, quoting appointments for access to records, etc., according to state law. I have not updated the blog. I did have a meeting with the respective parties this morning. Your board did not ask that I refrain from reporting on the meeting. I have determined for myself that the meeting was accommodated with good intention, and my questions were answered. I felt there was appropriate give and take, and will call that "it", as far as the information I share with you. Just maybe, if you want questions answered you will take the initiative to follow through to the point that you get the answers you need to satisfy your member questions. That is all, except to thank President Walton, Bob Garrison, and Al DeMarchi for their time and open discussion. We can always agree to disagree, on some topics.
HAVE WE REACHED THE POINT THAT SOME BIDDERS ON WPA CONTRACTS ARE BEING ASSISTED BY THE COMMITTEE CHAIR? YOU'LL HAVE TO DECIDE BUT IT COULD LOOK THAT WAY
The following is taken from a more detailed account which includes transcription and quotes from minutes. See the next article for complete details. This centers around a drainage contract for work on Joanna Guillard and Francis Parker. If you read the full article you'll note that in the past the drainage chair has claimed this work is the responsibility of the homeowner, now it is ours. The specifics provided below contain information on contracting. The WPA lacks consistency. The problem could be larger, but you'll decide. It should be noted that President Walton discussed a grounds bidding problem in a sealed bid process during the May meeting. He felt one of the vendors had tried to seek information during the bidding process that would violate federal law. There was an unusual bidding process in the information provided below.
I visited the office Tuesday to review records. I had asked to review the following in regard to the $1,080 contract award: The Request For Bid Specs, The Contract, and The Bidders response. I was provided the bids and the contract. When I asked our secretary where the request for proposal was I was told that these were the items she had been provided. I asked if she knew whether it was a sealed bid process. She couldn't say. Review of the bids left me wondering whether one of the bidders had been assisted in his bidding.
HERE IS WHAT THE BIDS REVEALED:
Great Lawns of Georgetown submitted a bid on March 18, with a note that said they had met and discussed the work with DeMarchi. The bid was for $1,100.
There is a bid from DE&GC, originally in the amount of $1,160.00. Then there are scratch off areas with initials, and the bid drops to a total of $1,085.00. A contract is written and when the invoice is submitted for payment, it is submitted for $1,160.00. Again there are cross off and initials and the total due changed to $1,085.00.
It could appear that the second bidder was assisted in lowering their bid just below the first bidders price. Interestingly, The bidder thanks Wedgefield for "considering us for YOUR LOT MAINTENANCE needs."
Where is the WPA consistency in the bidding process? Where was the written request for proposal specs? Why sealed bids on some things, and others not? Why wasn't the clause called on that McMillin used to avoid bidding on the spoil site, in the Great Lawns of Georgetown contract? Additionally, the contractor includes this "along Francis Parker Road, total of 35 lots. Also along Joanna Guillard, total of 23 lots." HMMM, some lot owners pay for their lot maintenance and others not. Does it just depend whether you live on DeMarchi's road, or a road he owned lots on, and sold and built houses on?
I visited the office Tuesday to review records. I had asked to review the following in regard to the $1,080 contract award: The Request For Bid Specs, The Contract, and The Bidders response. I was provided the bids and the contract. When I asked our secretary where the request for proposal was I was told that these were the items she had been provided. I asked if she knew whether it was a sealed bid process. She couldn't say. Review of the bids left me wondering whether one of the bidders had been assisted in his bidding.
HERE IS WHAT THE BIDS REVEALED:
Great Lawns of Georgetown submitted a bid on March 18, with a note that said they had met and discussed the work with DeMarchi. The bid was for $1,100.
There is a bid from DE&GC, originally in the amount of $1,160.00. Then there are scratch off areas with initials, and the bid drops to a total of $1,085.00. A contract is written and when the invoice is submitted for payment, it is submitted for $1,160.00. Again there are cross off and initials and the total due changed to $1,085.00.
It could appear that the second bidder was assisted in lowering their bid just below the first bidders price. Interestingly, The bidder thanks Wedgefield for "considering us for YOUR LOT MAINTENANCE needs."
Where is the WPA consistency in the bidding process? Where was the written request for proposal specs? Why sealed bids on some things, and others not? Why wasn't the clause called on that McMillin used to avoid bidding on the spoil site, in the Great Lawns of Georgetown contract? Additionally, the contractor includes this "along Francis Parker Road, total of 35 lots. Also along Joanna Guillard, total of 23 lots." HMMM, some lot owners pay for their lot maintenance and others not. Does it just depend whether you live on DeMarchi's road, or a road he owned lots on, and sold and built houses on?
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
DRAINAGE - THE EVER CHANGING WORLD OF RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR DRAINAGE CHAIR
I reviewed records to day at the office. Follow the drainage mess. Maybe you'll have questions about who pays for lot maintenance and who doesn't.
FROM THE APPROVED MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2012 MINUTES:
years ago.
Al stated several policy sections on the property owner keeping their ditches clean.
Letters will be sent to owners to clean ditches, if lot owners do not participate in this
effort there is very little the drainage committee can do."
THESE ARE HIS ACTIONS RECORDED IN THE APPROVED MINUTES OF THE APRIL 16, 2013 MINUTES:
Motion passed with 8 ayes and 1 abstains from John McBride."
HERE IS THE TRANSCRIPTION FROM THE TAPE OF THE APRIL 16TH MEETING:
"The other thing is we've gotten TWO BIDS ???for the cleaning of the ditches and the road ways on the Enclave. The end of Frances Parker, the new section and Joanna Gillard. One of the problems there is that the mowers can't get in there and mow the berms adequately and we have a problem with drainage because it backs up in these because of all the weeds and the trees and of the two bids I got, one was from Great Lawns for $1,100 and one was DE and GC (hard to hear company initials), and theirs was for $1,080, and I've drawn up a contract which they have signed and they have are waiting for our approval."
Wait a minute. A few months ago, this same board allowed McMillin to refuse to get bids for the clearing of the spoil site, drag the spoil site management away from Water Amenities, and call on a clause in the Great Lawns contract that allows him to give them "like work". How does this board approve that, not use CONSISTENCY, and ask for bids outside to perform work to enable them to mow??????? This is more of a situation of "like work" than the crazy move made by the board prior to this. Now for $20 THEY GIVE THE WORK TO ANOTHER UNKNOWN CONTRACTOR?????????
McBride, "Did people buy these lots?" DeMarchi, "These lots are owned by individuals and corporations and things like that." Good, let them pay for the problem. DeMarchi recorded in the minutes that ditches were the residents problem, but now it is his road and where he built homes for lots he sold. When questions arise from the board table President Walton shuts them down and Garrison helps. McBride, "and they bought there knowing .....Their not responsible?" President Walton, "That is part of ......roads. We're talking about........The lots are not mowed and what we're trying to .... is just the right way.....part of drainage." Portions of what all President Walton said were difficult to hear. Someone else says, "It is not private property?" DeMarchi, "Another thing, you said these people bought those lots knowing this. No, WE didn't. WE did not buy those lots knowing that because WE....those lots were all owned prior to any of the infer structure or roadway going in. MY house OK, set almost2 feet above the old road. When Grand Strand Engineering got done they wanted water to flow up hill and they took....took ME 430 cubic yards of dirt to put MY house up to street level" President Walton, "This is the same area...Larry was it last year we had to regrade because...." McMillin, ...problems where those 3 new houses...We may have to do some of that out in that other area President Walton, "Now once that is taken care of then the property owner maintains that to the road, but right now they're not maintained lots......" Why do some owners have to maintain and others not? Garrison, "We consistently, you know this...clean or re-cutting of ditches, or drainage ditches along a number of streets....This is a situation where you can't begin to get there. If we get this other stuff out of the way...know what you want to do in terms of...." Too many begin to speak at the board table. Hard to understand. What is interesting is that the president doesn't pound the gavel. President Walton, "foot and a half of water always".
McBride, "The reason I bring this up is because I know for a fact that you helped with drainage, but we've also charged. I remember I was on the board...We were doing grading. We charged them $2.00 a foot to clean their ditches out. Ended up to be $4,000 and they were charged $4.00 a foot." Someone on the board cuts in but what they say can't be heard on the tape. McBride continues, "They were charged for it. That was the ditch work. You say we need to be consistent. Be consistent, better to go back and say consistent....where and why....something also doesn't understand either." McBride is shut down by President Walton who says, "I THINK WE'VE GONE BEYOND WHAT THE ACTUAL MOTION WAS....JUST GETTIN TO WHERE OUR GROUNDS CREW CAN MOW." DeMarchi, "It is going to have to be regraded John. It ...the roads where water sits there for a day or two. It get under that road an...lucky haven't had a hard winter...way to destroy roads." McBride, "Got that on Swamp Fox." President Walton, " ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND." Your board all vote yes except for McBride, who abstains.
During the May board meeting DeMarchi brings another project for this area to the board table. He announces that 5 or 6 drainage committees have been wrong and HE IS GOING TO FIX IT. When questions arise again, no one at the board table really listens. Which time in the records, minutes was DeMarchi accurate? We are quoting his own words and his own minutes. Could it be because it is his property. His own words, MY and WE as it relates to the property owners.
I visited the office today to review records. I had asked to review the following in regard to the $1,080 contract award: The Request For Bid Specs, The Contract, and The Bidders response. I was provided the bids and the contract. When I asked our secretary where the request for proposal was I was told that these were the items she had been provided. I asked if she knew whether it was a sealed bid process. She couldn't say. Review of the bids left me wondering whether one of the bidders had been assisted in his bidding.
HERE IS WHAT THE BIDS REVEALED:
Great Lawns of Georgetown submitted a bid on March 18, with a note that said they had met and discussed the work with DeMarchi. The bid was for $1,100.
There is a bid from DE&GC, originally in the amount of $1,160.00. Then there are scratch off areas with initials, and the bid drops to a total of $1,085.00. A contract is written and when the invoice is submitted for payment, it is submitted for $1,160.00. Again there are cross off and initials and the total due changed to $1,085.00.
It could appear that the second bidder was assisted in lowering their bid just below the first bidders price. Interestingly, The bidder thanks Wedgefield for "considering us for YOUR LOT MAINTENANCE needs.
Where is the WPA consistency in the bidding process? Where were the written request for proposal specs? Why sealed bids on some things, and others not? Why wasn't the clause called on that McMillin used to avoid bidding on the spoil site, in the Great Lawns of Georgetown contract? Additionally, the contractor includes this "along Francis Parker Road, total of 35 lots. Also along Joanna Guillard, total of 23 lots." HMMM, some lot owners pay for their lot maintenance and others not. Does it just depend whether you live on DeMarchi's road, or a road he owned lots on, and sold and built houses on?
FROM THE APPROVED MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2012 MINUTES:
Drainage:
"Al reported that due to the recent heavy rains some residents were contacted to discuss
problems and responsibilities. Most dealt with WPA responsibility to correct problemsyears ago.
Al stated several policy sections on the property owner keeping their ditches clean.
Letters will be sent to owners to clean ditches, if lot owners do not participate in this
effort there is very little the drainage committee can do."
THESE ARE HIS ACTIONS RECORDED IN THE APPROVED MINUTES OF THE APRIL 16, 2013 MINUTES:
"He has received 2 bids for the ditch clearing at the Enclave. Al then made a motion to approve
DE&GC, Inc. for the ditch clearing at the Enclave not to exceed $1,200. 2nd by Bob Garrison.Motion passed with 8 ayes and 1 abstains from John McBride."
HERE IS THE TRANSCRIPTION FROM THE TAPE OF THE APRIL 16TH MEETING:
"The other thing is we've gotten TWO BIDS ???for the cleaning of the ditches and the road ways on the Enclave. The end of Frances Parker, the new section and Joanna Gillard. One of the problems there is that the mowers can't get in there and mow the berms adequately and we have a problem with drainage because it backs up in these because of all the weeds and the trees and of the two bids I got, one was from Great Lawns for $1,100 and one was DE and GC (hard to hear company initials), and theirs was for $1,080, and I've drawn up a contract which they have signed and they have are waiting for our approval."
Wait a minute. A few months ago, this same board allowed McMillin to refuse to get bids for the clearing of the spoil site, drag the spoil site management away from Water Amenities, and call on a clause in the Great Lawns contract that allows him to give them "like work". How does this board approve that, not use CONSISTENCY, and ask for bids outside to perform work to enable them to mow??????? This is more of a situation of "like work" than the crazy move made by the board prior to this. Now for $20 THEY GIVE THE WORK TO ANOTHER UNKNOWN CONTRACTOR?????????
McBride, "Did people buy these lots?" DeMarchi, "These lots are owned by individuals and corporations and things like that." Good, let them pay for the problem. DeMarchi recorded in the minutes that ditches were the residents problem, but now it is his road and where he built homes for lots he sold. When questions arise from the board table President Walton shuts them down and Garrison helps. McBride, "and they bought there knowing .....Their not responsible?" President Walton, "That is part of ......roads. We're talking about........The lots are not mowed and what we're trying to .... is just the right way.....part of drainage." Portions of what all President Walton said were difficult to hear. Someone else says, "It is not private property?" DeMarchi, "Another thing, you said these people bought those lots knowing this. No, WE didn't. WE did not buy those lots knowing that because WE....those lots were all owned prior to any of the infer structure or roadway going in. MY house OK, set almost2 feet above the old road. When Grand Strand Engineering got done they wanted water to flow up hill and they took....took ME 430 cubic yards of dirt to put MY house up to street level" President Walton, "This is the same area...Larry was it last year we had to regrade because...." McMillin, ...problems where those 3 new houses...We may have to do some of that out in that other area President Walton, "Now once that is taken care of then the property owner maintains that to the road, but right now they're not maintained lots......" Why do some owners have to maintain and others not? Garrison, "We consistently, you know this...clean or re-cutting of ditches, or drainage ditches along a number of streets....This is a situation where you can't begin to get there. If we get this other stuff out of the way...know what you want to do in terms of...." Too many begin to speak at the board table. Hard to understand. What is interesting is that the president doesn't pound the gavel. President Walton, "foot and a half of water always".
McBride, "The reason I bring this up is because I know for a fact that you helped with drainage, but we've also charged. I remember I was on the board...We were doing grading. We charged them $2.00 a foot to clean their ditches out. Ended up to be $4,000 and they were charged $4.00 a foot." Someone on the board cuts in but what they say can't be heard on the tape. McBride continues, "They were charged for it. That was the ditch work. You say we need to be consistent. Be consistent, better to go back and say consistent....where and why....something also doesn't understand either." McBride is shut down by President Walton who says, "I THINK WE'VE GONE BEYOND WHAT THE ACTUAL MOTION WAS....JUST GETTIN TO WHERE OUR GROUNDS CREW CAN MOW." DeMarchi, "It is going to have to be regraded John. It ...the roads where water sits there for a day or two. It get under that road an...lucky haven't had a hard winter...way to destroy roads." McBride, "Got that on Swamp Fox." President Walton, " ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND." Your board all vote yes except for McBride, who abstains.
During the May board meeting DeMarchi brings another project for this area to the board table. He announces that 5 or 6 drainage committees have been wrong and HE IS GOING TO FIX IT. When questions arise again, no one at the board table really listens. Which time in the records, minutes was DeMarchi accurate? We are quoting his own words and his own minutes. Could it be because it is his property. His own words, MY and WE as it relates to the property owners.
I visited the office today to review records. I had asked to review the following in regard to the $1,080 contract award: The Request For Bid Specs, The Contract, and The Bidders response. I was provided the bids and the contract. When I asked our secretary where the request for proposal was I was told that these were the items she had been provided. I asked if she knew whether it was a sealed bid process. She couldn't say. Review of the bids left me wondering whether one of the bidders had been assisted in his bidding.
HERE IS WHAT THE BIDS REVEALED:
Great Lawns of Georgetown submitted a bid on March 18, with a note that said they had met and discussed the work with DeMarchi. The bid was for $1,100.
There is a bid from DE&GC, originally in the amount of $1,160.00. Then there are scratch off areas with initials, and the bid drops to a total of $1,085.00. A contract is written and when the invoice is submitted for payment, it is submitted for $1,160.00. Again there are cross off and initials and the total due changed to $1,085.00.
It could appear that the second bidder was assisted in lowering their bid just below the first bidders price. Interestingly, The bidder thanks Wedgefield for "considering us for YOUR LOT MAINTENANCE needs.
Where is the WPA consistency in the bidding process? Where were the written request for proposal specs? Why sealed bids on some things, and others not? Why wasn't the clause called on that McMillin used to avoid bidding on the spoil site, in the Great Lawns of Georgetown contract? Additionally, the contractor includes this "along Francis Parker Road, total of 35 lots. Also along Joanna Guillard, total of 23 lots." HMMM, some lot owners pay for their lot maintenance and others not. Does it just depend whether you live on DeMarchi's road, or a road he owned lots on, and sold and built houses on?
Monday, June 10, 2013
THE MAY 21 WPA BOARD MEETING COMMITTEE REPORTS - SECOND IN A SERIES THAT SHOULD BE TITLED, "LET IT SLIDE" - THE GROUNDS REPORT
I attended the May 21 board meeting. I've also gone back and listened to the tape. I have transcribed portions of the meeting, and will denote transcription with quotation marks and will underline those portions. I will relate what I heard, saw, and transcribed to the best of my ability. In all cases, if you didn't attend the meeting, you should listen to the tape yourself. Comments will be in red.
McMillin begins his report regarding some stats related to the lawn mowing of privately owned lots by the grounds' vendor. The lots have been classified as grassy or grassy and wooded. There are 29 lot owners interested in receiving the service. 22 are confirmed. They've paid.
There are a few other incidentals and the he moves to the grounds maintenance contract. There were some changes made in the contract this time. Language was added to clarify storm clean up, spoil site maintenance was added, a clause giving the WPA the ability to renegotiate at the end of the first of a two year contract if numbers change dramatically regarding the lot mowing. He explains the bid process. Three bids were sought. Two bidders responded. They were Great Lawns and Carolina ?????. Discussion arises about the Carolina vendor who they claim attempted to secure information on Great Lawns last bid, prior to the submission date. President Walton says what they did could be a federal offense. The two bids lay unopened on the table and there is more discussion about whether to open the Carolina bid. They determine they will open both. At some point in the discussions McMillin states that Great Lawns has not had an increase in almost 5 years. The Carolina bid is $48,000 per year. McMillin reads through pricing in various areas of the Great Lawn bid. It appears there is sub pricing for lot mowing, spoil site, grounds, and some items about pine straw and other supplies such as fertilizer. Listen to the tape yourself, but it sounds like Great Lawns total figure is $35,253 per year. McMillin seems surprised by the sub pricing for the spoil site. The following in quotes and underlined is the transcription to the best of my ability. Listen to the tape yourself. The discussion is long, complicated, and could leave you wondering when some decisions were made by this "let is slide for now board". Some of the sliding is because in this case the grounds may have turned to ice and you may be taking the fall while they attempt to keep their feet warm.
Garrison, "Spoil site, how's he getting there? Does his $3,000 cover how he gets there, or does somebody else gotta to do that?" McMillin, "We have furnished him transportation through Jamie and John" McMillin,"Should discuss with him and say....." Garrison, "Here's what I would suggest at this point. I don't think anybody but you has seen the actual parameter of the contract that was proposed.." McMillin, "Jacky has." Garrison, "I think we need a chance to look at this and have some discussion about some of the optional stuff that he's got in there." McMillin, "If we don't accept something tonight and do something with the contract we will have to wait until the next monthly meeting which means we will get no....in because there not in the contract unless we extend.." DeMarchi, "Are we going to make a motion because I got a lot of questions in discussion?" Someone on the board asks, "why not make a motion?" McMillin, "I'm hesitant because some of these numbers confuse me. I kind of got blind sided by a couple of them. This bid isn't that much higher than we've been paying. They said the only raise was common area maintenance by 5%. Reasonable, they haven't had a raise in 4 almost 5 years, but the only one that bothers me a little bit is the $3,000 for the CDF and a little tweaking around these lot mowing - that sort of thing. Other than that I think it is acceptable. I think it is reasonable and what does the board think about me re-negotiating before we put the ink to it?" President Walton, "Why don't you just get with him and do their change in the number, we just extend - what 30 days?" McMillin, "Well, since this is the only one we have, can we tentatively approve it, pending clarification for adjustments? DeMarchi, "No....extend. I'm going to ask my questions since you won't make a motion. You say we have 28 or 29 lots that we're going to mow this coming year. OK, at a price of what $85 bucks for grass lots?" Cline, "No" DeMarchi, "What's our recovery on....? $85.00 on?' McMillin, "$85.00 on wooded lots and $100.00 on grass lots..." DeMarchi, "WE'RE GOING TO DO GRASS LOTS SIX TIMES OR ARE WE DOING ALL SIX TIMES? WHAT IS THE NUMBER?" McMillin, "Four for wooded, six for grass. What gets confusing is some we do both, We have 2 or 3 that have both wooded and grass." DeMarchi, "My problem is..." McMillin cuts him off and says, "YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BREAK EVEN, AL, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT." DeMarchi, "I DON'T WANT TO TAKE A $2,200 FOR IT EITHER, OK!" McMillin, "Well it was your idea to change the program." DeMarchi, "WE TOOK A BATH ON IT LAST YEAR. OK! YOU'RE SAYING IT'S $4,200 FOR THESE LOT MOWING." McMillin, "$4198.58" DeMarchi, "We're going to recover approximately $2,000 of that in lot mowing fees. Approximately...right Kathy, is that what we calculated? So we're going to lose $2,200 for the privilege of mowing your lots. The other thing is...."McMillin cuts him off and says, "You want to charge everybody $50 every time he comes, or do you...." DeMarchi cuts him off and says, "I'm just asking the question Larry. OK, as far as the spoil site OK, that should be done as a separate item, OK, that would come under RESERVES." McMillin, "Disagreed over and over and the board has discussed it and we agreed it would stay under grounds. You're the only one who has objection to that and we discussed it." DeMarchi, "HAVE YOU DISCUSSED IT IN A BOARD MEETING?" McMillin, "YES WE DID! " DeMarchi , "I don't recall - ever." McMillin, "It was brought up at a board meeting and we talked about it, yes!" DeMarchi, "Because that's a maintenance item. A yearly maintenance item, that is going to occur over and over again." McMillin, "It is a common area. It is owned by Wedgefield Association just like the circle down here." DeMarchi, "OK, OK" McMillin, "It's a piece of property commonly know by..."DeMarchi, "Then pine straw and the labor to put the pine straw. I know that we've always budgeted pine straw individually, OK" McMillin, "Yes" DeMarchi, "And now they're including it in their bid?" McMillin, "Yes" DeMarchi, "If we're going to cover common ground I just don't agree with taking the bath on the mowing." Garrison, "Nor do I." McMillin, "Then let's eliminate it. Let's not do it any more. Nobody will lose anything." DeMarchi, "You go 28 or 29 people signed up for which 7 have not paid. I thought we agreed that we would not do any lawn mowing if they didn't pay." McMillin says something that can't be heard but ends with "yes"." DeMarchi, "And we're doing them?" McMillin, "Are some of them partially paid or not paid at all?" Kathy, "Not paid at all." McMillin, All right then you can attempt to contact each one of them. All right then they can be dropped so then we can change the number of mowings back down to 22." DeMarchi, "I think you just need to get all this clarified Larry." Garrison, "I would suggest this - this probably....with the contract the way the contract stipulates that they add to cover spoil site and....the contact the bid on" McMillin "Yes" Garrison, "I think we would probably be better off if we split that up. For my money people can make their own arrangement for their lot. I think that's where we ought to be. The only thing these guys will be getting involved in is when we have to bring them in to cut something that somebody didn't take care of and it needs to be done and we bill them for it. It's hard to collect the money..To be offering this service at a loss is inane." DeMarchi, "Well the other thing is $33.00 a lot for mowing that's equivalent to about an hour and 20 minutes of his guys time at his $25 rate. I think that is what his rate is. I can't imagine any grass lot taking an hour and 20 minutes. Maybe he needs to recalculate his $33.33 for mowing." McBride, "That might be his rate per person but...he also has his equipment and everything else." DeMarchi, "Well, that's his wrap around rate John. $25.00/hr. He's not paying a guy $25.00 an hour." Cline, "That's still fairly inexpensive - $33.00. " Garrison, "That's not huge but why aren't we collecting it? I don't say we got to make a lot of money out of it but..." McMillin, "I thought the whole idea was as an incentive here to encourage people to maintain their lots in a better condition than just leaving them alone and letting them vegetate." Garrison, "I got that. What's your incentive? Why do you bother to cut your grass, or me, or anybody else?" DeMarchi, "If you haven't signed up for a lot mowing program, OK, then have a lot that's over grown.." McMillin, "If you want to split hairs and read it word for word then we need to send them a letter to insist that they get it done, or we'll do it for them. HOW'S THAT? WE CAN DO IT. YOU WANT TO DO IT?" DeMarchi, "I'm just bringing up a point." Garrison, "We do that." McMillin, "WE GOT 156 OF THEM. YOU WANT TO DO THAT TO ALL OF THEM?" DeMarchi, "No, I'm just saying that those that are...You can't do it in the Enclave, OK, because the place is a disaster." McMillin, "They're vacant lots. They're privately owned." DeMarchi, "Yup" (Sorry, I couldn't contain myself. DeMarchi lives there and has owned lots there, and built homes for others there. Sometimes it could appear that this is his kingdom and no one touches it, and he decides what conditions are, what needs to be done, complains about what he views as the mistakes of other boards, and he'll decide who will pay, and it's legal for you to pay because he says so.) McMillin, "They're part of the 166." DeMarchi, "OK" McMillin,"See if you do it for some, not the rest, what do you do?" It sounds like the next speaker is John Walton, if so, he says, "Spoil site $3,000? That's what he bid?" McMillin, "Yes, for twice yearly. I think it's a little high because the original clearing was the most labor intensive. Now that that's been done it's a simple matter to go out there and I don't think it's going to take their entire crew. It might be 2-3 man crew one day. One day to do this thing." Someone says, "I don't think they can do it in one day." Garrison, "I'm going to make a motion that we extend Great Lawns current contract an additional sixty days so we have some time to let Larry work out some of these kinks with this contract and see if...can't come to agreeable solution to the terms to get him set up. I don't think there is any body on the board that is in favor of voting tonight...Other bid done with that. We can argue about this the next seventeen hours......and still" McMillin, "The thing is if you extend it another 60 days...that means the contract is going to renew next time in what August. We always did it before the growing season. We did it in April." Garrison, "What is the difference? That season is covered if it renews in August. I don't see what......" Cline, "Plus this will be a two year right?" DeMarchi, "One year renegotiable." Garrison, "I assume they are guaranteeing that price for two years." McMillin, "It's a two year contract with a renegotiating clause in it specifically to deal with lot maintenance." Cline seconds Garrison's motion. It passes but one member votes no. McMillin, "Would someone prepare a list of all your objections, so I an take them to Great Lawns and negotiate?"
COMMENTS:
This whole discussion is a mess. First, it appears Great Lawns bid as the contract requested. They bid over $10,000 less than the only other bidder. They haven't had a raise in almost 5 years. Now that the board is fighting they decide to pick apart the vendor's pricing rather than stop and come to a vote on their issues. They have all these issues because they let decisions slide when they hit the board table, apparently cut deals to let things pass, behind the scenes, so they get what they want for their pet project. There appeared to be several issues that are caused by their lack of action in the moment.
*McMillin has refused to bill lot owners what it actually costs to maintain the lots. That has come up more than once over a long period of time. Each time, he gets firm and the board moves on. They have knowingly taken our assessment funds to supplement some lot owners. Why? From what we've seen a grass lot owner receives services six times for $100. Wouldn't you like to have your lawn mowed for $16.66? For certain, as a member I don't want you to get yours mowed for $16.66 and have to pay $16.66 out of my assessment every time your lot is mowed, to make up for the actual cost, because McMillin wants it that way and your board wouldn't stop it. This has been going on for some time. The other insight you get to their operation is when McMillin says they'll pull lot mowing, lot owners will have to take care of their own, if not we'll mow and charge. DeMarchi says not in the Enclave it is just a mess. Aren't all lot owners equally responsible? Not according to DeMarchi. Why didn't your board step up as individual board members a long time ago when this inequity came up, take a vote and tell McMillin he wasn't operating equitably? Why did your board allow a McMillin more "land" -spoil site, when he wasn't handling lot mowing effectively? Is DeMarchi only upset because he doesn't like what it is doing to his accounting department and his books? Why didn't the board finish this lingering issue, at the table?
*The issue of the spoil site maintenance landing under McMillin's power and contract is clearly that of the board's own making. It made no sense to pull it from Water Amenities. DeMarchi can't recall the board ever having discussed it. Well they didn't really discuss it, unless it was behind closed doors, but McMillin did present it at a meeting, your board voted his way, and the information regarding it is in the very minutes that DeMarchi presented to the board for approval when he was secretary. They did approve the minutes. The following was taken from the approved Jan. 2013 minutes: " GROUNDS: Larry McMillin reported that recent discussion has been about the maintenance of the spoil site for future use. Larry reported that it is becoming quickly overgrown. WPA must maintain "common property". This property must be determined which category it falls under, Grounds or Water Amenities. An inspection must be done to determine the scope of maintenance needed. Larry stated he hopes the upcoming Reserve Study will help address all or most of these issues. Much more discussion will be needed. Larry stated a little money spent now will avoid major expense later." The minutes don't reflect any discussion. From the Feb. 2013 minutes, "Grounds: Larry stated that after a Water Amenities meeting that the maintenance of the spoil site should be the task of grounds and not water amenities. Larry stated that he made arrangements with GLOG to tour the spoil site and submits a bid for clearing. Larry stated he received recommendations from Steve Strickland of Earthworks for maintenance of the spoil site. It will be attached to these minutes. A motion was made by Larry and 2nd by John Walton to have Great Lawns of Georgetown to do the maintenance of the spoil site in the amount, not to exceed, $2,100 to cover the GLOG cost of $2,100 to cover the GLOG cost of $1,975 and material. Motion passed with 8 ayes and 1 nay by Jason Barrier." You can see by the minutes that nine board members voted so DeMarchi was included and voted. I recall attending this meeting and McMillin would not get bids from any other vendor. Additionally when you look at the January minutes McMillin says "recent discussion", where, when, and who? It wasn't at the board table until he brought it up. Your board sat by, didn't really discuss it this time either. During the May meeting you'll note he goes to common ground again, like he's in charge of all common ground. Well, is the landing next? That is common ground. How about what the drainage committee handles? Is that common ground? Your board sat by, confused committee responsibilities, didn't insist that he get bids, and just let it happen like the lawn mowing until now. Now DeMarchi is questioning because he is concerned about his reserves. They are his reserves because he decided what the amounts were, and they let him start pulling money into them monthly, you check, but I believe without a vote. So a move that was said to be a paper move to accommodate either taxes or audits, whatever excuse he gave, turns into our funds moving where he wants them to. I believe they'll be the basis for the reserve study. Water Amenities Chair, John Walton seconds one of the above noted motions. Surprise, surprise, I'm told he is related to McMillin - cousin, maybe. Remember this was all happening in January and February when Water Amenities wanted to replace the old dock at the landing. All this could just look like vote exchanges.
In the end, McMillin takes no responsibility. He argues and fusses, questions the figures of a great vendor, and wants to limit the money to them so he can have them and you, fund private lot mowing. Additionally, there aren't any lot mowing slots left from last years contract. Here is a quote from the October 2012 minutes, "Larry McMillin reported GLOG has gone over their contracted lot mowing. Great Lawns has offered to forgive the $1,050 being it was their oversight. They had exceeded without notifying WPA first. Great Lawns will increase their mowing amount with their new bid in March 2013. Al DeMarchi questioned where the extra lot mowing would be charged to. Larry responded that this was an acceptable year as far as mowing. This should not be charged to the owner. Larry stated that this is the only break they have on their assessments. As the contract renewal nears it will be further discussed." With the decision the board made in May the vacant lots might not be mowed until August. The one next to me has the WPA service and it is over grown. Why does the board allow this to happen and for McMillin to decide. Since it appears they have knowingly allowed him to do this. What part of our governing documents allow McMillin or anyone else decide that you and I pay for private lot mowing?
Wait until we get to the Drainage and Water Amenities Reports. More things just keep sliding at our expense.
McMillin begins his report regarding some stats related to the lawn mowing of privately owned lots by the grounds' vendor. The lots have been classified as grassy or grassy and wooded. There are 29 lot owners interested in receiving the service. 22 are confirmed. They've paid.
There are a few other incidentals and the he moves to the grounds maintenance contract. There were some changes made in the contract this time. Language was added to clarify storm clean up, spoil site maintenance was added, a clause giving the WPA the ability to renegotiate at the end of the first of a two year contract if numbers change dramatically regarding the lot mowing. He explains the bid process. Three bids were sought. Two bidders responded. They were Great Lawns and Carolina ?????. Discussion arises about the Carolina vendor who they claim attempted to secure information on Great Lawns last bid, prior to the submission date. President Walton says what they did could be a federal offense. The two bids lay unopened on the table and there is more discussion about whether to open the Carolina bid. They determine they will open both. At some point in the discussions McMillin states that Great Lawns has not had an increase in almost 5 years. The Carolina bid is $48,000 per year. McMillin reads through pricing in various areas of the Great Lawn bid. It appears there is sub pricing for lot mowing, spoil site, grounds, and some items about pine straw and other supplies such as fertilizer. Listen to the tape yourself, but it sounds like Great Lawns total figure is $35,253 per year. McMillin seems surprised by the sub pricing for the spoil site. The following in quotes and underlined is the transcription to the best of my ability. Listen to the tape yourself. The discussion is long, complicated, and could leave you wondering when some decisions were made by this "let is slide for now board". Some of the sliding is because in this case the grounds may have turned to ice and you may be taking the fall while they attempt to keep their feet warm.
Garrison, "Spoil site, how's he getting there? Does his $3,000 cover how he gets there, or does somebody else gotta to do that?" McMillin, "We have furnished him transportation through Jamie and John" McMillin,"Should discuss with him and say....." Garrison, "Here's what I would suggest at this point. I don't think anybody but you has seen the actual parameter of the contract that was proposed.." McMillin, "Jacky has." Garrison, "I think we need a chance to look at this and have some discussion about some of the optional stuff that he's got in there." McMillin, "If we don't accept something tonight and do something with the contract we will have to wait until the next monthly meeting which means we will get no....in because there not in the contract unless we extend.." DeMarchi, "Are we going to make a motion because I got a lot of questions in discussion?" Someone on the board asks, "why not make a motion?" McMillin, "I'm hesitant because some of these numbers confuse me. I kind of got blind sided by a couple of them. This bid isn't that much higher than we've been paying. They said the only raise was common area maintenance by 5%. Reasonable, they haven't had a raise in 4 almost 5 years, but the only one that bothers me a little bit is the $3,000 for the CDF and a little tweaking around these lot mowing - that sort of thing. Other than that I think it is acceptable. I think it is reasonable and what does the board think about me re-negotiating before we put the ink to it?" President Walton, "Why don't you just get with him and do their change in the number, we just extend - what 30 days?" McMillin, "Well, since this is the only one we have, can we tentatively approve it, pending clarification for adjustments? DeMarchi, "No....extend. I'm going to ask my questions since you won't make a motion. You say we have 28 or 29 lots that we're going to mow this coming year. OK, at a price of what $85 bucks for grass lots?" Cline, "No" DeMarchi, "What's our recovery on....? $85.00 on?' McMillin, "$85.00 on wooded lots and $100.00 on grass lots..." DeMarchi, "WE'RE GOING TO DO GRASS LOTS SIX TIMES OR ARE WE DOING ALL SIX TIMES? WHAT IS THE NUMBER?" McMillin, "Four for wooded, six for grass. What gets confusing is some we do both, We have 2 or 3 that have both wooded and grass." DeMarchi, "My problem is..." McMillin cuts him off and says, "YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BREAK EVEN, AL, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT." DeMarchi, "I DON'T WANT TO TAKE A $2,200 FOR IT EITHER, OK!" McMillin, "Well it was your idea to change the program." DeMarchi, "WE TOOK A BATH ON IT LAST YEAR. OK! YOU'RE SAYING IT'S $4,200 FOR THESE LOT MOWING." McMillin, "$4198.58" DeMarchi, "We're going to recover approximately $2,000 of that in lot mowing fees. Approximately...right Kathy, is that what we calculated? So we're going to lose $2,200 for the privilege of mowing your lots. The other thing is...."McMillin cuts him off and says, "You want to charge everybody $50 every time he comes, or do you...." DeMarchi cuts him off and says, "I'm just asking the question Larry. OK, as far as the spoil site OK, that should be done as a separate item, OK, that would come under RESERVES." McMillin, "Disagreed over and over and the board has discussed it and we agreed it would stay under grounds. You're the only one who has objection to that and we discussed it." DeMarchi, "HAVE YOU DISCUSSED IT IN A BOARD MEETING?" McMillin, "YES WE DID! " DeMarchi , "I don't recall - ever." McMillin, "It was brought up at a board meeting and we talked about it, yes!" DeMarchi, "Because that's a maintenance item. A yearly maintenance item, that is going to occur over and over again." McMillin, "It is a common area. It is owned by Wedgefield Association just like the circle down here." DeMarchi, "OK, OK" McMillin, "It's a piece of property commonly know by..."DeMarchi, "Then pine straw and the labor to put the pine straw. I know that we've always budgeted pine straw individually, OK" McMillin, "Yes" DeMarchi, "And now they're including it in their bid?" McMillin, "Yes" DeMarchi, "If we're going to cover common ground I just don't agree with taking the bath on the mowing." Garrison, "Nor do I." McMillin, "Then let's eliminate it. Let's not do it any more. Nobody will lose anything." DeMarchi, "You go 28 or 29 people signed up for which 7 have not paid. I thought we agreed that we would not do any lawn mowing if they didn't pay." McMillin says something that can't be heard but ends with "yes"." DeMarchi, "And we're doing them?" McMillin, "Are some of them partially paid or not paid at all?" Kathy, "Not paid at all." McMillin, All right then you can attempt to contact each one of them. All right then they can be dropped so then we can change the number of mowings back down to 22." DeMarchi, "I think you just need to get all this clarified Larry." Garrison, "I would suggest this - this probably....with the contract the way the contract stipulates that they add to cover spoil site and....the contact the bid on" McMillin "Yes" Garrison, "I think we would probably be better off if we split that up. For my money people can make their own arrangement for their lot. I think that's where we ought to be. The only thing these guys will be getting involved in is when we have to bring them in to cut something that somebody didn't take care of and it needs to be done and we bill them for it. It's hard to collect the money..To be offering this service at a loss is inane." DeMarchi, "Well the other thing is $33.00 a lot for mowing that's equivalent to about an hour and 20 minutes of his guys time at his $25 rate. I think that is what his rate is. I can't imagine any grass lot taking an hour and 20 minutes. Maybe he needs to recalculate his $33.33 for mowing." McBride, "That might be his rate per person but...he also has his equipment and everything else." DeMarchi, "Well, that's his wrap around rate John. $25.00/hr. He's not paying a guy $25.00 an hour." Cline, "That's still fairly inexpensive - $33.00. " Garrison, "That's not huge but why aren't we collecting it? I don't say we got to make a lot of money out of it but..." McMillin, "I thought the whole idea was as an incentive here to encourage people to maintain their lots in a better condition than just leaving them alone and letting them vegetate." Garrison, "I got that. What's your incentive? Why do you bother to cut your grass, or me, or anybody else?" DeMarchi, "If you haven't signed up for a lot mowing program, OK, then have a lot that's over grown.." McMillin, "If you want to split hairs and read it word for word then we need to send them a letter to insist that they get it done, or we'll do it for them. HOW'S THAT? WE CAN DO IT. YOU WANT TO DO IT?" DeMarchi, "I'm just bringing up a point." Garrison, "We do that." McMillin, "WE GOT 156 OF THEM. YOU WANT TO DO THAT TO ALL OF THEM?" DeMarchi, "No, I'm just saying that those that are...You can't do it in the Enclave, OK, because the place is a disaster." McMillin, "They're vacant lots. They're privately owned." DeMarchi, "Yup" (Sorry, I couldn't contain myself. DeMarchi lives there and has owned lots there, and built homes for others there. Sometimes it could appear that this is his kingdom and no one touches it, and he decides what conditions are, what needs to be done, complains about what he views as the mistakes of other boards, and he'll decide who will pay, and it's legal for you to pay because he says so.) McMillin, "They're part of the 166." DeMarchi, "OK" McMillin,"See if you do it for some, not the rest, what do you do?" It sounds like the next speaker is John Walton, if so, he says, "Spoil site $3,000? That's what he bid?" McMillin, "Yes, for twice yearly. I think it's a little high because the original clearing was the most labor intensive. Now that that's been done it's a simple matter to go out there and I don't think it's going to take their entire crew. It might be 2-3 man crew one day. One day to do this thing." Someone says, "I don't think they can do it in one day." Garrison, "I'm going to make a motion that we extend Great Lawns current contract an additional sixty days so we have some time to let Larry work out some of these kinks with this contract and see if...can't come to agreeable solution to the terms to get him set up. I don't think there is any body on the board that is in favor of voting tonight...Other bid done with that. We can argue about this the next seventeen hours......and still" McMillin, "The thing is if you extend it another 60 days...that means the contract is going to renew next time in what August. We always did it before the growing season. We did it in April." Garrison, "What is the difference? That season is covered if it renews in August. I don't see what......" Cline, "Plus this will be a two year right?" DeMarchi, "One year renegotiable." Garrison, "I assume they are guaranteeing that price for two years." McMillin, "It's a two year contract with a renegotiating clause in it specifically to deal with lot maintenance." Cline seconds Garrison's motion. It passes but one member votes no. McMillin, "Would someone prepare a list of all your objections, so I an take them to Great Lawns and negotiate?"
COMMENTS:
This whole discussion is a mess. First, it appears Great Lawns bid as the contract requested. They bid over $10,000 less than the only other bidder. They haven't had a raise in almost 5 years. Now that the board is fighting they decide to pick apart the vendor's pricing rather than stop and come to a vote on their issues. They have all these issues because they let decisions slide when they hit the board table, apparently cut deals to let things pass, behind the scenes, so they get what they want for their pet project. There appeared to be several issues that are caused by their lack of action in the moment.
*McMillin has refused to bill lot owners what it actually costs to maintain the lots. That has come up more than once over a long period of time. Each time, he gets firm and the board moves on. They have knowingly taken our assessment funds to supplement some lot owners. Why? From what we've seen a grass lot owner receives services six times for $100. Wouldn't you like to have your lawn mowed for $16.66? For certain, as a member I don't want you to get yours mowed for $16.66 and have to pay $16.66 out of my assessment every time your lot is mowed, to make up for the actual cost, because McMillin wants it that way and your board wouldn't stop it. This has been going on for some time. The other insight you get to their operation is when McMillin says they'll pull lot mowing, lot owners will have to take care of their own, if not we'll mow and charge. DeMarchi says not in the Enclave it is just a mess. Aren't all lot owners equally responsible? Not according to DeMarchi. Why didn't your board step up as individual board members a long time ago when this inequity came up, take a vote and tell McMillin he wasn't operating equitably? Why did your board allow a McMillin more "land" -spoil site, when he wasn't handling lot mowing effectively? Is DeMarchi only upset because he doesn't like what it is doing to his accounting department and his books? Why didn't the board finish this lingering issue, at the table?
*The issue of the spoil site maintenance landing under McMillin's power and contract is clearly that of the board's own making. It made no sense to pull it from Water Amenities. DeMarchi can't recall the board ever having discussed it. Well they didn't really discuss it, unless it was behind closed doors, but McMillin did present it at a meeting, your board voted his way, and the information regarding it is in the very minutes that DeMarchi presented to the board for approval when he was secretary. They did approve the minutes. The following was taken from the approved Jan. 2013 minutes: " GROUNDS: Larry McMillin reported that recent discussion has been about the maintenance of the spoil site for future use. Larry reported that it is becoming quickly overgrown. WPA must maintain "common property". This property must be determined which category it falls under, Grounds or Water Amenities. An inspection must be done to determine the scope of maintenance needed. Larry stated he hopes the upcoming Reserve Study will help address all or most of these issues. Much more discussion will be needed. Larry stated a little money spent now will avoid major expense later." The minutes don't reflect any discussion. From the Feb. 2013 minutes, "Grounds: Larry stated that after a Water Amenities meeting that the maintenance of the spoil site should be the task of grounds and not water amenities. Larry stated that he made arrangements with GLOG to tour the spoil site and submits a bid for clearing. Larry stated he received recommendations from Steve Strickland of Earthworks for maintenance of the spoil site. It will be attached to these minutes. A motion was made by Larry and 2nd by John Walton to have Great Lawns of Georgetown to do the maintenance of the spoil site in the amount, not to exceed, $2,100 to cover the GLOG cost of $2,100 to cover the GLOG cost of $1,975 and material. Motion passed with 8 ayes and 1 nay by Jason Barrier." You can see by the minutes that nine board members voted so DeMarchi was included and voted. I recall attending this meeting and McMillin would not get bids from any other vendor. Additionally when you look at the January minutes McMillin says "recent discussion", where, when, and who? It wasn't at the board table until he brought it up. Your board sat by, didn't really discuss it this time either. During the May meeting you'll note he goes to common ground again, like he's in charge of all common ground. Well, is the landing next? That is common ground. How about what the drainage committee handles? Is that common ground? Your board sat by, confused committee responsibilities, didn't insist that he get bids, and just let it happen like the lawn mowing until now. Now DeMarchi is questioning because he is concerned about his reserves. They are his reserves because he decided what the amounts were, and they let him start pulling money into them monthly, you check, but I believe without a vote. So a move that was said to be a paper move to accommodate either taxes or audits, whatever excuse he gave, turns into our funds moving where he wants them to. I believe they'll be the basis for the reserve study. Water Amenities Chair, John Walton seconds one of the above noted motions. Surprise, surprise, I'm told he is related to McMillin - cousin, maybe. Remember this was all happening in January and February when Water Amenities wanted to replace the old dock at the landing. All this could just look like vote exchanges.
In the end, McMillin takes no responsibility. He argues and fusses, questions the figures of a great vendor, and wants to limit the money to them so he can have them and you, fund private lot mowing. Additionally, there aren't any lot mowing slots left from last years contract. Here is a quote from the October 2012 minutes, "Larry McMillin reported GLOG has gone over their contracted lot mowing. Great Lawns has offered to forgive the $1,050 being it was their oversight. They had exceeded without notifying WPA first. Great Lawns will increase their mowing amount with their new bid in March 2013. Al DeMarchi questioned where the extra lot mowing would be charged to. Larry responded that this was an acceptable year as far as mowing. This should not be charged to the owner. Larry stated that this is the only break they have on their assessments. As the contract renewal nears it will be further discussed." With the decision the board made in May the vacant lots might not be mowed until August. The one next to me has the WPA service and it is over grown. Why does the board allow this to happen and for McMillin to decide. Since it appears they have knowingly allowed him to do this. What part of our governing documents allow McMillin or anyone else decide that you and I pay for private lot mowing?
Wait until we get to the Drainage and Water Amenities Reports. More things just keep sliding at our expense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)