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!
