Monday, September 30, 2013
Thursday, September 26, 2013
THE SEPTEMBER WPA DRAINAGE REPORT AND OUR EXPENSIVE DRAINAGE HISTORY
Our report is late. As I spent time listening and transcribing the September Drainage Report, I was depressed and saddened by this sorry administrative mess. I went back to other reports and transcriptions and the path to putting the article together became long and disheartening. I think it is important to look back, prior to September 2013. Questions surface. Where did all the money go? Where are the results of all the money spent? Why hasn't any board learned from the lessons of those that have gone before them, as each board claimed to be the experts? Why aren't our residents demanding better use of our assessment dollars? Where are all the residents who declared that they wouldn't spend one dollar on the biggest, engineered drainage ditch in our association- the canals?
I took the time to transcribe every word of the September Drainage Report. I will use it as a guide in the article and pull a few quotes. The quotes will be in red and underlined. I will relate the report to the best of my ability. You should take responsibility and go to The Wedgefield Times and listen to the report yourself. You, listen to the self proclaimed expertise, the self righteous claims of saving money (AGAIN), the denial of self gain, and the brow beating of the one board member who wants multiple bids and real engineering experts. Your individual board members sit back and watch it happen again. Your President, McMillin, Garrison, and Barrier have all had previous experience of voting for previous projects that have abused our funds, brought failed results, and watched - or they themselves proclaimed the required expertise, while ignoring our governing documents, and sound business sense.
OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT:
DeMarchi opens the report with information on the Wedgefield Road drainage project. He then moves to another project in the Enclave. There have been a few projects there this year leading up to this next step. He has contacted several contractors regarding the work he is proposing. Only one bid has come in. He states, "I'll just read it. One bid received to perform work in Wedgefield Plantation, particularly Francis Parker Extension, the Enclave area. New homes are being built and a new home is starting so the drainage must be addressed. Two companies, no bid to project. I have one bid here which I received and it came in from C& D (?) ....& Back Hoe and they have a rate of $600 a day that is for two persons, a dump truck, a bobcat, and a tractor with a box blade. They have all their insurance, etc. I'm anticipating five days , so I would like to ....board at this time to approve, not to exceed $3,000 for the drainage work in that area, and if the company performs satisfactorily, as I hope they would, we will continue with other drainage projects." Cline says something about the fact that she has no knowledge of these kind of things. COMMENT: In the end you'll note that she votes for the project. Cline doesn't have to know how to engineer the project but as a board member she should be considering adherence to governing documents, the best interests of Wedgefield, and sound business sense. In the least, she can always abstain and not put herself in the position of being a recorded part of it. As for DeMarchi, why are we taking care of drainage for the new homes? Could it be because he bought land there for his own home? Could it be that on top of that that he bought additional lots, sold them, and built homes on some of them? How could this expert have bought these lots in such a poor drainage area?
DeMarchi moves on with the report. He says the project is quite extensive and the price is right. He is asked a question but I can't identify the speaker. He names the two companies that failed to bid and states he talked to others who were not interested.
President Walton states that we have a motion and asks if there is a second. Cline seconds. COMMENT: Yes, Cline who doesn't understand this business, seconds it.
Discussion begins with McBride. He states that Earth Works has a whole list of subcontractors and could even put together the specifications. He would like to see that done first. Later, speaking to lack of bids and possibly engineering, he states, "We did this once before that I recall and it just got all out of hand. To just have one person come in and give a bid....good, wrong then, wrong today....be patient, do the right thing, go to somebody who has the contractors." President Walton jumps in and we'll quote him to indicate his mind set. President, "John, with all due respect. If I'm not mistaken, we started working with the roads project. I think last month, we approved up to $1,500 just to get the bids. So we're going to spend half of what is proposed? I understand what you are saying. Al, I feel like you've done every thing that you can to try to get bids. I own equipment myself, and have to move equipment around. I mean it is just my personal opinion, I feel $3,000 is very reasonable for the..." COMMENTS: McBride has been the ONLY person at this table elected three times to serve on the board. He does have history facts in his favor.
McBride goes right to the heart of this and states, "Why are we doing this when everybody else has to purchase their own drainage? You purchase the lot and you are responsible". President Walton jumps in once again and says, "I can understand that John, providing that you have your drainage in place. The problem they have over in the Enclave is the drainage was never suitable to start. I mean, my opinion, they were rough. It wasn't even fine graded......numerous times, especially after a heavy rain, it doesn't drain properly, and it was just left to WPA, with no drainage what so ever, - my feeling" COMMENTS: First, McBride is correct in asking why we are doing this. During other board meetings he has spoken from his own experience. He bought a lot, accepted the surrounding drainage conditions, and paid for his drainage plan to be prepared and submitted it to the board for approval. He then paid for his drainage. Our governing documents support this. Why isn't this the case for DeMarchi, the lots he sold, the houses he built in the area? Let's say that I want to buy two lots. I buy one in the Enclave and one on Wedgefield Rd. I have the same governing documents to live by and the same applications to make to ARC when I build. I will be required to pay the same assessments on both lots. According to this discussion, aided by our President, it appears that I will pay for drainage on the plan for my Wedgefield Rd. lot, and I'll be aided by this board on the lot in the Enclave. Why? Good governance requires consistency in applying the governing documents and financial charges to the membership. In the least this looks like poor governance and an insult to those of us who buy into this association and don't have the ear and wallet, our wallet - assessments, of this board. Read on, we are about to get the blame game. "The old board that accepted the conditions of the Enclave." Wait a minute. President Walton, Garrison, McMillin, Barrier, and DeMarchi were involved in keeping the Arbors out of the association, because they felt it didn't meet our requirements. Really????? Take a ride through the Arbors. Take a look at the roads, drainage, etc. It is better there, than anywhere in the association. It was politics, and nothing more. They didn't want the majority lot owner to have that many votes! The decisions made about drainage at the September meeting are nothing more than politics at our expense. Wait, this same board has us subsidizing lot maintenance. WHERE ARE OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, WHERE ARE OUR BOARD MEMBERS, AND WHERE ARE YOU?
Now Garrison gets involved. He speaks to Earth Works and the work they are doing for a road project. He says, "The second problem with Earth Works is that they take between one half and three quarters of forever to get anything done. It took what? Two to two and one half months to get the drawing for Duck Pond. We've been in contract with them to get the bids. A month later, there still aren't bids. I would love to have more bids. I agree and it would be terrific to have 15 people coming here working to do this, but the reality is, it is not the case. It hasn't been the case, with virtually any project in the last, I can't remember how many years. I'M SURE DANNY BLAKELY WOULD BE GLAD TO COME BACK, but I suspect there aren't to many people who would think too much of that. So, if there aren't that many people around and Earth Works has access to some other, but they're not going to be local, transportation cost is likely to cost more. I don't see any point in dragging it out, when we've got something that needs to be corrected. Something that as Al said, we were left with. Most of the problems with this goes back to the third developer when that road was put in and that area.....so as much as I would like to have multiple bids, I just don't see it as very likely and wait another month or two, or spending money on Earth Works to have them come up with people. They still haven't done our roads and I don't think it is particularly fruitful."
COMMENTS: We have to stop here. I couldn't believe that Garrison threw Blakely's name on the table. He did open the door though to previous boards, their claim to expertise, no engineering, and fickle choices to contractors, and what residents will benefit. Look back in our recorded history. Quit letting these board members lead you around like you have a ring in your nose. There was a 6-8 year period, prior to, and up through 2008 where almost $800,000 was paid to one vendor- Blakely. Admittedly, that company had a grounds contract. To be liberal, deduct $200,000 to $250,000 from the total and call it grounds maintenance. THE REST WAS DRAINAGE! What did it benefit us? We have drainage messes all over this association that most of us are forced to live with. No one is coming to save OUR individual areas. If they did, with this history, wouldn't you want it engineered and bid properly, and overseen by non self interest firms, that would get the job done right? Have you been on Swamp Fox after heavy rains? I was at a party last spring on Ricefield and arrived during a big storm. We got in safely. Approximately 3 hours later we waded in water over our shoes to get to the car. One of the drainage areas on my road, William Screven is filled with huge piles of dirt with tall weeds growing out of them. It has been that way for over a year. It is on a board member's property - McMillan's. RUMOR is that he won't spread the dirt out until DeMarchi approves lifting the height of a drain basin. Where is the emergency in any of these areas? Why isn't the board self disciplining their own members - McMillin?
We resume with McBride asking, "You said that this company was local. Where is this company? I looked them up and their address is actually Myrtle Beach." I can't identify the voice, but someone on the board asks who he looked up. McBride repeats the name of the contractor. President Walton says that their business card says Georgetown. DeMarchi says the contractor has done work in the plantation before. McBride says that he is not saying the contractor hasn't and that DeMarchi has just hired him. DeMarch tells him that the contractor has just finished up three jobs for private residents here. McBride gets to the heart of the matter, saying
, "I think, do what ever you want. You have 5 votes to do a job like this. $3,000, $2,000, whatever it is and not have...bids, and not really go after bids, to me is ABSOLUTELY WRONG....We are responsible along the way. We have this record that we know. We ...fund this kind of work without multiple contractors, done under the same specifications, involving engineering firms. Sure money is..." Garrison says something about Earth Works never saving us a nickel. DeMarchi goes on to talk about contractors. He says two came out and looked and then didn't bid. He feels he sought bids. He discusses the projected work and the economic benefits of their hourly fee and all that equipment. Garrison starts speaking to McBride saying, "My suggestion for you would be come back with some bids" McBride will be happy to come back with bids if they give him a budget. There is talking at the board table that can't be made out. I was there. They were talking amongst themselves and not for the membership. Then DeMarchi tells him that he has $3,000 and he can do what he wants. So McBride can seek engineering and a firm to manage biding but he has to get it all done for $3,000. COMMENTS: Go back to the Huggins road project. McBride wanted engineering. Garrison sang the same song. Then they did what they wanted to do. We are redoing some of it now. Then DeMarchi throws this out. I don't think he means it and I don't think the rest of the board would let it happen. DeMarchi says, "I'll be glad to relinquish this job. I spend more time between.... than anything else I do in my life." McBride tells him he is not going to take over drainage. COMMENTS: McBride has consistently tried to get this board to follow our governing documents. He has taken a lot of guff from this board. As a resident I respect his constant efforts to do the right thing. I admire him for staying with the honest fight. This time if I had been McBride, I would have said OK, I'll take drainage and next month I'll bring a list of committee members to the table for approval and then we will bring projects to the table for approval. I suspect your board would have dropped the offer immediately. I am tired of hearing about contractors not coming to Wedgefield. I believe it is due to this kind of ridiculous administrative behavior by our board. If Garrison can't remember how long it has been since we've had contractors bidding, I can. The former hero in securing bids was McMillin. If you attended Candidate Night, prior to the 2008 annual meeting, you know that seeking qualified bidders was one of the issues that McMillin ran for board on. He named names, detailed his investigations into certain contractors, etc. I personally watched him prepare requests for proposals, require sealed bids, etc. There was never a project too small for him to secure the required bids. His process was out in the open and sterling. When did that fall apart? When he tied himself to many on this board. If Garrison thinks about it, I assume he would be able to recall it if he wanted to. McMillin votes and stays quiet while all of this goes on. Well the board did allow him to bill us and subsidize lot mowing for another year.
We resume. Garrison tells McBride to get bids. McBride doesn't have any specifications. Our President suggest they cut some information off something and provide that to McBride. COMMENTS: Why wouldn't they just hand him the request for proposal? Trust me I asked to review the first work that DeMarchi had done in the Enclave a few months ago. There wasn't a document you could call a request for proposal. Are you thinking $3,0000 isn't much? This will be about the third project this year in the Enclave area. The costs are mounting and we don't have engineering to make sure it is correct. Do we really want to look back at $500,000 + again, with claims that it wasn't done right? We listened to the supposed "experts" at the table. Additionally, we had work done in the Enclave area in 2011. McMillin was drainage chair. It was an emergency, had to be done immediately. A transcription of the drainage report for Oct. 9, 2011 is provided at this site. Please take time to read it now. History really does repeat itself. Look up the lot numbers involved. Who built the homes mentioned in the report? Was this about the time that McMillin was reporting on working with DeMarchi on the clean up and planting of the cul-de-sac in front of DeMarchi's house? Access the transcribed report by going to the bottom of the blog, look under 2011 and read "WPA September 19th Board Meeting - Drainage".
Back to the meeting. After our President offers to provide the paper mentioned above with cut off areas, McBride says he will get with an engineering firm and then work to get bids. Again he asks what his budget will be. The cat and mouse game played by the board is too long to type from transcription. DeMarchi tells him he has to do it all for $3,000. McBride reminds the board that he needs a budget that allows for proper engineering and drawing of specs. He tells them he isn't insured and isn't going to stand behind something that he can't be insured for. COMMENT: Great point. Why doesn't this concern your board and all their expertise????? Wait, we will resume with your president speaking to his expertise and DeMarchi's as well. Residents, the following song has been sung to many times at our expense, prior to the blame game played out by subsequent boards.
We resume with the President speaking to expertise, saying, "I don't mean to be sarcastic in any way.....I've been a builder contractor for 35 years. Al has been a contractor...We're NOT ENGINEERS, but WE KNOW WHAT IT'S SUPPOSE TO LOOK LIKE" COMMENTS: Really????? What kind of recommendation is it that DeMarchi bought multiple lots in this poorly developed area, sold the lots, and built some homes for others there?????? What kind of recommendation is it for our president who knew what it should look like and voted for a road contract without engineering a few years ago that included Duck Pond and now we are hiring engineers to design and seek bids according to proper specifications. How did that work for saving us money over the long haul? Garrison had the same type of discussion with McBride at that time. How can you allow this to happen again?
We resume with Barrier asking for a vote. DeMarchi declares we are wasting time. They vote and then DeMarchi says, "Change my vote to abstention because some of this work is involved in the Enclave where I live. I don't want it deemed that I was getting monetary gain"
COMMENTS: Your board ought to be embarrassed of this whole mess. Read your Reserve Study. The contractor instructs the board to seek engineering and contractors to manage project contracts. Your board continues on against advice. How is it that we have engineering for roads and not drainage? The unfortunate part is that we have three slots to fill board seats in the next election and only three candidates. Two of them were speakers during this ill conceived vote on this project. That means more of the same unless someone sues them, or lets them know we don't want any more of this. What can you do under these circumstances? When you get your proxy vote NO on each of the candidates. I'm not sure what it would do, but some of them have bragged since the last election that they had a mandate. Let them know that they don't.
I took the time to transcribe every word of the September Drainage Report. I will use it as a guide in the article and pull a few quotes. The quotes will be in red and underlined. I will relate the report to the best of my ability. You should take responsibility and go to The Wedgefield Times and listen to the report yourself. You, listen to the self proclaimed expertise, the self righteous claims of saving money (AGAIN), the denial of self gain, and the brow beating of the one board member who wants multiple bids and real engineering experts. Your individual board members sit back and watch it happen again. Your President, McMillin, Garrison, and Barrier have all had previous experience of voting for previous projects that have abused our funds, brought failed results, and watched - or they themselves proclaimed the required expertise, while ignoring our governing documents, and sound business sense.
OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT:
DeMarchi opens the report with information on the Wedgefield Road drainage project. He then moves to another project in the Enclave. There have been a few projects there this year leading up to this next step. He has contacted several contractors regarding the work he is proposing. Only one bid has come in. He states, "I'll just read it. One bid received to perform work in Wedgefield Plantation, particularly Francis Parker Extension, the Enclave area. New homes are being built and a new home is starting so the drainage must be addressed. Two companies, no bid to project. I have one bid here which I received and it came in from C& D (?) ....& Back Hoe and they have a rate of $600 a day that is for two persons, a dump truck, a bobcat, and a tractor with a box blade. They have all their insurance, etc. I'm anticipating five days , so I would like to ....board at this time to approve, not to exceed $3,000 for the drainage work in that area, and if the company performs satisfactorily, as I hope they would, we will continue with other drainage projects." Cline says something about the fact that she has no knowledge of these kind of things. COMMENT: In the end you'll note that she votes for the project. Cline doesn't have to know how to engineer the project but as a board member she should be considering adherence to governing documents, the best interests of Wedgefield, and sound business sense. In the least, she can always abstain and not put herself in the position of being a recorded part of it. As for DeMarchi, why are we taking care of drainage for the new homes? Could it be because he bought land there for his own home? Could it be that on top of that that he bought additional lots, sold them, and built homes on some of them? How could this expert have bought these lots in such a poor drainage area?
DeMarchi moves on with the report. He says the project is quite extensive and the price is right. He is asked a question but I can't identify the speaker. He names the two companies that failed to bid and states he talked to others who were not interested.
President Walton states that we have a motion and asks if there is a second. Cline seconds. COMMENT: Yes, Cline who doesn't understand this business, seconds it.
Discussion begins with McBride. He states that Earth Works has a whole list of subcontractors and could even put together the specifications. He would like to see that done first. Later, speaking to lack of bids and possibly engineering, he states, "We did this once before that I recall and it just got all out of hand. To just have one person come in and give a bid....good, wrong then, wrong today....be patient, do the right thing, go to somebody who has the contractors." President Walton jumps in and we'll quote him to indicate his mind set. President, "John, with all due respect. If I'm not mistaken, we started working with the roads project. I think last month, we approved up to $1,500 just to get the bids. So we're going to spend half of what is proposed? I understand what you are saying. Al, I feel like you've done every thing that you can to try to get bids. I own equipment myself, and have to move equipment around. I mean it is just my personal opinion, I feel $3,000 is very reasonable for the..." COMMENTS: McBride has been the ONLY person at this table elected three times to serve on the board. He does have history facts in his favor.
McBride goes right to the heart of this and states, "Why are we doing this when everybody else has to purchase their own drainage? You purchase the lot and you are responsible". President Walton jumps in once again and says, "I can understand that John, providing that you have your drainage in place. The problem they have over in the Enclave is the drainage was never suitable to start. I mean, my opinion, they were rough. It wasn't even fine graded......numerous times, especially after a heavy rain, it doesn't drain properly, and it was just left to WPA, with no drainage what so ever, - my feeling" COMMENTS: First, McBride is correct in asking why we are doing this. During other board meetings he has spoken from his own experience. He bought a lot, accepted the surrounding drainage conditions, and paid for his drainage plan to be prepared and submitted it to the board for approval. He then paid for his drainage. Our governing documents support this. Why isn't this the case for DeMarchi, the lots he sold, the houses he built in the area? Let's say that I want to buy two lots. I buy one in the Enclave and one on Wedgefield Rd. I have the same governing documents to live by and the same applications to make to ARC when I build. I will be required to pay the same assessments on both lots. According to this discussion, aided by our President, it appears that I will pay for drainage on the plan for my Wedgefield Rd. lot, and I'll be aided by this board on the lot in the Enclave. Why? Good governance requires consistency in applying the governing documents and financial charges to the membership. In the least this looks like poor governance and an insult to those of us who buy into this association and don't have the ear and wallet, our wallet - assessments, of this board. Read on, we are about to get the blame game. "The old board that accepted the conditions of the Enclave." Wait a minute. President Walton, Garrison, McMillin, Barrier, and DeMarchi were involved in keeping the Arbors out of the association, because they felt it didn't meet our requirements. Really????? Take a ride through the Arbors. Take a look at the roads, drainage, etc. It is better there, than anywhere in the association. It was politics, and nothing more. They didn't want the majority lot owner to have that many votes! The decisions made about drainage at the September meeting are nothing more than politics at our expense. Wait, this same board has us subsidizing lot maintenance. WHERE ARE OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, WHERE ARE OUR BOARD MEMBERS, AND WHERE ARE YOU?
Now Garrison gets involved. He speaks to Earth Works and the work they are doing for a road project. He says, "The second problem with Earth Works is that they take between one half and three quarters of forever to get anything done. It took what? Two to two and one half months to get the drawing for Duck Pond. We've been in contract with them to get the bids. A month later, there still aren't bids. I would love to have more bids. I agree and it would be terrific to have 15 people coming here working to do this, but the reality is, it is not the case. It hasn't been the case, with virtually any project in the last, I can't remember how many years. I'M SURE DANNY BLAKELY WOULD BE GLAD TO COME BACK, but I suspect there aren't to many people who would think too much of that. So, if there aren't that many people around and Earth Works has access to some other, but they're not going to be local, transportation cost is likely to cost more. I don't see any point in dragging it out, when we've got something that needs to be corrected. Something that as Al said, we were left with. Most of the problems with this goes back to the third developer when that road was put in and that area.....so as much as I would like to have multiple bids, I just don't see it as very likely and wait another month or two, or spending money on Earth Works to have them come up with people. They still haven't done our roads and I don't think it is particularly fruitful."
COMMENTS: We have to stop here. I couldn't believe that Garrison threw Blakely's name on the table. He did open the door though to previous boards, their claim to expertise, no engineering, and fickle choices to contractors, and what residents will benefit. Look back in our recorded history. Quit letting these board members lead you around like you have a ring in your nose. There was a 6-8 year period, prior to, and up through 2008 where almost $800,000 was paid to one vendor- Blakely. Admittedly, that company had a grounds contract. To be liberal, deduct $200,000 to $250,000 from the total and call it grounds maintenance. THE REST WAS DRAINAGE! What did it benefit us? We have drainage messes all over this association that most of us are forced to live with. No one is coming to save OUR individual areas. If they did, with this history, wouldn't you want it engineered and bid properly, and overseen by non self interest firms, that would get the job done right? Have you been on Swamp Fox after heavy rains? I was at a party last spring on Ricefield and arrived during a big storm. We got in safely. Approximately 3 hours later we waded in water over our shoes to get to the car. One of the drainage areas on my road, William Screven is filled with huge piles of dirt with tall weeds growing out of them. It has been that way for over a year. It is on a board member's property - McMillan's. RUMOR is that he won't spread the dirt out until DeMarchi approves lifting the height of a drain basin. Where is the emergency in any of these areas? Why isn't the board self disciplining their own members - McMillin?
We resume with McBride asking, "You said that this company was local. Where is this company? I looked them up and their address is actually Myrtle Beach." I can't identify the voice, but someone on the board asks who he looked up. McBride repeats the name of the contractor. President Walton says that their business card says Georgetown. DeMarchi says the contractor has done work in the plantation before. McBride says that he is not saying the contractor hasn't and that DeMarchi has just hired him. DeMarch tells him that the contractor has just finished up three jobs for private residents here. McBride gets to the heart of the matter, saying
, "I think, do what ever you want. You have 5 votes to do a job like this. $3,000, $2,000, whatever it is and not have...bids, and not really go after bids, to me is ABSOLUTELY WRONG....We are responsible along the way. We have this record that we know. We ...fund this kind of work without multiple contractors, done under the same specifications, involving engineering firms. Sure money is..." Garrison says something about Earth Works never saving us a nickel. DeMarchi goes on to talk about contractors. He says two came out and looked and then didn't bid. He feels he sought bids. He discusses the projected work and the economic benefits of their hourly fee and all that equipment. Garrison starts speaking to McBride saying, "My suggestion for you would be come back with some bids" McBride will be happy to come back with bids if they give him a budget. There is talking at the board table that can't be made out. I was there. They were talking amongst themselves and not for the membership. Then DeMarchi tells him that he has $3,000 and he can do what he wants. So McBride can seek engineering and a firm to manage biding but he has to get it all done for $3,000. COMMENTS: Go back to the Huggins road project. McBride wanted engineering. Garrison sang the same song. Then they did what they wanted to do. We are redoing some of it now. Then DeMarchi throws this out. I don't think he means it and I don't think the rest of the board would let it happen. DeMarchi says, "I'll be glad to relinquish this job. I spend more time between.... than anything else I do in my life." McBride tells him he is not going to take over drainage. COMMENTS: McBride has consistently tried to get this board to follow our governing documents. He has taken a lot of guff from this board. As a resident I respect his constant efforts to do the right thing. I admire him for staying with the honest fight. This time if I had been McBride, I would have said OK, I'll take drainage and next month I'll bring a list of committee members to the table for approval and then we will bring projects to the table for approval. I suspect your board would have dropped the offer immediately. I am tired of hearing about contractors not coming to Wedgefield. I believe it is due to this kind of ridiculous administrative behavior by our board. If Garrison can't remember how long it has been since we've had contractors bidding, I can. The former hero in securing bids was McMillin. If you attended Candidate Night, prior to the 2008 annual meeting, you know that seeking qualified bidders was one of the issues that McMillin ran for board on. He named names, detailed his investigations into certain contractors, etc. I personally watched him prepare requests for proposals, require sealed bids, etc. There was never a project too small for him to secure the required bids. His process was out in the open and sterling. When did that fall apart? When he tied himself to many on this board. If Garrison thinks about it, I assume he would be able to recall it if he wanted to. McMillin votes and stays quiet while all of this goes on. Well the board did allow him to bill us and subsidize lot mowing for another year.
We resume. Garrison tells McBride to get bids. McBride doesn't have any specifications. Our President suggest they cut some information off something and provide that to McBride. COMMENTS: Why wouldn't they just hand him the request for proposal? Trust me I asked to review the first work that DeMarchi had done in the Enclave a few months ago. There wasn't a document you could call a request for proposal. Are you thinking $3,0000 isn't much? This will be about the third project this year in the Enclave area. The costs are mounting and we don't have engineering to make sure it is correct. Do we really want to look back at $500,000 + again, with claims that it wasn't done right? We listened to the supposed "experts" at the table. Additionally, we had work done in the Enclave area in 2011. McMillin was drainage chair. It was an emergency, had to be done immediately. A transcription of the drainage report for Oct. 9, 2011 is provided at this site. Please take time to read it now. History really does repeat itself. Look up the lot numbers involved. Who built the homes mentioned in the report? Was this about the time that McMillin was reporting on working with DeMarchi on the clean up and planting of the cul-de-sac in front of DeMarchi's house? Access the transcribed report by going to the bottom of the blog, look under 2011 and read "WPA September 19th Board Meeting - Drainage".
Back to the meeting. After our President offers to provide the paper mentioned above with cut off areas, McBride says he will get with an engineering firm and then work to get bids. Again he asks what his budget will be. The cat and mouse game played by the board is too long to type from transcription. DeMarchi tells him he has to do it all for $3,000. McBride reminds the board that he needs a budget that allows for proper engineering and drawing of specs. He tells them he isn't insured and isn't going to stand behind something that he can't be insured for. COMMENT: Great point. Why doesn't this concern your board and all their expertise????? Wait, we will resume with your president speaking to his expertise and DeMarchi's as well. Residents, the following song has been sung to many times at our expense, prior to the blame game played out by subsequent boards.
We resume with the President speaking to expertise, saying, "I don't mean to be sarcastic in any way.....I've been a builder contractor for 35 years. Al has been a contractor...We're NOT ENGINEERS, but WE KNOW WHAT IT'S SUPPOSE TO LOOK LIKE" COMMENTS: Really????? What kind of recommendation is it that DeMarchi bought multiple lots in this poorly developed area, sold the lots, and built some homes for others there?????? What kind of recommendation is it for our president who knew what it should look like and voted for a road contract without engineering a few years ago that included Duck Pond and now we are hiring engineers to design and seek bids according to proper specifications. How did that work for saving us money over the long haul? Garrison had the same type of discussion with McBride at that time. How can you allow this to happen again?
We resume with Barrier asking for a vote. DeMarchi declares we are wasting time. They vote and then DeMarchi says, "Change my vote to abstention because some of this work is involved in the Enclave where I live. I don't want it deemed that I was getting monetary gain"
COMMENTS: Your board ought to be embarrassed of this whole mess. Read your Reserve Study. The contractor instructs the board to seek engineering and contractors to manage project contracts. Your board continues on against advice. How is it that we have engineering for roads and not drainage? The unfortunate part is that we have three slots to fill board seats in the next election and only three candidates. Two of them were speakers during this ill conceived vote on this project. That means more of the same unless someone sues them, or lets them know we don't want any more of this. What can you do under these circumstances? When you get your proxy vote NO on each of the candidates. I'm not sure what it would do, but some of them have bragged since the last election that they had a mandate. Let them know that they don't.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Thursday, September 19, 2013
THE AUGUST WPA FINANCE REPORT - THE "SHELL GAME" CONTINUES - LAST MONTH YOU SAW ONE THING AND NOW ANOTHER - IS IT THE SAME AS NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T?
If you attended the September WPA Board Meeting, a copy of The Wedgefield Plantation Association Revenue and Expenditures Synopsis was provided to you. Recently, The Wedgefield Examiner presented an article exhibiting the ever changing financial reports, prepared by our ever changing treasurers, from 2010 through 2013. There were five different treasurers during that period of time. There was absolutely no consistency. We asked if they appeared to have been dumbed down and provided less and less information to the residents. We looked at the last report, July 2013, prepared by our treasurer. It was a report, while absent information regarding year to date and how we stood compared to budget, that did report year to date figures. One month later as we look at the August report, it is simply a snap shot of August, no year to date figures. Once again, it has changed. The August and July 2013 reports are presented at the end of this article for your review.
Once again, the scope of our financial reporting to the residents has been greatly reduced. Why? Take a good look at the report. We are unable to see any repairs to roads, drainage work, the income from the sale of the old dock, or whether there were expenses related to its removal. Work on roads, drainage, etc. usually requires a request for bids, contracts, payments, vote by the board, etc. Why doesn't our board want us to see whether what they voted to do, came in on budget, and was managed within the yearly budget, whether it is out of operating or reserves? Remember next year's budget has already been called a shell game, from the board table. Are they hiding something?
As I sat waiting for the September meeting to begin, I glanced through the report. It was obvious immediately that once again, it had changed. Then I listened to our treasurer tell us about incorrect numbers for YEARS, his changing the number of accounts from over 200 to 60 plus, and all the hard work of him, and his staff. A question surfaced, out of more of this board's secrecy. How much is it costing our association to bring the accounting in house, provide us selected and inadequate information that changes by the month, under treasurers that claim they know exactly what needs to be done? Think about it a minute. In the past, this treasurer went on and on about how we had paid $750/month for a CPA to perform our accounting and reporting services, deposit payments, file taxes, etc. We don't know what his newest and greatest plan is costing us. We do know that not one of the "accounting" department players, is a CPA. Back to cost. Everything was done in secrecy. Word games were played at the board table. When a board member asked if the contract person, who the treasurer called an accountant, was an accountant, they were told to look the word up. Certain board members skirted the question when asked if the contractor held an accounting degree. Initially we were told that the contractor would be paid to come in and review our paid staff person's entries, reconcile, etc., for about 4 hours a month. Is that all the hours the contractor is working? We were told the contractor worked cheap. What kind of a wage figure is that? Rumor is, that our paid staff person was given a raise to perform the accounting function services. What is that hourly wage? How many hours of the staff person's time is being billed to the accounting function?
I looked at the August financial report. The accounting contractor didn't fall under professional fees. That was all paid to the attorney. The only place it could be located, must be under payroll expense, which was $2,150.26! HOW MUCH OF THAT IS PURE ACCOUNTING EXPENSE? It looks to the Wedgefield Examiner that it would be far more than $750. Is it worth it? It just looks like we are paying a whole lot more and getting a whole lot less. It appears that it is worth it to your board to hide detail from you. What else is hidden?
Here are the reports. The complete August report is provided. The July report is just the first page due to space. You can view the entire July report on the WPA website.
Once again, the scope of our financial reporting to the residents has been greatly reduced. Why? Take a good look at the report. We are unable to see any repairs to roads, drainage work, the income from the sale of the old dock, or whether there were expenses related to its removal. Work on roads, drainage, etc. usually requires a request for bids, contracts, payments, vote by the board, etc. Why doesn't our board want us to see whether what they voted to do, came in on budget, and was managed within the yearly budget, whether it is out of operating or reserves? Remember next year's budget has already been called a shell game, from the board table. Are they hiding something?
As I sat waiting for the September meeting to begin, I glanced through the report. It was obvious immediately that once again, it had changed. Then I listened to our treasurer tell us about incorrect numbers for YEARS, his changing the number of accounts from over 200 to 60 plus, and all the hard work of him, and his staff. A question surfaced, out of more of this board's secrecy. How much is it costing our association to bring the accounting in house, provide us selected and inadequate information that changes by the month, under treasurers that claim they know exactly what needs to be done? Think about it a minute. In the past, this treasurer went on and on about how we had paid $750/month for a CPA to perform our accounting and reporting services, deposit payments, file taxes, etc. We don't know what his newest and greatest plan is costing us. We do know that not one of the "accounting" department players, is a CPA. Back to cost. Everything was done in secrecy. Word games were played at the board table. When a board member asked if the contract person, who the treasurer called an accountant, was an accountant, they were told to look the word up. Certain board members skirted the question when asked if the contractor held an accounting degree. Initially we were told that the contractor would be paid to come in and review our paid staff person's entries, reconcile, etc., for about 4 hours a month. Is that all the hours the contractor is working? We were told the contractor worked cheap. What kind of a wage figure is that? Rumor is, that our paid staff person was given a raise to perform the accounting function services. What is that hourly wage? How many hours of the staff person's time is being billed to the accounting function?
I looked at the August financial report. The accounting contractor didn't fall under professional fees. That was all paid to the attorney. The only place it could be located, must be under payroll expense, which was $2,150.26! HOW MUCH OF THAT IS PURE ACCOUNTING EXPENSE? It looks to the Wedgefield Examiner that it would be far more than $750. Is it worth it? It just looks like we are paying a whole lot more and getting a whole lot less. It appears that it is worth it to your board to hide detail from you. What else is hidden?
Here are the reports. The complete August report is provided. The July report is just the first page due to space. You can view the entire July report on the WPA website.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
BOARD MEMBER MCMILLIN REFERS TO 2014 BUDGET AND RESERVE USE AS "A SHELL GAME WE'VE SEEN BEFORE"
DeMarchi, our treasurer/drainage chair was on a roll last night. We'll transcribe items as soon as we can, but some on our board want what they want, appear to think they are the be all and know all on many subjects, appear insulted by any questioning before a vote, and have cooperation by some others on the board to attempt to make questioning board members look stupid and uninformed. You have all of that in our treasurer/ drainage chair. He appears to be supported by Cline, Garrison, and our president. Occasionally, Barrier appears disgusted with discussion and calls for a vote. McMillin and McBride had questions about the 2014 "operating" budget and the flow from operating to the use of reserves. McBride referred to a meeting of the board with the finance committee. He stated the board was told that by 2021 reserves were expected to be over $60,000 in the hole. Few explanations were given. Our treasurer stated that he was sorry they ever put that information out. Some where in the discussion McMillin said it looked like a shell game that we've seen before. The treasurer, as before under questioning, goes to martyr and speaks to the untold hours he has spent getting his information together. Have you ever worked on a time intensive project? If you have you know it inside and out and are willing to speak to detail to make the project sell. Not here. Question and you are dumb. We all should be thanking McMillin and McBride for attempting to lay it out on the board table. Yes, I did say thank McMillin. When a board member does due diligence at the board table, particularly this board table, it should be recognized. If you had been there to witness this, you should be writing Cline, Garrison, Walton, and Barrier and telling them that if they have relative comments that they should be speaking "in turn" and laying them on the board table for all to hear, instead of their mumbled side bar comments, that appear to be there to diminish the questioning board members. McMillin and McBride voted "NO" on the 2014 budget and the $475 annual assessment.
Residents were not provided the proposed 2014 budget. As should be, we will receive it in our annual meeting packet. It is unfortunate that it will all be said and done when we get it. I'm not saying the board did anything wrong in not publishing it. There should, however be concern, about this budget. When the majority of your board votes to accept hiding detail, telling people they "don't understand", there is a real problem..
The Wedgefield Examiner provided a history of our budgets in another article. We will publish the September financial report. It has changed once again. The information is even more limited than the previous report. Our treasurer tells us that HE WILL HAVE ALL THE CORRECT AND RIGHT NUMBERS BY 2014. HE IS CORRECTING EVERYTHING. HE IS TAKING THE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS FROM OVER 200 TO 60! First, he slaps Cline and McMillin in the face with his righteousness. They are our past two treasurers. Second, how could there be so many incorrect numbers? We were audited every year. Finally, what are his credentials to make these claims and adjustments? What are the credentials of his accounting department? Don't go with this is a slap at the finance committee. He has a staff and contractor accounting department performing his "accounting functions". Why hasn't Washington called him to settle our national problems? Maybe some have heard that one of the board members called it a shell game.
Residents were not provided the proposed 2014 budget. As should be, we will receive it in our annual meeting packet. It is unfortunate that it will all be said and done when we get it. I'm not saying the board did anything wrong in not publishing it. There should, however be concern, about this budget. When the majority of your board votes to accept hiding detail, telling people they "don't understand", there is a real problem..
The Wedgefield Examiner provided a history of our budgets in another article. We will publish the September financial report. It has changed once again. The information is even more limited than the previous report. Our treasurer tells us that HE WILL HAVE ALL THE CORRECT AND RIGHT NUMBERS BY 2014. HE IS CORRECTING EVERYTHING. HE IS TAKING THE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS FROM OVER 200 TO 60! First, he slaps Cline and McMillin in the face with his righteousness. They are our past two treasurers. Second, how could there be so many incorrect numbers? We were audited every year. Finally, what are his credentials to make these claims and adjustments? What are the credentials of his accounting department? Don't go with this is a slap at the finance committee. He has a staff and contractor accounting department performing his "accounting functions". Why hasn't Washington called him to settle our national problems? Maybe some have heard that one of the board members called it a shell game.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE SEPTEMBER 17TH WPA BOARD MEETING
This will be short. It has been a long day and the board meeting just made it longer. I can't say it was a waste of time because it is important to see our board at work administering our funds, in the interests of Wedgefield Plantation Association????????????? Maybe not in our best interests but in the interests of the various board member egos. Dependent on who you are, whether you bow to them and their view, you could be treated poorly, ignored, and yes, once again if you are with them, you can do what you would like as an audience "MEMBER", and the gavel won't fall to reign you in. Yes, one of our Chatty Kathy's was back in action. She whispered, laughed, commented, and at one point laid her head down on a vacant chair to cover her laughter. Your president and your board did nothing! Oh, I forgot, she's "WITH THEM".
History repeated itself in more than one instance. First, in regard to drainage contracts, WE DON'T NEED ENGINEERING even though we have one bid for work, and the drainage chair is sick and tired of delays on projects. He did vote on his motion and abstained after because he didn't want any one saying he was making money on the project, even though he lives, built homes on lots he sold, on a road that had poor drainage from the beginning. Your president saved the day after certain members on the board made fun of board member McBride for trying to insist that they get engineering support. Your president said that he had years of experience working around these types of projects and so did the drainage chair. He did go on to say that neither of them were engineers. Your legal chair did not want to bother with it either. The legal chair, our president, and some others on the board mimicked their behavior of a few years ago, when McBride wanted engineering on a road project. Note to board and residents - YOUR BOARD DIDN'T LISTEN THEN BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT ALL, and our first road project this year is on Duck Pond, a repeat fix to the work done when they knew it all before!
The discussion of the 2014 budget got ugly, the resident whisperer seemed to have a great time during that discussion and your board was rude and crude when too many questions were asked by one of the board members. Did anyone ever tell them that it isn't vote with the gang and keep your mouth closed, but use your brain, gather information, and then vote?
That's all for this evening. More to follow over the next week or so. Projects are going on at our home and The Wedgefield Examiner has been asked to help a few residents with pictures, etc., regarding ARC violations. Stay tuned!
History repeated itself in more than one instance. First, in regard to drainage contracts, WE DON'T NEED ENGINEERING even though we have one bid for work, and the drainage chair is sick and tired of delays on projects. He did vote on his motion and abstained after because he didn't want any one saying he was making money on the project, even though he lives, built homes on lots he sold, on a road that had poor drainage from the beginning. Your president saved the day after certain members on the board made fun of board member McBride for trying to insist that they get engineering support. Your president said that he had years of experience working around these types of projects and so did the drainage chair. He did go on to say that neither of them were engineers. Your legal chair did not want to bother with it either. The legal chair, our president, and some others on the board mimicked their behavior of a few years ago, when McBride wanted engineering on a road project. Note to board and residents - YOUR BOARD DIDN'T LISTEN THEN BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT ALL, and our first road project this year is on Duck Pond, a repeat fix to the work done when they knew it all before!
The discussion of the 2014 budget got ugly, the resident whisperer seemed to have a great time during that discussion and your board was rude and crude when too many questions were asked by one of the board members. Did anyone ever tell them that it isn't vote with the gang and keep your mouth closed, but use your brain, gather information, and then vote?
That's all for this evening. More to follow over the next week or so. Projects are going on at our home and The Wedgefield Examiner has been asked to help a few residents with pictures, etc., regarding ARC violations. Stay tuned!
Sunday, September 8, 2013
WPA FINANCIAL AND LEGAL HISTORY HAVE AN IRONICAL TWIST
As the Wedgefield Examiner researched the history of the WPA financial reporting to residents we ended up with a walk through a history that touches finance and legal. It is ironical that sometimes facts collide and leave you asking how we allowed "this" to happen? The facts are this, much of our recent financial and legal reporting have collided with fact, to land in the lap of our legal chair. In late 2009 the first assessments were sent with a $5,000 assessment per canal lot owner, and $125.00 increase to all lot owners, to cover the dredging. A letter was sent in mass to members by what many later termed as the three Bobs. The letter encouraged members to hold assessment funds relating to the dredging, and place them in Anderson bank. Literally, 3 resident "Bobs" encouraged the general membership to withhold a portion of assessments approved by a public vote of the board. What happens to people such as the three "Bobs"? One "Bob" is elected to the board, and with this letter public to all, your president J. Walton, appoints him as legal chair. The new legal chair "Bob" nominates a second of the letter writing "Bobs" to the legal committee. Many on your current board vote to approve the second "Bob" to the legal committee. We've seen the history of the financial reports. For months and months we hear how our treasurers are working with legal to collect unpaid assessments. Some are old, many are the members who followed the advice of the three "Bobs". Now legal chair "Bob", backed by the letter writing "Bob" on his very legal committee, is working with the WPA attorney, seeking approvals to fund the attorney and court proceedings to collect the unpaid assessments from people who believed the letter writing "three Bobs". How did you elect the "Bob" who is legal chair now? How did you elect a president who appointed "letter writing Bob", as legal chair? How did you elect board members who approved the second letter writing "Bob" to the legal committee? Your president and legal chair are running for re-election to the board. They are confident that once again you will over look their history. They are so sure that no one else would run to fight against their re-election. If you listened to the "Bobs" and now they are helping a board put liens on your home or foreclose, how confident are you that you can ever trust them again? Sometimes we miss the boat and take bad advise. When you miss the boat, know it, and promote those who mislead you, you could be guilty of blind trust.
Friday, September 6, 2013
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE CHANGING FINANCIAL REPORTS PROVIDED TO THE MEMBERS. WHEN OUR BOARD SAYS THEY HAVE THE EXPERTISE, ARE OUR REPORTS DUMBED DOWN TO LIMIT OUR INFORMATION?
The Wedgefield Examiner has been frustrated by the ever changing financial reports provided to residents. After each of our annual meetings one third of our board changes. As residents, we elect the board. Shortly after the annual meeting the board holds a reorganization meeting to elect the officers of the board. One of the most critical officer positions is treasurer. The history presented below will show that each treasurer then reformats the type of information we will receive. If you attend meetings regularly, or read the minutes of fully transcribed meetings, or listen to the tapes, you will note that each treasurer declares that things will be changing to make financial reports better for you. Most declare that the board has the expertise to handle the accounting. The Wedgefield Examiner reviewed the reports provided to residents on the WPA website for the three years from 2010 through 2013. To date, our most recent complete financial report was through July 31, 2013. Therefore, we looked at July for each of the other years. There wasn't consistency in reporting. During the examined period of time, we had five treasurers. We started with 2010 because that was a year when we had a CPA performing the accounting and reporting service. NOTE: If the financial reports are more than one page, we've provided the first page- only.
HERE IS A RECORD OF THE REPORTS MADE AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS FOR EACH YEAR
July 2010:
Members received (1) Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Balance - Income Tax Basis (not provided on blog), (2)Statement of Revenues and Expenses - Budget VS Actual Income Tax Basis. Members were able to see at a glance, year to date expenses and revenues, amount budgeted, how much over or under, the association was on any given line item. Additionally, all checks were written by the CPA firm after board and staff presented proper documentation, to support the check request. Once the checks were prepared by the CPA, two board officers signed them. This becomes important as we review the years that follow, after the association returned to board managed in house, month to month accounting. As you review the report samples for each year provided below, you'll note that as residents, we begin to see substantial change - a limiting of the information provided to residents. It should be noted that in July of 2010 there was a recall, the board reorganized, and we had a new treasurer - our second, who brought the old in house accounting program - TOPPS back. He added hours to our paid staff time, paid to have the system reinstated, ignored previously approved Finance Committee members, and put his own committee in place. but kept the accountant. The treasurer also authored several financial oriented by-law changes to be voted on at the annual meeting. The Statement of Revenues and Expenses Budget VS Actual Income Tax Basis is provided below.
July 2011:
Members were receiving the world of finance and reporting by our third treasurer in a twelve to 14 month period. This treasurer fired the accountant - making such public disparaging comments about the professional, that he was threatened with a lawsuit. It happened. Did he ever notify the membership from the board table that he had placed our association in such legal jeopardy? NO! This treasurer brought accounting in house, hired a contract bookkeeper ( He called this person an accountant but would not allow members to review the individual's credentials, or the independent contract.), who was assisted by our association paid staff person. As residents we received a one page monthly report called - Current Monthly Financial Report Synopsis. This report has 13 lines, including sub totals, and totals. This was the beginning of poor financial reporting to members. Financial operations went down hill from here. Many of the board members that allowed this to happen sit at the board table today. This treasurer authored a contract without a total contract amount and gave the previously no show for months contractor, a 40- 50% advance on the contract. He later stated that he had to do it because if he didn't two of the other board officers would have signed the check. The check books were in house. Additionally, we were provided what some might call a check register. No figures appear on the record. It is a list of recipients and a list of the officers who signed the checks. Review the reports on the WPA website. Can you determine the total amount budgeted? How do we stand year to date in each of the line items, according to budget? During the 2011 annual meeting, this treasurer reported that the 2010 audit was in and that the report noted that there were undocumented payments made (no receipts) to individuals - some of them board members, in the second half of 2010, after the recall. I wasn't on the board in 2010 but I had volunteered on the Christmas decorating, turned in receipts, and received payments. I was named as one of the people who had received reimbursements, without receipts. With a current board member making that claim, I stated I had turned in receipts and could describe the documents. The office staff person who received them went to a file and provided them. They had not been filed properly or provided to the auditor.
July 2012:
Members were receiving monthly financial reports from our fourth treasurer in 2 years. We received a 14 line - Monthly Financial Report Synopsis. There is a note posted on the WPA website that states, "Expense Ledger available upon request". This treasurer worked with the in house staff noted in the 2011 description. The management firm took over for a few months. The reports changed, and almost monthly, the treasurer reported there were errors, or corrections needed to be made. It should be noted that during 2012, our future 2013 treasurer introduced assignment of our reserves according his calculations for assignment, and the board accepted it and began to draw funds from current year into reserves. Important? Yes. First, residents who asked for his formula of allocating reserves, weren't answered. Shouldn't there be a monthly report on how the reserves are being used and the amount of each category, with growth and reductions for approved expenses?
July 2013:
There is another reorganization meeting and yes, we are at treasurer number five. As members, we have a enhanced - Revenue and Expenditures Synopsis - 3 pages. This treasurer hires what he terms as accountant, supposedly very part time, and brings our paid staff person into the day to day accounting entries. The new accountant, declares during an interview with another board member, that she is not an accountant, but a bookkeeper. Our treasurer writes her job description and leaves off all education and certification requirements. As treasurer he develops a "off the shelf contract" for a reserve study. We've talked enough about how they tied the hands of the contractor. Once the reserve study is in, our treasurer attempts to call for a board vote on a 2014 budget, using his, not the reserve assignment percentages, contained in the study. The projected 2014 budget will come to a board vote at the September meeting. Will there be a budget for operating and a projected budget for the flow of money in and out of our reserves? We'll see.
The Wedgefield Examiner goes back further into the financial reports:
After I reviewed the July Financial reports from 2010 through 2013, I wondered if there was another board, or board treasurer who reported the total amount budgeted in each category, year to date expense or income, and whether the board was over, or under projections. I went back to 2008. In January 2009 the board hired the CPA firm. The 2008 treasurer was a known Concerned Citizen who had served as treasurer off and on, for almost 10 years. This treasurer must have felt that you had a right to know. Here is the top portion of that report. FINAL COMMENTS FOLLOW THE DOCUMENT.
COMMENTS:
The question we started with in the headline of this article - "Are our reports dumbed down to limit our information?", can be answered now. We will each have to answer for ourselves. I believe they have been dumbed down to limit our information. They have been dumbed down to suit the need for control by our treasurers and their boards. They've trusted that you won't notice, that you'll let them do as they please, and relay how and what information they see fit. Each board has claimed, in numerous arenas, that they have the expertise. Shouldn't our funds, our most important asset be managed by a CPA, who has to tell the monthly accounting story, according to sound financial practices - not whims? These reports look like a strange magic act designed to cover and confuse, rather than report.
HERE IS A RECORD OF THE REPORTS MADE AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS FOR EACH YEAR
July 2010:
Members received (1) Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Balance - Income Tax Basis (not provided on blog), (2)Statement of Revenues and Expenses - Budget VS Actual Income Tax Basis. Members were able to see at a glance, year to date expenses and revenues, amount budgeted, how much over or under, the association was on any given line item. Additionally, all checks were written by the CPA firm after board and staff presented proper documentation, to support the check request. Once the checks were prepared by the CPA, two board officers signed them. This becomes important as we review the years that follow, after the association returned to board managed in house, month to month accounting. As you review the report samples for each year provided below, you'll note that as residents, we begin to see substantial change - a limiting of the information provided to residents. It should be noted that in July of 2010 there was a recall, the board reorganized, and we had a new treasurer - our second, who brought the old in house accounting program - TOPPS back. He added hours to our paid staff time, paid to have the system reinstated, ignored previously approved Finance Committee members, and put his own committee in place. but kept the accountant. The treasurer also authored several financial oriented by-law changes to be voted on at the annual meeting. The Statement of Revenues and Expenses Budget VS Actual Income Tax Basis is provided below.
July 2011:
Members were receiving the world of finance and reporting by our third treasurer in a twelve to 14 month period. This treasurer fired the accountant - making such public disparaging comments about the professional, that he was threatened with a lawsuit. It happened. Did he ever notify the membership from the board table that he had placed our association in such legal jeopardy? NO! This treasurer brought accounting in house, hired a contract bookkeeper ( He called this person an accountant but would not allow members to review the individual's credentials, or the independent contract.), who was assisted by our association paid staff person. As residents we received a one page monthly report called - Current Monthly Financial Report Synopsis. This report has 13 lines, including sub totals, and totals. This was the beginning of poor financial reporting to members. Financial operations went down hill from here. Many of the board members that allowed this to happen sit at the board table today. This treasurer authored a contract without a total contract amount and gave the previously no show for months contractor, a 40- 50% advance on the contract. He later stated that he had to do it because if he didn't two of the other board officers would have signed the check. The check books were in house. Additionally, we were provided what some might call a check register. No figures appear on the record. It is a list of recipients and a list of the officers who signed the checks. Review the reports on the WPA website. Can you determine the total amount budgeted? How do we stand year to date in each of the line items, according to budget? During the 2011 annual meeting, this treasurer reported that the 2010 audit was in and that the report noted that there were undocumented payments made (no receipts) to individuals - some of them board members, in the second half of 2010, after the recall. I wasn't on the board in 2010 but I had volunteered on the Christmas decorating, turned in receipts, and received payments. I was named as one of the people who had received reimbursements, without receipts. With a current board member making that claim, I stated I had turned in receipts and could describe the documents. The office staff person who received them went to a file and provided them. They had not been filed properly or provided to the auditor.
July 2012:
Members were receiving monthly financial reports from our fourth treasurer in 2 years. We received a 14 line - Monthly Financial Report Synopsis. There is a note posted on the WPA website that states, "Expense Ledger available upon request". This treasurer worked with the in house staff noted in the 2011 description. The management firm took over for a few months. The reports changed, and almost monthly, the treasurer reported there were errors, or corrections needed to be made. It should be noted that during 2012, our future 2013 treasurer introduced assignment of our reserves according his calculations for assignment, and the board accepted it and began to draw funds from current year into reserves. Important? Yes. First, residents who asked for his formula of allocating reserves, weren't answered. Shouldn't there be a monthly report on how the reserves are being used and the amount of each category, with growth and reductions for approved expenses?
July 2013:
There is another reorganization meeting and yes, we are at treasurer number five. As members, we have a enhanced - Revenue and Expenditures Synopsis - 3 pages. This treasurer hires what he terms as accountant, supposedly very part time, and brings our paid staff person into the day to day accounting entries. The new accountant, declares during an interview with another board member, that she is not an accountant, but a bookkeeper. Our treasurer writes her job description and leaves off all education and certification requirements. As treasurer he develops a "off the shelf contract" for a reserve study. We've talked enough about how they tied the hands of the contractor. Once the reserve study is in, our treasurer attempts to call for a board vote on a 2014 budget, using his, not the reserve assignment percentages, contained in the study. The projected 2014 budget will come to a board vote at the September meeting. Will there be a budget for operating and a projected budget for the flow of money in and out of our reserves? We'll see.
The Wedgefield Examiner goes back further into the financial reports:
After I reviewed the July Financial reports from 2010 through 2013, I wondered if there was another board, or board treasurer who reported the total amount budgeted in each category, year to date expense or income, and whether the board was over, or under projections. I went back to 2008. In January 2009 the board hired the CPA firm. The 2008 treasurer was a known Concerned Citizen who had served as treasurer off and on, for almost 10 years. This treasurer must have felt that you had a right to know. Here is the top portion of that report. FINAL COMMENTS FOLLOW THE DOCUMENT.
COMMENTS:
The question we started with in the headline of this article - "Are our reports dumbed down to limit our information?", can be answered now. We will each have to answer for ourselves. I believe they have been dumbed down to limit our information. They have been dumbed down to suit the need for control by our treasurers and their boards. They've trusted that you won't notice, that you'll let them do as they please, and relay how and what information they see fit. Each board has claimed, in numerous arenas, that they have the expertise. Shouldn't our funds, our most important asset be managed by a CPA, who has to tell the monthly accounting story, according to sound financial practices - not whims? These reports look like a strange magic act designed to cover and confuse, rather than report.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER HAS EXPERIENCED EQUIPMENT FAILURE
The financial report and ARC violation articles have been delayed due to a problem with the computer. Both articles require import of pictures and documents. The computer was down for a day and a half. We have had the problem fixed. The first article should appear some time on Friday, September 6. Thank you for your patience.
News dog, Brady says STAY TUNED.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)