We'll take these issues in order. First, here is the proposed by-law:
"Under no circumstance shall the Board of Directors enter into an agreement with any lender, public or private, for the purpose of procuring funds in excess of $15,000 without securing the approval of the membership of the Association by a referendum, executed at a duly called meeting of said membership as identified in article VI, Sections 2 and 3 of the By-laws. Said meeting must conform to the guidelines set forth in article VI, Sections 2 and 3 of the By-laws. A Quorum of 1/3 of eligible voters (members in good standing) must be present in person or by proxy at the duly called meeting for the vote to be valid. The vote may also be obtained at the annual meeting. The referendum must pass by a simple majority of votes cast."
The Covenants (Final lines of section (9).) say:
"The funds derived from said assessment shall be used for the payment of maintenance expenses of the subdivision and for any other purposes necessary or desirable in the opinion of the Board of Directors of Wedgefield Plantation Association for the general benefit of the subdivision. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WEDGEFIELD PLANTATION ASSOCIATION IN THE EXPENDITURE OF SAID FUNDS SHALL BE FINAL."
The by-law allowing the membership to bring a change to a vote states:
ARTICLE XIII, AMENDMENTS TO BY-LAWS, Section 1: "Proposed alterations, amendments, or proposals to repeal the By-Laws can be made only by WPA members in good standing, and must be submitted to and approved by the Legal Committee prior to being voted on by the WPA Membership. These By-Laws may be altered, amended, or repealed and new By-Laws may be adopted by two-thirds of the votes in good standing present at the Annual Members' meeting either in person or by proxy provided that notice thereof is mailed to the eligible voters not less than twenty days prior to the date of the meeting."
NO OPTION IS AVAILABLE TO THE MEMBERSHIP, OR THE BOARD IN REGARD TO THE COVENANTS. THEY STAND AND CANNOT BE CHANGED. In the past, this very legal committee, has denied putting a by-law change on the ballot because it conflicted with our covenants.
Residents have the right to submit their by-law changes to the board to be considered as to whether they meet a legal test, and if so, brought to a vote by the general membership, at the annual meeting. First, our submissions must pass the scrutiny of our legal committee, who may in turn take it to the attorney for review and opinion, in determination as to whether it can appear on the ballot. Did the legal committee send this by-law change to the attorney of record? Did your legal chair get the opinion in writing so the legal committee, fellow board members, and the membership can request the opportunity to review it?
The October legal report has been reviewed. Listen the tape at the Wedgefield Times. In regard to this by-law moving to ballot, our legal chair reports that it can. He tells us that it "limits" the board's ability to barrow money beyond $15,000. He states that he did get the legal opinion in writing and it is available for review. It is a surprise in the respect that it limits the power set forth in the covenants. We will write the board and ask to review the opinion.
In closing, it comes as a surprise that the legal chair got the opinion in writing. This very same legal chair refuses to get opinions in writing in almost every other instance. We'll review the opinion. This particular by-law reeks of our own home grown legal party - the concerned citizens. Our legal chair and at least one other member of his committee have been active members in that party. Both of these individuals wrote to residents and advised them to hold their assessment payments in escrow, in what could be viewed as an attempt to cause default on the last loan. As to the legal opinion, you'll remember that each side of the last lawsuit, had written legal opinions, supporting their side. It looks as though our board attorney of record supports not all of the membership, but our legal chairs' side in allowing this to go to ballot. This very same attorney denied the 2011 recall petition that utilized the same state law used in 2010 by one of its leaders - our legal chair. In the past, fear tactics were used in regard to our reserves and expenditures. They'd ask, "What if a big storm devastated our community?" What if a huge storm hit and we didn't have enough money for clean up and recovery? Read the restrictions for calling for a vote. We'd be from now until forever, before the vote could be taken. Currently, our roads, drainage, etc., projects come out of reserves, at the whim of this board. They've even made changes to the reserve study. What if we were hit by that big storm and didn't have reserves? Would $15,000 take care of it?
I'd suggest you vote "NO" on this by-law. It reeks of prejudice. It is in conflict with our covenants. Right now if you live in the Enclave, or take your request to your favorite board member, you get served. That is the kind of power this board wants to maintain, they aren't worried about the future and how future fair minded, boards' hands might be tied. Think that is hard? I listened to this very same unbiased (????) legal chair speak about the other by-law change appearing on the ballot. If approved it would insist the board hire a CPA to do our books. He tainted everything when he cast his opinion on it saying that we had done that before (CPA handling the books), "without a whole lot of success". His opinion. He spent far more time embellishing the benefits of restricting the board's ability to borrow. More tainting.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
CONFLICT OF INTEREST - LACK OF COMMON SENSE & ETHICS - The Latest Example - The Gate House Fix
NOTE: The Wedgefield Examiner has transcribed a tape of the October WPA Board Meeting to the best of our ability. It is advised that you go to The Wedgefield Times and review this portion of the Grounds' Report, given by Al DeMarchi. The article presented below will relate what occurred, and at times include direct quotes. Quotes will be presented in quotation marks, in blue type, and underlined ( Please remember that the board's conversation is often interrupted, disjointed, etc.). Comments will be provided in red type and inserted as necessary. Events, flow of information (non quotes, non comments) will be in black type.
DeMarchi begins the report stating that he has a couple of things to talk about under grounds. The first item will be the gate house. He states, "We went out and solicited bids for the repair of the gate house out here. It was basically a two stage process. What we did, we asked them to do the repair - replace windows and the door jams, take a look at the removal of the dry wall, because of extensive mold in there and do other repairs and putting the gutter up. So they were given a scope of work that included gutters, door jams, doors, windows, etc., and they got three bids, OK." Cline, "Wow, we're as close to getting....." DeMarchi, "We have a bid of $1,298.98 from WALTON CONSTRUCTION. We have from (sounds like Recorder - name of company. We'll refer to it as the "R" company.)) a bid of $1,303 but he has a subject to here. He needs to inspect the dry wall & look behind it an - and will only provide a cost estimate on that portion of the work after he has done an inspection. The last one here is Brinnson Enterprises. He has a price of $3,415 on the gate house. The other item was to replace four pane down in the marina house and that one bid is $250, the other bid was for $125, and this one here - $63.58. There are three bids. This does not include doing all of the inside of the gate house. We don't... know what the condition is....(something about dry wall and two by fours)...save that place but it does include windows, DOORS, GUTTER....." Someone on the board asks a question that isn't clear on the tape. Garrison asks how many windows and DeMarchi answers. President Walton, " says doors were not included - just windows" DeMarchi mumbles something as it appears he is reading specs. DeMarchi continues saying, "In some cases, he's replacing the doors. In this case that probably why price is so astronomical. This one is going to replace & repair door jams, etc." McBride says, "THESE ARE NOT IDENTICAL SPECS AND BIDS AT ALL." DeMarchi, "They were. The scopes of work went out the same. The contractor, likely what they do, if he doesn't want to fool with replacing the jams, he's electing to replace the entire door, which is his prerogative." President Walton, "It's spelled out in here." DeMarchi, "Yes he did spell it out." Cline, "Should the doors be replaced?" DeMarchi, "They are steel doors and going to last longer than you and I." Garrison, "Now we're talking about....Not interior work , right?" DeMarchi, "Right, this does not include interior work. We don't know. We don't know what condition is, other than in the specifications it does call for the replacement of trim around the windows and stuff provided the dry wall - the structure is sound and worth repairing." Garrison, "So what we are likely to find is that replacing windows......door on spending $1,300 or there about and basically .....and gutters. Basically have the outer shell straightened out." DeMarchi, " Yes, repair outside, electrical plug. My recommendation would be to get a timer & set up a dehumidifier in there to run like four hours a day because the mold will just come back. It is shameful to allow it to deteriorate to this point, OK.
COMMENTS: We pause here. The quotes above bring the first indications of conflict of interest and the related benefits of being a contractor bidder, who happens to be a board member. Before we get into the direct benefits of President Walton knowing intimately the property involved, think about the ethics. Board members, let alone board members of a non profit, let alone the fact that it is the president, should act and govern in such a manner that there is no possible hint of conflict of interest or self gain - employment and direct compensation. That is just an ethical basic in the realm of non profit governance.
Remember, Walton has intimate knowledge of any of the buildings, drainage, etc., because of his role of board member and president.
Look at the bid responses. One bidder wants the opportunity to look at the dry wall. One bidder is going to replace the doors. DeMarchi, in his initial statements, includes the doors and mentions dry wall. Later, Walton tells us it doesn't include the doors. What kind of expert writes this mess, this so called solicitation? Who determined the entities that would get the solicitation? Was there a mailing list of prospective bidders? Did ANYONE on this board make phone calls and discuss this project with any of those who bid? Who on the board determined that they would ask Walton to bid? What discussions took place amongst board members before they included Walton in the bidding process? Who on the board were privy to discussions? It wasn't the full board. You'll note later that McBride is surprised, he asks for clarification as to whether our president is the Walton who is bidding.
As far as the grand specs of this mess, they believe there is damage under the dry wall. I certainly am not a builder. I have had door jams replaced and there is face trim on the interior and exterior. The same thing with the windows. Why would you attempt to lay new wood on what they seem to believe is damaged, possibly mold ridden dry wall and you'll see later they aren't sure of the two by fours under it.? Why wouldn't reliable contractors want to look at the conditions, prior to bidding. We know one bidder, our president has that advantage.
I don't trust their bidding process. Your board members have let it slide on one another's word. I personally went to the office and reviewed the bids for DeMarchi's first drainage project in HIS home grounds - the Enclave. He wanted Walton to bid then. There was no spec package. There were two bids. Great Lawns was one of the bidders and lost the bid to a second bidder by $20. The second bid had crossed out figures on it that lowered the bid to the degree that there was only a $20 difference in their favor..
So far this project appears in conflict of interest, poorly developed specs, poor management, and lacks common sense, and once again you'll see some of these members take liberties in verbally abusing a questioning board member. You've let them get away with it before so you've added wind beneath their wings in doing it again. Perhaps this is why no one would run for board this year, except these same players.
More discussion follows about maintaining the outside of the gate house because it is a historical monument for Wedgefield. They talk about DeMarchi's humidifier, not maintaining the inside of the gate house, etc. Interestingly enough you hear a lot of discussion at the board table that doesn't come through clearly on the tape. Many board members are speaking. The gavel never hits the table, except once. We'll go back to transcription as DeMarchi prepares to ask the board for the funding for this project.
DeMarchi, "At this time I'd like to have the money approved." There is a question from someone on the board that can't be heard on the tape that sounds like someone is asking about the two lowest bids. DeMarchi says, "....quotes "R" company and Walton's bids." McBride, 'IS THAT JACKY WALTON?" Watch DeMarchi try taking the question around the pole instead of answering it directly. Really, his answer looks like an insult to the intelligence of any person witnessing, or listening to this meeting. DeMarchi, "Walton Construction Company, 2610 South Island Road." McBride, " I would think Jacky, this is a conflict of interest for you." President Walton, "Well I want to just say that - let me explain something. Al, had given these contractors a scope of work. Are you going to set me aside just because I'm a board member trying to help out the plantation?" McBride, "All I'm saying is - covenants and by-laws - this would be a conflict of interest for you." DeMarchi, "I don't see that." McBride, "Explain." President Walton, "I would like to know why....if it comes to me being a contractor, how could it be a conflict of interest. I sent in a sealed bid like everybody else." DeMarchi, "Let me clarify something here. I - since I just opened these bids, OK. Walton Construction, Jacky Walton is the only one of the three, I'm sorry, Walton responded to item 3 which is the gate house proposal. As far as the dry wall and doing all the replacement work there and Brinnson's price was $5,610 and Walton's price was $1,609. Now John these were sealed bids. They all received the same scope of work. Mr. Walton, OUR PRESIDENT, did not receive any preferential treatment. He's done work in the plantation here for years, and I think your remarks rather discriminatory." McBride, "I don't agree." DeMarchi, "You have no basis for it." McBride, "It's a conflict of interest. You get any attorney and suggest you do this. They'll say that having someone on the board work for the plantation is a conflict of interest because first, he's our president. This is good enough? This is the way it is going to be?" Yelling begins at the board table and the gavel is pounded. President Walton, "...like every contractor, I submitted a sealed bid. I don't know who came in first or whatever, because I have not talked to...So where is the conflict, is what I don't understand."
Please listen to this portion of the tape at the Wedgefield Times. I've transcribed more but it is long and ugly. McBride continues to make the point that he feels this is conflict of interest. Walton says he'll withdraw his bid. DeMarchi says he won't allow it. Garrison jumps in and just keeps it going, in Garrison fashion. McBride, ASKS TWO, IF NOT THREE TIMES, FOR GARRISON TO GET A LEGAL OPINION ON THIS. McBride fights for his point speaking to Wedgefield's long history of mishandled contracting. Garrison quibbles. Cline interjects and laughs at points. DeMarchi adds more argument. He begins to name all the people in the contracting business he knows. Garrison tells McBride his exceptions are MORONIC. Cline begins to talk about discussing it as a human being and Walton has done work here and there aren't complaints and we know where he lives. Anderson looks up conflict of interest and reads a definition. In the end DeMarchi wants to put forth a motion to do stage I and stage II (inside of the gate house). Garrison just wants stage I done. DeMarchi puts forth a motion to do stage I and the window of the marina house. Your board votes 5 - 1 to approve. McBride has voted no. Walton abstains.
COMMENTS: As I listened and transcribed the tape over a few days, there came times when I had to shut it off and walk away. I won't call myself an expert, as so many on this board easily and frequently do. I have been on boards, worked for non profit boards - large and small, over 25 years. I have never seen the ugly behavior of this board, the disregard for other elected or appointed to the board, the disregard for "above board" management, disregard for common sense and ethics, and the plain disregard for the audience they were to serve, in this case - you.
As you listen to the tape you'll note that Walton jumps in to defend himself several times - his right to bid. If his business is doing so well, why would he ever put himself, or our association in this position? If his goal is for the good of Wedgefield and he feels his contract work is so valuable to all of us, he has options. He can resign from the board and remove himself from the ballot, and bid like anyone else. If your legal chair is so confident that his opinion is correct, why wouldn't he go to the attorney for an opinion? Walton, Garrison, and DeMarchi labor at this too long in their attacks and they protest far too much. EVERY BOARD MEMBER SHOULD HAVE DEMANDED A WRITTEN OPINION ON THIS SUBJECT IN ORDER TO MAKE A LEGAL, ETHICAL DECISION ON THIS MATTER.
As I worked to listen and transcribe, I also read the most recent Wedgefield Wragg. Garrison is so pleased that the board had not had to defend themselves against law suit in 2013. Our governance is so tangled in Wedgefield that most members probably nodded yes - good. You are as responsible as this dysfunctional board if you don't attend meetings and don't follow what is happening in the very place you live. If you were responsible enough to keep abreast of the facts, take exception to what this board is doing, you would have been insulted enough to take action. Garrison played a huge role in the history of the last lawsuit, he even helped fund it. This abrasive board may have caused you to fear taking action, fear questioning, because they have wore you out with their antics.
DeMarchi begins the report stating that he has a couple of things to talk about under grounds. The first item will be the gate house. He states, "We went out and solicited bids for the repair of the gate house out here. It was basically a two stage process. What we did, we asked them to do the repair - replace windows and the door jams, take a look at the removal of the dry wall, because of extensive mold in there and do other repairs and putting the gutter up. So they were given a scope of work that included gutters, door jams, doors, windows, etc., and they got three bids, OK." Cline, "Wow, we're as close to getting....." DeMarchi, "We have a bid of $1,298.98 from WALTON CONSTRUCTION. We have from (sounds like Recorder - name of company. We'll refer to it as the "R" company.)) a bid of $1,303 but he has a subject to here. He needs to inspect the dry wall & look behind it an - and will only provide a cost estimate on that portion of the work after he has done an inspection. The last one here is Brinnson Enterprises. He has a price of $3,415 on the gate house. The other item was to replace four pane down in the marina house and that one bid is $250, the other bid was for $125, and this one here - $63.58. There are three bids. This does not include doing all of the inside of the gate house. We don't... know what the condition is....(something about dry wall and two by fours)...save that place but it does include windows, DOORS, GUTTER....." Someone on the board asks a question that isn't clear on the tape. Garrison asks how many windows and DeMarchi answers. President Walton, " says doors were not included - just windows" DeMarchi mumbles something as it appears he is reading specs. DeMarchi continues saying, "In some cases, he's replacing the doors. In this case that probably why price is so astronomical. This one is going to replace & repair door jams, etc." McBride says, "THESE ARE NOT IDENTICAL SPECS AND BIDS AT ALL." DeMarchi, "They were. The scopes of work went out the same. The contractor, likely what they do, if he doesn't want to fool with replacing the jams, he's electing to replace the entire door, which is his prerogative." President Walton, "It's spelled out in here." DeMarchi, "Yes he did spell it out." Cline, "Should the doors be replaced?" DeMarchi, "They are steel doors and going to last longer than you and I." Garrison, "Now we're talking about....Not interior work , right?" DeMarchi, "Right, this does not include interior work. We don't know. We don't know what condition is, other than in the specifications it does call for the replacement of trim around the windows and stuff provided the dry wall - the structure is sound and worth repairing." Garrison, "So what we are likely to find is that replacing windows......door on spending $1,300 or there about and basically .....and gutters. Basically have the outer shell straightened out." DeMarchi, " Yes, repair outside, electrical plug. My recommendation would be to get a timer & set up a dehumidifier in there to run like four hours a day because the mold will just come back. It is shameful to allow it to deteriorate to this point, OK.
COMMENTS: We pause here. The quotes above bring the first indications of conflict of interest and the related benefits of being a contractor bidder, who happens to be a board member. Before we get into the direct benefits of President Walton knowing intimately the property involved, think about the ethics. Board members, let alone board members of a non profit, let alone the fact that it is the president, should act and govern in such a manner that there is no possible hint of conflict of interest or self gain - employment and direct compensation. That is just an ethical basic in the realm of non profit governance.
Remember, Walton has intimate knowledge of any of the buildings, drainage, etc., because of his role of board member and president.
Look at the bid responses. One bidder wants the opportunity to look at the dry wall. One bidder is going to replace the doors. DeMarchi, in his initial statements, includes the doors and mentions dry wall. Later, Walton tells us it doesn't include the doors. What kind of expert writes this mess, this so called solicitation? Who determined the entities that would get the solicitation? Was there a mailing list of prospective bidders? Did ANYONE on this board make phone calls and discuss this project with any of those who bid? Who on the board determined that they would ask Walton to bid? What discussions took place amongst board members before they included Walton in the bidding process? Who on the board were privy to discussions? It wasn't the full board. You'll note later that McBride is surprised, he asks for clarification as to whether our president is the Walton who is bidding.
As far as the grand specs of this mess, they believe there is damage under the dry wall. I certainly am not a builder. I have had door jams replaced and there is face trim on the interior and exterior. The same thing with the windows. Why would you attempt to lay new wood on what they seem to believe is damaged, possibly mold ridden dry wall and you'll see later they aren't sure of the two by fours under it.? Why wouldn't reliable contractors want to look at the conditions, prior to bidding. We know one bidder, our president has that advantage.
I don't trust their bidding process. Your board members have let it slide on one another's word. I personally went to the office and reviewed the bids for DeMarchi's first drainage project in HIS home grounds - the Enclave. He wanted Walton to bid then. There was no spec package. There were two bids. Great Lawns was one of the bidders and lost the bid to a second bidder by $20. The second bid had crossed out figures on it that lowered the bid to the degree that there was only a $20 difference in their favor..
So far this project appears in conflict of interest, poorly developed specs, poor management, and lacks common sense, and once again you'll see some of these members take liberties in verbally abusing a questioning board member. You've let them get away with it before so you've added wind beneath their wings in doing it again. Perhaps this is why no one would run for board this year, except these same players.
More discussion follows about maintaining the outside of the gate house because it is a historical monument for Wedgefield. They talk about DeMarchi's humidifier, not maintaining the inside of the gate house, etc. Interestingly enough you hear a lot of discussion at the board table that doesn't come through clearly on the tape. Many board members are speaking. The gavel never hits the table, except once. We'll go back to transcription as DeMarchi prepares to ask the board for the funding for this project.
DeMarchi, "At this time I'd like to have the money approved." There is a question from someone on the board that can't be heard on the tape that sounds like someone is asking about the two lowest bids. DeMarchi says, "....quotes "R" company and Walton's bids." McBride, 'IS THAT JACKY WALTON?" Watch DeMarchi try taking the question around the pole instead of answering it directly. Really, his answer looks like an insult to the intelligence of any person witnessing, or listening to this meeting. DeMarchi, "Walton Construction Company, 2610 South Island Road." McBride, " I would think Jacky, this is a conflict of interest for you." President Walton, "Well I want to just say that - let me explain something. Al, had given these contractors a scope of work. Are you going to set me aside just because I'm a board member trying to help out the plantation?" McBride, "All I'm saying is - covenants and by-laws - this would be a conflict of interest for you." DeMarchi, "I don't see that." McBride, "Explain." President Walton, "I would like to know why....if it comes to me being a contractor, how could it be a conflict of interest. I sent in a sealed bid like everybody else." DeMarchi, "Let me clarify something here. I - since I just opened these bids, OK. Walton Construction, Jacky Walton is the only one of the three, I'm sorry, Walton responded to item 3 which is the gate house proposal. As far as the dry wall and doing all the replacement work there and Brinnson's price was $5,610 and Walton's price was $1,609. Now John these were sealed bids. They all received the same scope of work. Mr. Walton, OUR PRESIDENT, did not receive any preferential treatment. He's done work in the plantation here for years, and I think your remarks rather discriminatory." McBride, "I don't agree." DeMarchi, "You have no basis for it." McBride, "It's a conflict of interest. You get any attorney and suggest you do this. They'll say that having someone on the board work for the plantation is a conflict of interest because first, he's our president. This is good enough? This is the way it is going to be?" Yelling begins at the board table and the gavel is pounded. President Walton, "...like every contractor, I submitted a sealed bid. I don't know who came in first or whatever, because I have not talked to...So where is the conflict, is what I don't understand."
Please listen to this portion of the tape at the Wedgefield Times. I've transcribed more but it is long and ugly. McBride continues to make the point that he feels this is conflict of interest. Walton says he'll withdraw his bid. DeMarchi says he won't allow it. Garrison jumps in and just keeps it going, in Garrison fashion. McBride, ASKS TWO, IF NOT THREE TIMES, FOR GARRISON TO GET A LEGAL OPINION ON THIS. McBride fights for his point speaking to Wedgefield's long history of mishandled contracting. Garrison quibbles. Cline interjects and laughs at points. DeMarchi adds more argument. He begins to name all the people in the contracting business he knows. Garrison tells McBride his exceptions are MORONIC. Cline begins to talk about discussing it as a human being and Walton has done work here and there aren't complaints and we know where he lives. Anderson looks up conflict of interest and reads a definition. In the end DeMarchi wants to put forth a motion to do stage I and stage II (inside of the gate house). Garrison just wants stage I done. DeMarchi puts forth a motion to do stage I and the window of the marina house. Your board votes 5 - 1 to approve. McBride has voted no. Walton abstains.
COMMENTS: As I listened and transcribed the tape over a few days, there came times when I had to shut it off and walk away. I won't call myself an expert, as so many on this board easily and frequently do. I have been on boards, worked for non profit boards - large and small, over 25 years. I have never seen the ugly behavior of this board, the disregard for other elected or appointed to the board, the disregard for "above board" management, disregard for common sense and ethics, and the plain disregard for the audience they were to serve, in this case - you.
As you listen to the tape you'll note that Walton jumps in to defend himself several times - his right to bid. If his business is doing so well, why would he ever put himself, or our association in this position? If his goal is for the good of Wedgefield and he feels his contract work is so valuable to all of us, he has options. He can resign from the board and remove himself from the ballot, and bid like anyone else. If your legal chair is so confident that his opinion is correct, why wouldn't he go to the attorney for an opinion? Walton, Garrison, and DeMarchi labor at this too long in their attacks and they protest far too much. EVERY BOARD MEMBER SHOULD HAVE DEMANDED A WRITTEN OPINION ON THIS SUBJECT IN ORDER TO MAKE A LEGAL, ETHICAL DECISION ON THIS MATTER.
As I worked to listen and transcribe, I also read the most recent Wedgefield Wragg. Garrison is so pleased that the board had not had to defend themselves against law suit in 2013. Our governance is so tangled in Wedgefield that most members probably nodded yes - good. You are as responsible as this dysfunctional board if you don't attend meetings and don't follow what is happening in the very place you live. If you were responsible enough to keep abreast of the facts, take exception to what this board is doing, you would have been insulted enough to take action. Garrison played a huge role in the history of the last lawsuit, he even helped fund it. This abrasive board may have caused you to fear taking action, fear questioning, because they have wore you out with their antics.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
UPDATED OCT. 28, AM: IS THERE EVER A TIME WHEN A BOARD DOESN'T QUESTION ENOUGH AT THE BOARD TABLE? ARE OUR BOARD MEMBERS FAILING TO FULFILL THEIR RESPECTIVE INDIVIDUAL AND COMMITTEE CHAIR RESPONSIBILITIES? YOU'LL BE THE JUDGE. WE'VE TRANSCRIBED A PORTION OF THE TREASURER'S REPORT
UPDATE APPEARS AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE IN BLACK
NOTE: The Wedgefield Examiner has transcribed a portion of the treasurer's report. It is transcribed from a tape of the October WPA Meeting, to the best of our ability. Verify the transcription of this section of the report for yourself by visiting The Wedgefield Times. Your board appears to have determined that it isn't necessary to put the tapes of the meeting on the WPA website. The decision wasn't made at the board table, so once again, it must have been one of those cohesive, behind the scenes decisions. Sorry members, it appears you get what YOU vote for - those you put in office. Transcription is in BLUE, IN QUOTATIONS, AND UNDERLINED. Comments will be in RED.
DeMarchi, "I would like to express my thanks to Carol Zieske.....She did an excellent job of helping me with the accountant by providing me with past records that were either unavailable, or unlocateable (Spell check indicates it is not a word, but it was used by the board member.)."
COMMENTS:
Read the transcription. Listen to the tape. What follows DeMarchi's thank you, is a thank you by our President to DeMarchi for his report. What should have followed was questions. Unless our president and the bulk of the board was completely aware of the record situation mentioned above, a lot of questions should have followed.
*Exactly, what were the records that DeMarchi secured from a resident that should have been in the office?
*Why weren't the records in the office? Has our board become that sloppy with pertinent records?
*How did the resident obtain these records? What other records does she have?
*How did DeMarchi know to go to this resident with a records question? Who did DeMarchi inform on the board that records were missing?
Our president thanks DeMarchi and doesn't have questions. Our Legal Chair doesn't have questions. That is strange. Not one board member asks how we will keep this from happening again. Where's our compliance committee? I forget myself. DeMarchi is in charge of compliance. Unheard of in any strictly run organization, because he is the Treasurer. Up until he changed so many items in the policy manual, the treasurer could not sit on the compliance committee.
Ms. Zieske has not served on the board since late 2008. That year was audited. How could she possess financial records that could be that relative to what DeMarchi is doing in audit or finance now? The board attorney of record in 2009 wrote Ms Zieske asking that she turn over all the records that she had. In 2009 Ms Zieske, along with Wilson and Thomas sued the 2009 board. Why would DeMarchi be thanking her, or seeking records from her, without bringing legal into the conversation? Only in Wedgefield, particularly with this so called cohesive board, could you sue a previous sitting board, and be trusted to provide lost records. It just appears to be more of their good old boy, I'll wash your back you wash mine, board. As members, we are thrown out with the dirty bath water, and lack solid representation. Think that is hard? Read, Conflict of Interest - Lack of Common Sense & Ethics, on this site late Tuesday.
UPDATE: Just a thought about what we are about to face as a membership. President Walton and Legal Chair, Garrison are running unopposed for board this year. There will be three vacancies on the board and your board offers you three candidates. If you review your proxy you will note that you aren't even given the privilege of voting yes or no. If you feel that they are not the men for the job, write "NO" on the line beside their name. If nothing else it is a statement of principle. These men are failing to serve in the best interests of the association. They continually diminish our right to information as residents, abuse the only board member who does question, and conduct our business behind a wall of "we are the experts and we know best", as though we have less intelligence than a herd of cattle. In the next article we'll address their most recent escapade - conflict of interest.
NOTE: The Wedgefield Examiner has transcribed a portion of the treasurer's report. It is transcribed from a tape of the October WPA Meeting, to the best of our ability. Verify the transcription of this section of the report for yourself by visiting The Wedgefield Times. Your board appears to have determined that it isn't necessary to put the tapes of the meeting on the WPA website. The decision wasn't made at the board table, so once again, it must have been one of those cohesive, behind the scenes decisions. Sorry members, it appears you get what YOU vote for - those you put in office. Transcription is in BLUE, IN QUOTATIONS, AND UNDERLINED. Comments will be in RED.
DeMarchi, "I would like to express my thanks to Carol Zieske.....She did an excellent job of helping me with the accountant by providing me with past records that were either unavailable, or unlocateable (Spell check indicates it is not a word, but it was used by the board member.)."
COMMENTS:
Read the transcription. Listen to the tape. What follows DeMarchi's thank you, is a thank you by our President to DeMarchi for his report. What should have followed was questions. Unless our president and the bulk of the board was completely aware of the record situation mentioned above, a lot of questions should have followed.
*Exactly, what were the records that DeMarchi secured from a resident that should have been in the office?
*Why weren't the records in the office? Has our board become that sloppy with pertinent records?
*How did the resident obtain these records? What other records does she have?
*How did DeMarchi know to go to this resident with a records question? Who did DeMarchi inform on the board that records were missing?
Our president thanks DeMarchi and doesn't have questions. Our Legal Chair doesn't have questions. That is strange. Not one board member asks how we will keep this from happening again. Where's our compliance committee? I forget myself. DeMarchi is in charge of compliance. Unheard of in any strictly run organization, because he is the Treasurer. Up until he changed so many items in the policy manual, the treasurer could not sit on the compliance committee.
Ms. Zieske has not served on the board since late 2008. That year was audited. How could she possess financial records that could be that relative to what DeMarchi is doing in audit or finance now? The board attorney of record in 2009 wrote Ms Zieske asking that she turn over all the records that she had. In 2009 Ms Zieske, along with Wilson and Thomas sued the 2009 board. Why would DeMarchi be thanking her, or seeking records from her, without bringing legal into the conversation? Only in Wedgefield, particularly with this so called cohesive board, could you sue a previous sitting board, and be trusted to provide lost records. It just appears to be more of their good old boy, I'll wash your back you wash mine, board. As members, we are thrown out with the dirty bath water, and lack solid representation. Think that is hard? Read, Conflict of Interest - Lack of Common Sense & Ethics, on this site late Tuesday.
UPDATE: Just a thought about what we are about to face as a membership. President Walton and Legal Chair, Garrison are running unopposed for board this year. There will be three vacancies on the board and your board offers you three candidates. If you review your proxy you will note that you aren't even given the privilege of voting yes or no. If you feel that they are not the men for the job, write "NO" on the line beside their name. If nothing else it is a statement of principle. These men are failing to serve in the best interests of the association. They continually diminish our right to information as residents, abuse the only board member who does question, and conduct our business behind a wall of "we are the experts and we know best", as though we have less intelligence than a herd of cattle. In the next article we'll address their most recent escapade - conflict of interest.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
HAS THIS WPA BOARD TAKEN AWAY ANOTHER PIECE OF INFORMATION FROM THE MEMBERSHIP? THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER BELIEVES IT HAS. YOU'LL DECIDE
NOTE: Before we begin, the following is not casting blame, nor the spotlight on our paid WPA staff.
Previous Boards have had a long history of taping our monthly meetings and posting the tape on the WPA website. That hasn't been the case since January of 2013. Go to the WPA website and verify it for yourself. The Wedgefield Examiner has always used, and recommended readers go to The Wedgefield Times to listen to the tape and verify that the transcriptions posted on this blog are accurate. The Wedgefield Examiner has felt that we had complete information when we listened to the tape posted there, rather than the WPA website. Why? I haven't trusted the WPA recordings since 2011 when McMillin learned that the association president had asked the paid staff to erase part of the tape. While McMillin shared the information with a committee and swore them to secrecy, he later made attacks against the individuals who repeated the story, but never brought the information to the board table. Board member, McBride questioned the president at the board table and our president admitted he had asked that a portion of the tape be erased. Garrison, Jacky Walton, McMillin, and Barrier were all board members at the time, and no action was taken against a president who admitted he attempted to alter an association record.
Whether you completely trust the tape, or not, the posted recordings have been a long standing information service to the residents. When, where (It wasn't at the board table.), and why did your board decide to no longer provide the tapes to the membership? We can't depend on the minutes. The minutes have been sanitized. There was a long history of transcribing the tapes word for word and providing the transcription of EXACTLY what was said as the monthly minutes. Many sitting at this very board table determined that was unnecessary. Quite frankly, The Wedgefield Examiner believes it could be that they don't want their unprofessional behavior at the board table revealed anywhere. Their behavior at the board table is often vicious toward anyone on the board that questions their actions and motions, that at times, could be viewed in violation of sound business judgment, and possibly in violation of our governing documents.
The limiting of information to the membership runs rampart with this board. This is just one more example. They don't answer resident questions. If you write to review documents, you often are denied and told they are confidential, receive piece meal documents for review, and are treated like a pariah for asking. If you have an opinion contrary to that of the board, one of the board member's wives might take one of the two monthly residents speaker spots to dress you down during a meeting.. It happened here. We can't review legal opinions because they don't get them in writing.
Who is at fault? Frankly, the entire board, because they have sat back and let this crew diminish our right to information. Your board elects the officers. Do you think our president was unaware that the recordings haven't been available since January 2013? Next in line are the Board Secretary, and because of our bizarre office set up, the Board Treasurer. In the past our paid staff person has put the recording up on the WPA website. Historically, the Board Secretary supervised the office staff. Now, the Treasurer (We don't know for how many hours each week. He hasn't told us.) has made our only paid staff person, part of his "accounting function". In any case, provision of information to the membership isn't important to this board. In fact, failure to post the recordings may be intentional on the part of your board.
We owe a huge thank you to The Wedgefield Times for providing a service that your board fails to.
Previous Boards have had a long history of taping our monthly meetings and posting the tape on the WPA website. That hasn't been the case since January of 2013. Go to the WPA website and verify it for yourself. The Wedgefield Examiner has always used, and recommended readers go to The Wedgefield Times to listen to the tape and verify that the transcriptions posted on this blog are accurate. The Wedgefield Examiner has felt that we had complete information when we listened to the tape posted there, rather than the WPA website. Why? I haven't trusted the WPA recordings since 2011 when McMillin learned that the association president had asked the paid staff to erase part of the tape. While McMillin shared the information with a committee and swore them to secrecy, he later made attacks against the individuals who repeated the story, but never brought the information to the board table. Board member, McBride questioned the president at the board table and our president admitted he had asked that a portion of the tape be erased. Garrison, Jacky Walton, McMillin, and Barrier were all board members at the time, and no action was taken against a president who admitted he attempted to alter an association record.
Whether you completely trust the tape, or not, the posted recordings have been a long standing information service to the residents. When, where (It wasn't at the board table.), and why did your board decide to no longer provide the tapes to the membership? We can't depend on the minutes. The minutes have been sanitized. There was a long history of transcribing the tapes word for word and providing the transcription of EXACTLY what was said as the monthly minutes. Many sitting at this very board table determined that was unnecessary. Quite frankly, The Wedgefield Examiner believes it could be that they don't want their unprofessional behavior at the board table revealed anywhere. Their behavior at the board table is often vicious toward anyone on the board that questions their actions and motions, that at times, could be viewed in violation of sound business judgment, and possibly in violation of our governing documents.
The limiting of information to the membership runs rampart with this board. This is just one more example. They don't answer resident questions. If you write to review documents, you often are denied and told they are confidential, receive piece meal documents for review, and are treated like a pariah for asking. If you have an opinion contrary to that of the board, one of the board member's wives might take one of the two monthly residents speaker spots to dress you down during a meeting.. It happened here. We can't review legal opinions because they don't get them in writing.
Who is at fault? Frankly, the entire board, because they have sat back and let this crew diminish our right to information. Your board elects the officers. Do you think our president was unaware that the recordings haven't been available since January 2013? Next in line are the Board Secretary, and because of our bizarre office set up, the Board Treasurer. In the past our paid staff person has put the recording up on the WPA website. Historically, the Board Secretary supervised the office staff. Now, the Treasurer (We don't know for how many hours each week. He hasn't told us.) has made our only paid staff person, part of his "accounting function". In any case, provision of information to the membership isn't important to this board. In fact, failure to post the recordings may be intentional on the part of your board.
We owe a huge thank you to The Wedgefield Times for providing a service that your board fails to.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
BY-LAW CHANGE #2 DESERVES A "YES" VOTE NOW MORE THAN EVER BEFORE...........IT IS TIME TO GET A CPA IN HERE TO PROTECT OUR FINANCIAL RECORDS, BRING CONSISTENCY TO FINANCIAL REPORTING, AND SOUND ACCOUNTING PRACTICES
First, The Wedgefield Examiner did not write, or put any resident up to writing By-Law Change #2.
Current By-Law: "The Treasurer shall have custody of all property of the Association including funds, securities and evidence of indebtedness. He/she shall keep the books of the Association in accordance with good accounting practices and shall perform other duties incident to the office of Treasurer as may be required by the Board."
By-Law Change: "The Treasurer shall have custody of all property of the Association including funds, securities and evidence of indebtedness. He/she shall along with the Board contract the services of a Certified Public Accountant to keep the books of the Association in accordance with good accounting practices and shall perform other duties incident to the Office of Treasurer as may be required by the Board."
COMMENTS:
Recently, The Wedgefield Examiner provided a history of 5 different treasurers in three years. The reporting to the residents has been all over the place, hardly anything that can be termed "standardized sound accounting practices". The current administration has smirked about the cost of hiring a CPA, yet failed to lay the total cost of our current treasurer's so called "accounting function" on the table. Not one of the people involved in the accounting function holds a MBA, let alone could be called a CPA. Again we are at the whim of the treasurer in power. As with the financial reporting we may be being left intentionally in the dark. These so called EXPERTS on our board may think our residents are too dumb - oops, non expert enough to question.
If the three year financial accounting history presented at this site, bored you, or you felt this board should be left to run with their cohesive expertise, the events of the WPA October meeting should make you stand up and pay attention. Treasurer DeMarchi publicly thanked a concerned citizen for providing him records to complete the 2012 audit. How does this meet the standard of the By-Law quoted above? Remember, "The Treasurer shall have custody". Do we need to require that the board provide a map of the association indicating which homes in the plantation contain our records, financial or otherwise? What excuse could anyone possibly give for this situation? Not one that should be tolerable to any of us.
This board should consider what they are doing. Not only regarding our records, this incident just further indicated their lack of competency in listening to anything this expert treasurer has to say. This very board voted to allow a contract with our current president, who is running for re-election on our 2013 ballots, to repair the gate house. What does that have to do with the treasurer and sound accounting practices? I encourage the board to go to the 2008 audit. During the period audited a board member received funds from the organization for printing services. It was noted in the audit report. Additionally, when the 2009 board put printing out for bids, that particular printer's bid was almost twice that of the firm awarded the bid. Your treasurer voted for our current president to perform services for the very association he presides over. This can only be viewed as a conflict of interest, poor management, poor legal oversight, and a lack of sound accounting, or good sound business practice.
Vote yes on this amendment and at least keep our records out of member homes, standardize our reports, have our books kept by a certified expert - a CPA.
Current By-Law: "The Treasurer shall have custody of all property of the Association including funds, securities and evidence of indebtedness. He/she shall keep the books of the Association in accordance with good accounting practices and shall perform other duties incident to the office of Treasurer as may be required by the Board."
By-Law Change: "The Treasurer shall have custody of all property of the Association including funds, securities and evidence of indebtedness. He/she shall along with the Board contract the services of a Certified Public Accountant to keep the books of the Association in accordance with good accounting practices and shall perform other duties incident to the Office of Treasurer as may be required by the Board."
COMMENTS:
Recently, The Wedgefield Examiner provided a history of 5 different treasurers in three years. The reporting to the residents has been all over the place, hardly anything that can be termed "standardized sound accounting practices". The current administration has smirked about the cost of hiring a CPA, yet failed to lay the total cost of our current treasurer's so called "accounting function" on the table. Not one of the people involved in the accounting function holds a MBA, let alone could be called a CPA. Again we are at the whim of the treasurer in power. As with the financial reporting we may be being left intentionally in the dark. These so called EXPERTS on our board may think our residents are too dumb - oops, non expert enough to question.
If the three year financial accounting history presented at this site, bored you, or you felt this board should be left to run with their cohesive expertise, the events of the WPA October meeting should make you stand up and pay attention. Treasurer DeMarchi publicly thanked a concerned citizen for providing him records to complete the 2012 audit. How does this meet the standard of the By-Law quoted above? Remember, "The Treasurer shall have custody". Do we need to require that the board provide a map of the association indicating which homes in the plantation contain our records, financial or otherwise? What excuse could anyone possibly give for this situation? Not one that should be tolerable to any of us.
This board should consider what they are doing. Not only regarding our records, this incident just further indicated their lack of competency in listening to anything this expert treasurer has to say. This very board voted to allow a contract with our current president, who is running for re-election on our 2013 ballots, to repair the gate house. What does that have to do with the treasurer and sound accounting practices? I encourage the board to go to the 2008 audit. During the period audited a board member received funds from the organization for printing services. It was noted in the audit report. Additionally, when the 2009 board put printing out for bids, that particular printer's bid was almost twice that of the firm awarded the bid. Your treasurer voted for our current president to perform services for the very association he presides over. This can only be viewed as a conflict of interest, poor management, poor legal oversight, and a lack of sound accounting, or good sound business practice.
Vote yes on this amendment and at least keep our records out of member homes, standardize our reports, have our books kept by a certified expert - a CPA.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
STAYED TUNED FOR REPORTS ON THE OCTOBER MEETING - HINT: SOME ARE ALREADY CALLING IT CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The Wedgefield Examiner has received calls from residents about rumors of the actions of your board at the October meeting. Did our president really receive the board's vote to use his own firm to fix the gate house? Did treasurer DeMarchi really thank a concerned citizen for providing him papers from their own home office, to complete the 2012 audit. This very board was in charge in 2012!!!!! Why weren't the files in our office? Why is our treasurer carrying them around in his own brief case? How did office records get to the home of a concerned citizen? WHAT KIND OF CONFIDENTIALITY IS THAT TREASURER, DEMARCHI! You insisted everyone sign it and brought the document out of thin air. It isn't worth the promise of the writing or the paper it is written on.
As soon as the tape of the meeting is up on the ever reliable WEDGEFIELD TIMES, we will begin to transcribe. STAY TUNED!
As soon as the tape of the meeting is up on the ever reliable WEDGEFIELD TIMES, we will begin to transcribe. STAY TUNED!
Thursday, October 17, 2013
AS PROMISED - The WPA SEPTEMBER Grounds Report Turns To Lessons In Our Governing Documents, Community Liaison Report, And More Of Our Board Expertise in Denial of Engineering, And Their Version of Who Gets Served At No Cost, While We PAY
I've reviewed and transcribed the entire SEPTEMBER Grounds Report. The following is a combination of the detail of the report, transcription, and comments. I've relayed the events to the best of my ability, transcribed to the best of my ability, and the comments are my own. All transcription will be noted with quotation marks and underlined , comments will be noted as such. In all cases, review the tape for yourself. Note: Transcription can be choppy and lack sentence structure. It is the nature of the beast. My comments might contain grammatical errors. I do the best I can, but do have responsibilities beyond this. Thank for your patience.
Grounds Chair Becomes Community Liaison, ARC, and Legal Chair
McMillin reports that he is answering some resident complaints that aren't grounds. He has resolved a problem of items piled against a structure by contacting the offending party to remove them. He has a letter about a couple of lots on John Green that haven't been mowed this season. He has secured bids from Great Lawns. He is unable to determine who the owner is on one of the lots and therefore doesn't know who to ask to pay. On the other, he will send a letter. He wonders if they don't comply, what to do? He has another letter about lot 317. He personally went to view the situation and the only thing that he can see is growth in the drainage ditch adjacent to the property next door. McMillin states, "between owner and neighbor because that's ALL OVER THE PLACE IN HERE.... Question I had is I looked up what they call Individual Assessments" McMillin reads the following from the by-laws: "Individual Assessments: In addition, individual assessments may be levied by the Board. These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance, or any costs incurred, by The Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-Laws and in the deed "Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions." McMillin goes on to say, "So we have the authority to do it according to individual assessments and assess the property owner. I would something most likely, I would have to write a letter to the property owner and give him 30 days to comply. Problem with that is we have done this in the past and it was on properties that were eventually foreclosed upon. We became 2nd, 3rd, or 4th lien holder. We lost it. So we're throwing money away by......these neglected lots because if we get complaints from other property owners and it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to do SOMETHING about it, what do we do? Do we spend Wedgefield's money to do anything for them and place a lien? If we place a lien, because of individual assessment, then that lien stays with the property, not property owner, until it is paid. So anyone else that would buy that property, or the bank seizes that property before they can transfer that deed, they'd have to satisfy that lien. That may be a legal issue for Mr. Moody to answer for us - If we have the authority to do that or not? I can't identify the following speaker but someone on the board asks, "Have you sent the letter yet?" McMillin responds, "I have not, because I was waiting until I heard from the board." President Walton," Send the letter. See what kind of response you get. They may mow it. They may not. At that point if they don't address it, then there....." McMillin, "What can we do? Do we (something about do it for them) and assess them an individual assessment? Wondering, says we can..." Garrison steps in, "There is NO QUESTION ABOUT THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY TO PLACE AN INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT on a property owner who when we have had to spend money on something that they should have been doing for themselves in the first place. That's very clear, but the problem is collecting that money, as you point out, because our most recent understanding of this and part of individual assessment is not.....regardless of what applied to that you can only place a lien on a property for annual assessment, not individual assessment. That is the problem we have. A lot of this becomes unenforceable. You're absolutely right. What the board will have to decide is the property in horrible enough condition that the board needs to take action to correct that, have to do that with understanding that you have a certain likelihood that you're going to eat that. We've eaten it before and we are still eating it. We'll be eating it next time." DeMarchi, "Send them a letter. OK, inform them of what you intend to do. Give them an option. The other property is being foreclosed on by the..... " McMillin goes on to say he can't find the owner of record and DeMarchi tells him the lawyer has that information. McMillin picks up again quoting the following from the Covenants, "The provisions in this paragraph should not be construed as an obligation on the part of the grantor which is the WPA, to move, clear, cut, or....not to provide...services" After the quote from the Covenants McMillin picks up again, "So we're not obligated to do it according to this but over here it said we had the right to do it." Several on the board speak at the same time. McMillin resumes speaking, "What about this lot 317? The underbrush in the ditch?" There is more conversation as to the growth in the ditch being on or near the property line. Garrison asks, "If it is a drainage....Al, is it not the view that if the drainage is in place that the property owner is responsible for maintaining it?" DeMarchi, "I'll let you write that letter."
The Wedgefield Examiner has determined we will end the report here. There was other business. You should take the time to listen to the tape to verify accuracy and hear the complete report. I had attended the September meeting and this portion left me with questions and comments.
COMMENTS:
This portion of the meeting reflects the total dysfunction, inconsistency, failure to follow any administrative or business model, and could appear to be guided by nepotism, self promotion, and favoritism. I transcribed the report before I left on my trip and was so frustrated with our association's lack of sound governance that I had to put it aside for awhile. Do any of the following questions come to your mind?
*WHY ISN'T THE COMMUNITY LIAISON REPORTING ON RESIDENT CORRESPONDENCE? WHAT STRUCTURE IS IN PLACE TO DETERMINE WHICH RESIDENTS RECEIVE ANSWERS AND HOW IS THE INFORMATION GATHERED AND A DRAFT ANSWER REVIEWED BY THE BOARD, BEFORE IT IS SENT? The Board Community Liaison has failed to do his job for as long as he has sat in his seat. President Walton and DeMarch asked me how the board I sat on handled correspondence a few months ago. Obviously this board hasn't got a plan because the residents aren't important enough to them. I've reviewed the correspondence book several times and there haven't been answers to residents. Now we have McMillin hand picking correspondence out of the realm of his responsibility. Were these resident writers friends, or friends of a board member? This mess lays at the feet of President Walton, board officers, and in fact, the entire board. They appear to be cohesively dysfunctional (They love to call themselves cohesive.), and what is worse is that you allow it. Not one of them has brought the lack of proper response to residents to the board table and hammered out a method of getting the job done. Sweet and simple, here's the formula for answering residents. First remember that as residents, we have to put everything in writing. Your letter or email should be sent to the entire board. The Community Liaison should ask for the appropriate committee chair to provide input within a certain time frame. If they do not receive a response from the chair they should research the subject, draft a letter, and send it to the board for review and comment, with a deadline for response. Legal should determine whether the answer should be reviewed by the attorney. When the deadline is reached the response letter should be sent out by the Community Liaison and shared in their report at the next meeting.
*WHY IS THE GROUNDS CHAIR REPORTING AND FINDING SOLUTIONS TO DRAINAGE, LEGAL, AND ARC RESPONSIBILITIES?
ARC hasn't reported on anything but additions, new builds, and a few building violations, in over a year. The association is falling apart with unmowed yards, violations, unmaintained houses, etc., and they have a closed eye. Why? Could it be they don't stick to their responsibilities? They move illegal docks, involve themselves with roads, drainage, and trespass all over sound administration to suit themselves. Why is McMillin, Grounds Chair reading by-laws and Covenants to us during Grounds Report? The board lets him run with whatever he wants. Within the last year he took time during a board meeting to discuss how he would fund canal dredging allowed under the current permit. Where did that go except to take about 20 minutes of our time in a meeting? The board told him that he absolutely could not subsidize lot mowing at our expense. Yet, they voted for him to do it one more time. He's not on the legal or drainage committee, why do they continue to allow him to stand in wherever he decides? It could be that they are disorganized and want his vote on their individual pet projects and they are too cohesive to stand up and represent us, in our best interests.
*DO YOU, OR I, GET TO HAVE OUR DRAINAGE PROBLEMS SOLVED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ASSOCIATION, OR DO WE GET AN INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT AND PAY FOR OUR OWN?
It could appear that it depends where you live in the association, whether you sit on the board, or if you are a friend of a board member. McMillin was correct to look to individual assessment. I've reviewed the records prior to 2009 and residents were individually assessed where the board felt drainage work should be done, and had to pay it. It is in the records. Now we have a board member, chair of drainage, who bought multiple lots, built on one for his family, and sold lots, and built on them in the same area. We're told by the drainage chair that the initial drainage development was engineered by a poor engineering firm and now we all have to pay for his drainage and the additional houses he built. Is it fact, or convenience to getting what he wants fixed, that the original drainage development was faulty? Again, think about the history. First there was a real engineering firm to design the drainage, recognized as such at the time. The county would have looked at the original drainage plan and implementation. Finally, again go back to the records. In 2008 a Georgetown engineer was hired by the board to come out and review the Enclave. It was fine. I reviewed and questioned the engineering invoice myself, along with others on the board. It is a fact. Now we have a self interested, non engineer, telling us everything and everybody before him, is incorrect. You'll decide whether it is self serving, nepotism on the side of the board to allow this to continue. As you make your decision remember, this very same drainage chair abstained on the last drainage work to be approved in his area, stating something about he wouldn't want it to appear as self gain. Really???????? Additionally, after everyone else before him was wrong, the non engineer is moving forward without engineering involvement in the project, because he and our president know what it should look like. Really??? Why didn't he recognize the problem when he bought more than one lot out there? This board abounds with expertise. They name each other to their respective committees. They are better than certified builders, engineers, accountants, and lawyers, they have it all and we keep paying and picking up the pieces. Aren't we fortunate to have so many self certified, self proclaimed experts?
Where is our legal chair in all of this. As we've seen before, and reported, he serves smoothly from right to left with ease, and votes in behalf of this cohesive (??????)board. You are left with his interpretation of what the attorney said, because he refuses to get legal opinions in writing. He's saving you money. Really?????? During 2010 we had a legal chair who told us what the board attorney said, and when we insisted on seeing it in writing, it wasn't the case.
Lessons learned, get on the board, claim expertise, and take care of yourself, and don't worry what your cohesive fellow board members will say because they will remain silent vote with you, until it is their turn. Welcome to our association governance.
Grounds Chair Becomes Community Liaison, ARC, and Legal Chair
McMillin reports that he is answering some resident complaints that aren't grounds. He has resolved a problem of items piled against a structure by contacting the offending party to remove them. He has a letter about a couple of lots on John Green that haven't been mowed this season. He has secured bids from Great Lawns. He is unable to determine who the owner is on one of the lots and therefore doesn't know who to ask to pay. On the other, he will send a letter. He wonders if they don't comply, what to do? He has another letter about lot 317. He personally went to view the situation and the only thing that he can see is growth in the drainage ditch adjacent to the property next door. McMillin states, "between owner and neighbor because that's ALL OVER THE PLACE IN HERE.... Question I had is I looked up what they call Individual Assessments" McMillin reads the following from the by-laws: "Individual Assessments: In addition, individual assessments may be levied by the Board. These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance, or any costs incurred, by The Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-Laws and in the deed "Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions." McMillin goes on to say, "So we have the authority to do it according to individual assessments and assess the property owner. I would something most likely, I would have to write a letter to the property owner and give him 30 days to comply. Problem with that is we have done this in the past and it was on properties that were eventually foreclosed upon. We became 2nd, 3rd, or 4th lien holder. We lost it. So we're throwing money away by......these neglected lots because if we get complaints from other property owners and it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to do SOMETHING about it, what do we do? Do we spend Wedgefield's money to do anything for them and place a lien? If we place a lien, because of individual assessment, then that lien stays with the property, not property owner, until it is paid. So anyone else that would buy that property, or the bank seizes that property before they can transfer that deed, they'd have to satisfy that lien. That may be a legal issue for Mr. Moody to answer for us - If we have the authority to do that or not? I can't identify the following speaker but someone on the board asks, "Have you sent the letter yet?" McMillin responds, "I have not, because I was waiting until I heard from the board." President Walton," Send the letter. See what kind of response you get. They may mow it. They may not. At that point if they don't address it, then there....." McMillin, "What can we do? Do we (something about do it for them) and assess them an individual assessment? Wondering, says we can..." Garrison steps in, "There is NO QUESTION ABOUT THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY TO PLACE AN INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT on a property owner who when we have had to spend money on something that they should have been doing for themselves in the first place. That's very clear, but the problem is collecting that money, as you point out, because our most recent understanding of this and part of individual assessment is not.....regardless of what applied to that you can only place a lien on a property for annual assessment, not individual assessment. That is the problem we have. A lot of this becomes unenforceable. You're absolutely right. What the board will have to decide is the property in horrible enough condition that the board needs to take action to correct that, have to do that with understanding that you have a certain likelihood that you're going to eat that. We've eaten it before and we are still eating it. We'll be eating it next time." DeMarchi, "Send them a letter. OK, inform them of what you intend to do. Give them an option. The other property is being foreclosed on by the..... " McMillin goes on to say he can't find the owner of record and DeMarchi tells him the lawyer has that information. McMillin picks up again quoting the following from the Covenants, "The provisions in this paragraph should not be construed as an obligation on the part of the grantor which is the WPA, to move, clear, cut, or....not to provide...services" After the quote from the Covenants McMillin picks up again, "So we're not obligated to do it according to this but over here it said we had the right to do it." Several on the board speak at the same time. McMillin resumes speaking, "What about this lot 317? The underbrush in the ditch?" There is more conversation as to the growth in the ditch being on or near the property line. Garrison asks, "If it is a drainage....Al, is it not the view that if the drainage is in place that the property owner is responsible for maintaining it?" DeMarchi, "I'll let you write that letter."
The Wedgefield Examiner has determined we will end the report here. There was other business. You should take the time to listen to the tape to verify accuracy and hear the complete report. I had attended the September meeting and this portion left me with questions and comments.
COMMENTS:
This portion of the meeting reflects the total dysfunction, inconsistency, failure to follow any administrative or business model, and could appear to be guided by nepotism, self promotion, and favoritism. I transcribed the report before I left on my trip and was so frustrated with our association's lack of sound governance that I had to put it aside for awhile. Do any of the following questions come to your mind?
*WHY ISN'T THE COMMUNITY LIAISON REPORTING ON RESIDENT CORRESPONDENCE? WHAT STRUCTURE IS IN PLACE TO DETERMINE WHICH RESIDENTS RECEIVE ANSWERS AND HOW IS THE INFORMATION GATHERED AND A DRAFT ANSWER REVIEWED BY THE BOARD, BEFORE IT IS SENT? The Board Community Liaison has failed to do his job for as long as he has sat in his seat. President Walton and DeMarch asked me how the board I sat on handled correspondence a few months ago. Obviously this board hasn't got a plan because the residents aren't important enough to them. I've reviewed the correspondence book several times and there haven't been answers to residents. Now we have McMillin hand picking correspondence out of the realm of his responsibility. Were these resident writers friends, or friends of a board member? This mess lays at the feet of President Walton, board officers, and in fact, the entire board. They appear to be cohesively dysfunctional (They love to call themselves cohesive.), and what is worse is that you allow it. Not one of them has brought the lack of proper response to residents to the board table and hammered out a method of getting the job done. Sweet and simple, here's the formula for answering residents. First remember that as residents, we have to put everything in writing. Your letter or email should be sent to the entire board. The Community Liaison should ask for the appropriate committee chair to provide input within a certain time frame. If they do not receive a response from the chair they should research the subject, draft a letter, and send it to the board for review and comment, with a deadline for response. Legal should determine whether the answer should be reviewed by the attorney. When the deadline is reached the response letter should be sent out by the Community Liaison and shared in their report at the next meeting.
*WHY IS THE GROUNDS CHAIR REPORTING AND FINDING SOLUTIONS TO DRAINAGE, LEGAL, AND ARC RESPONSIBILITIES?
ARC hasn't reported on anything but additions, new builds, and a few building violations, in over a year. The association is falling apart with unmowed yards, violations, unmaintained houses, etc., and they have a closed eye. Why? Could it be they don't stick to their responsibilities? They move illegal docks, involve themselves with roads, drainage, and trespass all over sound administration to suit themselves. Why is McMillin, Grounds Chair reading by-laws and Covenants to us during Grounds Report? The board lets him run with whatever he wants. Within the last year he took time during a board meeting to discuss how he would fund canal dredging allowed under the current permit. Where did that go except to take about 20 minutes of our time in a meeting? The board told him that he absolutely could not subsidize lot mowing at our expense. Yet, they voted for him to do it one more time. He's not on the legal or drainage committee, why do they continue to allow him to stand in wherever he decides? It could be that they are disorganized and want his vote on their individual pet projects and they are too cohesive to stand up and represent us, in our best interests.
*DO YOU, OR I, GET TO HAVE OUR DRAINAGE PROBLEMS SOLVED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ASSOCIATION, OR DO WE GET AN INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT AND PAY FOR OUR OWN?
It could appear that it depends where you live in the association, whether you sit on the board, or if you are a friend of a board member. McMillin was correct to look to individual assessment. I've reviewed the records prior to 2009 and residents were individually assessed where the board felt drainage work should be done, and had to pay it. It is in the records. Now we have a board member, chair of drainage, who bought multiple lots, built on one for his family, and sold lots, and built on them in the same area. We're told by the drainage chair that the initial drainage development was engineered by a poor engineering firm and now we all have to pay for his drainage and the additional houses he built. Is it fact, or convenience to getting what he wants fixed, that the original drainage development was faulty? Again, think about the history. First there was a real engineering firm to design the drainage, recognized as such at the time. The county would have looked at the original drainage plan and implementation. Finally, again go back to the records. In 2008 a Georgetown engineer was hired by the board to come out and review the Enclave. It was fine. I reviewed and questioned the engineering invoice myself, along with others on the board. It is a fact. Now we have a self interested, non engineer, telling us everything and everybody before him, is incorrect. You'll decide whether it is self serving, nepotism on the side of the board to allow this to continue. As you make your decision remember, this very same drainage chair abstained on the last drainage work to be approved in his area, stating something about he wouldn't want it to appear as self gain. Really???????? Additionally, after everyone else before him was wrong, the non engineer is moving forward without engineering involvement in the project, because he and our president know what it should look like. Really??? Why didn't he recognize the problem when he bought more than one lot out there? This board abounds with expertise. They name each other to their respective committees. They are better than certified builders, engineers, accountants, and lawyers, they have it all and we keep paying and picking up the pieces. Aren't we fortunate to have so many self certified, self proclaimed experts?
Where is our legal chair in all of this. As we've seen before, and reported, he serves smoothly from right to left with ease, and votes in behalf of this cohesive (??????)board. You are left with his interpretation of what the attorney said, because he refuses to get legal opinions in writing. He's saving you money. Really?????? During 2010 we had a legal chair who told us what the board attorney said, and when we insisted on seeing it in writing, it wasn't the case.
Lessons learned, get on the board, claim expertise, and take care of yourself, and don't worry what your cohesive fellow board members will say because they will remain silent vote with you, until it is their turn. Welcome to our association governance.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER IS BACK AT WORK, BUT UNABLE TO ATTEND THE OCTOBER WPA MEETING, WATCH LATE ON 10/16 FOR THE SEPTEMBER GROUNDS REPORT
The Wedgefield Examiner has been on vacation for about a week. We've been in Arizona and just got in today. Too late and too tired to attend the October WPA meeting. We'll start reviewing the tape later this week.
LATE TOMORROW THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER WILL HAVE THE ARTICLE ON THE SEPTEMBER GROUNDS MEETING UP. Stay tuned.
LATE TOMORROW THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER WILL HAVE THE ARTICLE ON THE SEPTEMBER GROUNDS MEETING UP. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
UPDATED 10/09/13 :THE WPA SEPTEMBER GROUNDS REPORT TURNS TO LESSONS IN OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS???????, COMMUNITY LIAISON REPORT, AND MORE OF OUR BOARD EXPERTISE IN DENIAL OF ENGINEERING, AND THEIR VERSION OF WHO GETS SERVED AT NO COST, WHILE WE PAY.
UPDATE: I was in a hurry and had the headline as Drainage Report. It is the Grounds Report. A full report will be provided on the 16th.
The Wedgefield Examiner has transcribed the Grounds Report. While Barrier, our Community Liaison had no report (What a surprise! He hasn't had a report in about a year.), McMillin has been selecting resident correspondence, and answering it, but he needs a little help from the board.
McMillin reads portions of the by-laws and covenants to us.
If you are in the board's favor, or they live on your street, they'll provide work at no cost to you. Otherwise residents, it is your problem.
STAY TUNED. THE ARTICLE WILL BE PUBLISHED BY OCTOBER 16. THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER IS ON VACATION UNTIL THE 16TH. COUSINS, MANY COUSINS WILL BE SPENDING TIME WITH US. PLEASE CHECK BACK ON THE 16TH.
The Wedgefield Examiner has transcribed the Grounds Report. While Barrier, our Community Liaison had no report (What a surprise! He hasn't had a report in about a year.), McMillin has been selecting resident correspondence, and answering it, but he needs a little help from the board.
McMillin reads portions of the by-laws and covenants to us.
If you are in the board's favor, or they live on your street, they'll provide work at no cost to you. Otherwise residents, it is your problem.
STAY TUNED. THE ARTICLE WILL BE PUBLISHED BY OCTOBER 16. THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER IS ON VACATION UNTIL THE 16TH. COUSINS, MANY COUSINS WILL BE SPENDING TIME WITH US. PLEASE CHECK BACK ON THE 16TH.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)