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.
