TWO ARTICLES COMBINED: (1) REMINDER TO GET YOUR PROXY INTO THE WPA OFFICE TODAY, (2) PART II - DO MEMBERS OF THIS CURRENT COHESIVE BOARD SUPPPORT THE POTENTIAL ILLEGAL MOVES OF SOME ON THIS BOARD TO KEEP THEIR PET PROJECTS COMING? WILL OUR PRESIDENT INVESTIGATE BY TAKING THE NECESSARY STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT A PROPOSED BY-LAW CHANGE DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH OUR COVENANTS?

TODAY, YOUR PROXY IS DUE IN THE OFFICE BY 2:00pm.  PROTECT YOUR VOTE BY GETTING IT TO THE OFFICE TODAY, EVEN IF YOU PLAN ON ATTENDING THE MEETING.  LIFE HAPPENS AND OFTEN OUR PLANS ARE TURNED AROUND. 

Whether you vote by proxy, or attend the annual meeting on Saturday, consider writing in "NO" along side of the candidates names on your ballot .  There are three board openings and THREE CANDIDATES.  Your board has positioned us to have no choice but to continue to live with their brand of administration.  As to the amendments, consider voting "YES" for the amendment requiring an accountant.  See the article immediately following this one. It will be posted in the next hour.  The material posted is from a publication for non profits.  As to the amendment restricting future boards, that probably violates our covenants, consider voting "NO".  No matter what your Wedgefield political persuasion is, remember even Ms. Zieske noted in 2010, that she felt that similar restrictions violated our covenants (See immediate previous article for her own words.).  Will your principles determine your vote?

(1) DO MEMBERS OF THIS CURRENT COHESIVE BOARD SUPPORT THE POTENTIAL ILLEGAL MOVES OF SOME ON THIS BOARD TO KEEP THEIR PET PROJECTS COMING?

In order to address the question we only need to look at the history of what actually occurred at WPA meetings since last January.  At the same time if you follow the facts, are honest with yourself in evaluating what actually occurred, you would have to write in a big "NO" on each of the candidates offered on the ballot this year and hope that the rumors (brought about by one of the board members himself) about resigning after the first of the year, are true.

If we start reviewing the WPA meetings, the first item up is the replacement of the old dock at the landing.  Current board member, Garrison stated clearly at the board table, that it was not to end up in our back yard - the canals.  In the end the Water Amenities Committee pulled it into the canals and for at least three months we watched Garrison (played out with him as sole player) play good cop - bad cop.  During good cop meetings he wanted that dock out of the canals because the committee had gone against the vote of the board.  Had you been there you would have been proud of him.  If you have been a follower of this good cop-bad cop behavior over the last three or four years, you knew when the bad cop might surface and how it would end.  You see the bad cop part turns a blind eye and let's whatever is on the board table - contrary to what the good cop said, slide by.  This particular drama ended with no final report to the residents after the dock was finally moved out, the silent sanctioning by every member of this board but one, and the renegade Water Amenities Committee throwing McBride off their committee - the only board member who questioned the inappropriate violation by a committee, of a legal motion of the board.  While the whole board is at fault for remaining silent, Garrison as a board member, as legal chair, and President Walton, blatantly violated ethics, at the board table.  Both are running (?????? - no other candidates presented) for board along with Keith Johnson, who served on the very Water Amenities Committee that not only voted the questioning board member - McBride, off the committee, but should have been aware that it didn't end there.  Members of this committee then worked to exclude McBride in private clubs and social circles outside of the board table. Consider writing "NO" next to each of their names.  Send a message to this board.

This year's meetings brought the DeMarchi development of "the accounting function".  Garrison and DeMarchi played dictionary games as to whether the individual was an accountant, or not, when asked by McBride. Finally, McBride got the answer from the contractor. We are left with DeMarchi and two bookkeepers.  According to DeMarchi he knows exactly what needs to be done.  DeMarchi has changed, changed, and changed again, the reports to residents.  He has never, nor has the rest of the board, disclosed how much the "accounting function" is costing you.  He just has unfavorable comments regarding CPAs.  Candidate Garrison added to the negative comments regarding accountants as he gave UNBIASED??????? - (biased) information regarding the amendment calling for a professional to do our books.  This occurred during the same meeting that DeMarchi thanked Ms. Zieske for providing financial records that weren't in the office.  Think again, about your vote, and write "NO" to Garrison who has failed to handle his board responsibilities in an open, unbiased, legal manner.  Vote "NO" for President Walton, who condones, at times outright supports this behavior, with his silence.

We've seen conflict of interest. There is no other way to put it.  The WPA President will contract his company to fix the gatehouse.  DeMarchi played a key role in this adventure.  Since he isn't on the ballot, we have to live with him (Previously he did tell certain people, he would resign after the election.  Can we hope he'll stick to his word?), but Walton stands up like a SORE THUMB in this administration escapade.  He is supported by candidate, Garrison, who ran questioning around the verbal flag pole, that appeared to be done with intent to make the questioning board member look bad. That is hard to do because conflict of interest is easily understood by all. 

We don't have a lot of time.  Our voting deadlines are near.  There are at least a dozen more examples similar to these that could be viewed as "not in the best interests of Wedgefield", failure to comply to sound business and solid non profit administration, and quite frankly a play against truth and OPEN, honest governance.  Who is our compliance committee chair?  Our treasurer! Thank candidate Walton for that appointment.  What a mess!

We aren't going to cover the topic about whether our PRESIDENT will ensure the necessary steps to make sure that Garrison//Concerned Citizen amendment is not in conflict with our covenants. The limited subjects posted above already indicate that he'll do what it takes to keep a board seat with his cohorts in poor administration. 

What can you do?  Write "NO" by each of the candidates names.  Listen to Ms. Zieske's advice regarding the amendment restricting the power of the board and probably conflicting with our covenants.  Attend the meeting and WRITE IN ADDITIONAL CANDIDATES.   Your board had three slots and they only provided you three candidates.  They are restricting the power of your vote - choice, to keep what they call their "cohesive board".  Unfortunately, if you look at the examples throughout this year alone it might be said that they are operating under ORCHESTRATED DECEIT.