MIRACLE??????? PROBABLY NOT - WILL WE HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM THAT WE HAD IN 2013 AND 2014, IN 2015????

 

 

 

THE MIRACLE:   After entertaining guests for Easter and Memorial Day with this mess, we ASKED on the blog, whether any board members had lots like this next to them.  Thursday, May 29th, we woke to another day of this mess, orchestrated and fertilized by your board's failure to act for the second year in a row.  This year, the overgrowth brought a snake infestation, so we also dealt with this:

 

 

 

Around 4:00 PM on May 29th, we were picked up by friends and left for the evening, returning after dark.  On Friday morning, the MIRACLE (????????), the lot had been mowed.  We don't know who, or how, but it was done.  I headed out to exercise and there was a second MIRACLE, as I picked up my friend on Wraggs Ferry.  A lot on my route which had had knee high grass, was also mowed!

 

Why does it have to get this bad?  This is the second year , that your board has dallied, at the expense of poor appearance, violation of individual contracts with private lot owners, and the violation of maintenance rules, and many of our governing documents, to suit the whims of our Grounds Chair.  In 2013, the board kept telling the chair that they weren't going to subsidize private lot mowing.  They laid out the loss that we were going to have to pay for out of our assessment funds, TO MAINTAIN PRIVATE LOTS.  After all the strutting at the board table with "we won't have it", they voted to subsidize private lot mowing in 2013.  While they performed this ridiculous staged act, the weeds just grew to knee high.

 

We hit 2014 and the Grounds Chair tries to tell us he made a profit on private lot maintenance in 2013, and questions, who ever said it was subsidized?  Go back to the meetings of spring 2013, he admitted it at the time, telling us it would be about $2.00 per house hold.  Why does your board allow this behavior and violation of our governing documents, let alone vote to let it continue?  When the board asks the Grounds Chair to explain, it turns out three or four people who contracted for the 2013 SUBSIDIZED MOWING PROGRAM, didn't receive, even one service visit.   As for the others, NOT ONE OF THEM RECEIVED THE NUMBER OF VISITS THEIR CONTRACT DESIGNATED!!!!!!  That's how this chair could ATTEMPT to report a profit!!!!!!  

 

The Grounds Chair's brilliant plan for this year is to REDUCE THE NUMBER OF VISITS, in private lot mowing contracts, and make sure the contract says "up to so many visits".  It could appear to be another round of lying and cheating  all around, with your board's full blessing.   NO, I WON'T SAVE THIS

 

BUT I PREDICT THAT I'LL HAVE TO TAKE ANOTHER PICTURE JUST LIKE THIS IN THE SPRING OF 2015.

 

  IF YOUR GROUNDS CHAIR HASN'T BUILT AMPLE MOWING VISITS INTO THE 2014 CONTRACT, I'LL BE TAKING MORE PICTURES AND PUBLISHING THEM THROUGHOUT THE GROWING SEASON!

 

THERE WASN'T A MIRACLE ON THURSDAY!  A REAL MIRACLE WILL BE NOTED WHEN THIS BOARD FOLLOWS OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS AND REALLY DOES WORK TO "KEEP ALL OUR PROPERTY VALUES UP" - RATHER THAN SPECIAL PROJECTS AND FAVORS FOR A SELECT FEW



 

  

 P.S.:  Yard work got you feeling down?  Don't worry about it, remember knee high grass and weeds is this board's standard when they contract with  private lot owners for maintenance services.  You can allow your grass to get knee high, and they shouldn't be able to fine you, because this is the standard demonstrated by the Grounds Chair and your board.  If it ever becomes an issue, copy this picture from the blog.







THE GROUNDS LANDSCAPING CREW WERE HERE THIS WEEK. WHY HASN'T YOUR BOARD REMEDIED THIS SITUATION? IT ISN'T THE LANDSCAPING CREW'S FAULT. MUST NOT BE A PRIORITY. MAYBE NONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE THIS IN THEIR BACK YARD.





THE MAY 27, 2014 WPA OPEN BOARD MEETING - ROADS (open portion of meeting), PERSONNEL (closed - term probably used inappropriately), AND OBSERVATIONS

 The board announced the meeting on the WPA website stating, "The Agenda will be Roads Project.  A closed meeting will follow."  All nine board members were in attendance.  Eight residents attended.

Three bids for the road projects had been opened during the May monthly meeting. The bids were $206,007.50, $178,307.44, and $196,365.65.  There are 9 sites to be worked on .  Earthworks were paid to re-engineer 3 of the sites, and drew up the specs for the other 6.  Anderson, Roads Chair, made a motion to accept the bid of Coastal Asphalt of $178,307.44.  It should be noted that Earthworks prepared the request for proposal, all contractors are licensed and insured, and Earthworks has working knowledge of the performance of all three.  It is a fixed contract.

Discussion began.  Some areas will have roots cut that have grown under our roads - root barriers.  There was some conversation about whether that would make those trees more prone to falling over in a storm causing liability for the association.  McBride asked where the $178,000 plus was coming from. $156,000 would come from Roads' allocation.  The other possibilities were Emergency funds, excess in Landscape, Miscellaneous, etc.  McBride states that if we have pending legal concerns, maybe we shouldn't be spending the money.  De Marchi speaks about $128,000 in past dues and he thinks they'll collect about $75,000 of that.  Cline says that the board has put a limit on one attorney situation that is coming up.  McBride asks if Earthworks will be out here during the project.  Anderson says that is a separate motion.  Garrison begins to talk about the fact that there is some drainage work within the contracts, in specific areas, and begins to throw out figures from a reference sheet in his board packet.  McBride states that he hasn't been provided that detail in his packet, asks to see it and quietly walks over to Garrison, and reviews the information.  There is conversation about why so much consideration to cul-de-sacs?  Priorities are discussed.  McBride wants some assurance before they vote on the first motion, that Earthworks will oversee the project.  President Walton asks for a little detail of the cost, etc.  The information is provided and there appears to be no objection to the board of cost.  The vote to award the contract to Coastal Asphalt for $178,307.44 passes with 8 votes.  McBride abstains, stating that he needs to know more about the legal potential costs.

The board moves to the second motion to contract with Earthworks for $2,560.00 (not to exceed).  It passes.

President Walton announces a recess.  He states when the board returns the meeting will be closed for personnel.

COMMENTS:
First, Roads Chair, Anderson should be commended for the concrete, open, sound business approach to this project.  He has stayed with it for months, seen it halted temporarily with questions and suggestions, researched and came back with answers.  He has sought engineering, professional services for request for proposal development, and contract management.  He openly acknowledges that he doesn't have the expertise to provide the technical oversight of the contractor.  It is just a great job. 

You may, or may not agree with the priority of the road repair.  The work on Pine Grove will cost $76,000.  One of the others was repaired in the last round of road repair. Garrison speaks to some of these areas never being repaired in years and years.  At least, it appears that where ever the work is done, the method of solicitation, the contractors, and the oversight, is professional, almost a first with this group.

As an observer at the meeting, there should be concern when ALL board members are not provided full information to make a decision, and vote.  Why did Garrison have material related to this project that McBride didn't?  Who made that decision and why?

Why is your board closing a meeting for personnel?  We have one paid staff person - that's personnel.  What legal issues do some know about that McBride doesn't?  Despite a great Roads project, the secretive, old boy's network was at the table again.

A RECENT ARTICLE REGARDING HOA GOVERNANCE

There are legislators in SC who have been working on legislation for HOA laws.  Thankfully, when legislation is proposed there are legislators who are more than willing to take grievances to add to their arsenal, and provide information to help ease a situation in the mean time.  While it is a slow, quiet, process, it is worth the effort to write, and work with them. 

Here is the article:





ARE YOU READY FOR YOUR MEMORIAL DAY GUESTS?

THINK ONCE THEY GET PAST THIS

 

 

AND THE BROKEN DOWN BENCH IN THE CIRCLE, THAT EVERYTHING WILL BE GREAT?

 

 

WRONG!

 

IF YOU LIVE NEXT TO ONE OF THE OVERGROWN LOTS YOUR BOARD HAS FAILED TO MOW, YOUR GUESTS COULD BE GREETED BY THIS.  JUST ONE OF THE UNWANTED GUESTS IN THIS INFESTATION.

 

 

10 PEOPLE COMING TO A DINNER WITH THESE UNNECESSARY SCENES AND WILD LIFE GUESTS

 





WEDGEFIELD RESIDENT GIVES THEIR VIEW OF THE WEDGEFIELD STATE OF AFFAIRS

As always, the following email to the Wedgefield Examiner is presented as sent, minus the name of the writer.



TWO NEW ARTICLES WERE ADDED ON MAY 22ND.

Wonder dog Brady, has some real concerns about his own safety due to the actions of this board.  He says, "read the following two new articles."



WHAT'S NEXT? SNAKES AND A GATOR, PLAY INTO YOUR BOARD'S LACK OF ATTENTION TO PRIVATE LOT MOWING.

 

 

 

There is a article on the blog dated May 28, 2013, regarding knee high grass in vacant lots, that the owner has contracted through the WPA, for a fee, to maintain.  Yes, a full year ago we had these problems because your board delayed approving a grounds maintenance contract.  I don't have the time or the patience to relate why.  It is on the blog, a number of times.  Once again it is May a year later, and their delays, Mc Millin's ridiculous math regarding what to charge and how many mowings should be included in the price, have brought us back to knee high grass again.

 

 

The problems caused by this are numerous.  The knee high plus growth is weeds that are beginning to seed into my adjoining flower beds.  Gallons of weed killer have been used to try and contain the problem.  There has been an infestation of snakes as pictured above, coming out of the over growth.  It must be a great place for them to thrive.

 

I'm not trying to tell you the gator that is resting on our bulk head in the picture, grew up in the overgrowth.  The gator has gotten out of the water in the vacant lots next to me.  When he lies in the grass, you don't notice him.  There are a number of local residents who walk their dogs, right or wrong, on those lots.  We are on the look out, but those who are unaware, may lose their pet.

 

I'll listen to the Grounds report, but to date the situation just gets worse.  NOTE:   Remember the Gate House Fix?  Your board contracted in  October 2013 with our President's business, after signing a conflict of interest.  In the end, (certainly not), the Board Attorney of Record advised them that they had broken the very agreement each and every one of them signed.  Your President pulled his company's contract (not a contract by any one else's standards), and he was reimbursed for the materials he bought.  It was stated at the board table that the new contractor the board would seek would have to use the materials our President's business purchased.  Like the mowing situation, nothing has been done to move the project of the gate house fix forward.  Yet, despite inconvenience to others, your board got the Compliance Committee busy on making recommendations to change the conflict of interest in the policy manual.  Could it be the gate house hasn't been completed because they want to hire the President's firm again?  When they  want something, it is a priority.  When residents face these kind of property violations, not so quick to act. 





ARTICLE UPDATED AFTERNOON OF 5/22. UPDATES APPEAR AT THE END IN RED. ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE EMAIL LIST NAMED TO A COMMITTEE - DE MARCHI'S COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE. SHOULD THE BOARD HAVE ASKED FOR A WRITING SAMPLE?

I was unable to attend the WPA May Board meeting.  I have not had the time to date to listen to the tape of the meeting.  It is rumored from a reliable source, that another member of the recipients of Mrs. Z's email list has been appointed to a committee - Compliance.  I wasn't surprised, in one sense because this board does operate in "old boy's network" style, "I'll wash your back, you wash mine."  Remember Mrs. Z's email message advised her readers to send letters to the office complimenting De Marchi.  My next thought was disheartening, not fearful, and yet dismayed.  Some of these board members have staged events against that awful Wedgefield Examiner, with claims that printing transcriptions of their own words and actions at the board table, is cause to lowering property values.  Their claims roll like water off a ducks back, due to their own documented, public,  behavior. We all need to consider the source of these two faced claims.  The appointment of this individual is the third appointment to that very committee, from Mrs. Z's email list.  The very committee that will make recommendations to the board regarding conflict of interest.

ONCE AGAIN, HERE IS THE EMAIL AND LIST AND YES, THE NEW APPOINTEE IS ON THE LIST.  COMMENTS FOLLOW

 

Did your board and these email recipients forget the role this newly appointed individual has played in the brutal treatment of residents, fellow board members, persecution of two female board members in an attempt to throw them off the board - publicly threatening them with prison time,  his letter to the Georgetown newspaper using his board position without approval of the board, etc.  I'll review the tape to see who voted for him.  Both Garrison and McMillin were on the board during most of these actions.

 

Is it a far fetched notion to ask him for a writing sample?  I don't think so.  I'd ask him for one in particular.  In fact, I'll guide the board so that they can review it for themselves.  Board, please go to the Correspondence File for 2009.  You will find a unsigned "fairy tale", that was stuffed in the office drop box, in the dark of night, that is evil, sick, and frightening.  The new member of De Marchi's Compliance Committee wrote it, and was so gutless, he didn't sign his creativity.  How do we know he wrote it?  It was so ugly and despicable that it was part of the evidence in a lawsuit.  I was present when it was presented to him and he admitted writing it.

 

I fear for our community.  Mrs. Z had no thought to previous hard working board members.  She gathered together most of the people on this email list, collected money from them, sued a board and each of the board members individually, impacted those board members lives for four long years, and was unable to prove anything.  A few of the people on this list have personally told me, and others, that they were lied to during the lawsuit period.  Is this just more two faced operation by these people who obviously continue to follow her directions?

 

Mrs. Z, during the lawsuit period and since has been running/advising certain board members, varying over the years, without sitting on the board, or holding committee seats.  The very person who was approved to sit on De Marchi's Compliance Committee, and was a WPA board officer at the time, took my resident request to Mrs. Z, and two other board members who are on this list, for her advice.  You'll note "Fred", who was Legal Chair at the time, says, "If you have not already given to Madelaine.  Let's do this instead."  Notice, who the email is sent to.  It wasn't the entire board, just Mrs. Z's select few.

 

 

 



The following is a portion of an article I wrote a few years ago.  The reason it is printed is that it contains quotes from  previous board members (Use to taking advice from Mrs. Z and are on the email list above.)  This time they are being questioned by a resident who is upset that they are using WPA funds to pay the Board Attorney of Record, for dealings with Mrs. Z, who was suing the board at the time.



 The action this board took at the May meeting looks questionable.  I'll listen to the tape and see how McMillin and Garrison voted.  In the mean time we'll wait and see who else on Mrs. Z's list is appointed to a committee.  With rare exception, our committees, if they even have members, are stacked with these people.  At least three of our committees are chaired by DeMarchi.   It could look as though Mrs. Z is now advisor to De Marchi, if so, how comfortable should you be with that?  Remember, he is included in the email list.

UPDATE:
I've listened to the tape of the May WPA Board Meeting, regarding the appointment of the 3rd person from Mrs. Z's email list to the Compliance Committee.  As noted above, I wondered how Garrison and Mc Millin would have voted on this issue, since they served on the board, during the time that this individual did these things.  Both were involved in the lawsuits, so beside their board table knowledge, it should be noted that they were suing each other.  Both voted for this individual to be named to the Compliance Committee.  Is this the only place where governance is involved that your record  doesn't speak for itself?  I hope so.  Knowing all these things, many other too numerous to write about, these two knowingly voted to put this individual on this important committee.  Classic example of how the "good old boys network" operates. 

DeMarchi said this about compliance during the May WPA Board meeting, "We will monitor policy and we will amend it.  We will change it.  We will present it to the board for approval, and things like that."  Should you trust him, or his appointees to do this?  I don't think when you take the "taint", of what has been presented into consideration, that you should.  Should you trust a board composed of members who have participated in these types of activities, to spend your money, for the common good?  I don't think so.  When I stated earlier that I wanted to see the votes of Garrison and McMillin, because they were aware, I let the rest off too easy.  The vote was unanimous.  There were eight board present.  McBride was absent.  I know for sure that John Walton and  Adam Anderson were aware.  They were kept updated with documentation, during the period of time, when the lawsuits were in place.  President Walton and DeMarchi also have observed, or had documentation at their finger tips,  benefit of many of the actions of these individuals.  Garrison's vote didn't surprise me, after all he named one of the people on the Legal Committee, who co- authored with him, letters to residents telling them not to pay their association dues, because of the dredging. Now they are hounding them legally for following their advice.

It is ugly and can appear to be self serving, and yes, corrupt. 

TONIGHT IS THE WPA BOARD MEETING. WILL YOU ATTEND ? WILL QUESTIONS HANGING FROM THE APRIL MEETING BE ANSWERED

*Will McMillin get approval to alter the office parking lot, despite the fact that not one person made the request in writing? 

*Will the new Concerned Citizen  members of the Compliance Committee have a recommendation regarding conflict of interest, for the board's consideration?  If so, will it allow the board to do what they have tried to do for the last year, and bring our president in as a contractor?

*Will the board approve the Grounds' contract, so we don't have knee high grass on lots?

 

 

*Will the board approve a plan to fill the pot holes? 

 

 

 

 

*Will the board announce what governing documents they are using to deny a member in good standing,  copies, when they present the Community Liaison report, or the Legal report?   They haven't been able to quote the policy to date.

 







VIEWS OF WEDGEFIELD - ARE YOUR PROPERTY VALUES SOARING?





THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER HAS RECEIVED THREE EMAILS ALL MARKED "TO ME", AND A SECURITY WARNING FROM MICROSOFT REGARDING "TO ME". ONE OF THE EMAILS INCLUDES A EMAIL FROM MRS. Z TO HER FOLLOWERS. ALL OF THE EMAILS WILL BE PRESENTED IN THIS ARTICLE ALONG WITH COMMENTS.

EMAIL FROM CONCERNED CITIZEN, MRS. Z TO HER FOLLOWERS,

INCLUDING AL DE MARCHI AND MANY OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT HE HAS APPOINTED TO HIS COMMITTEES, AND TO THE HOME OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SITS ON THE LEGAL COMMITTEE  

 

 

COMMENTS:  I am very use to Mrs. Z's tactics. She who is so offended by the facts of WPA board member actions being presented on this blog is nothing more than a sham.  It could appear as though she promised De Marchi that she would get letters written in his behalf for the correspondence file.  If De Marchi and other board members followed our governing documents, rather than an apparent Concerned Citizen Agenda, openly, and ethically, there would be nothing to write about.  It could appear by this email list that De Marchi and a few others on this board are willing to promote individuals who follow her, to important committee assignments.  This email was sent to people who now sit on Legal, Complaince, and Finance. Those who were recently appointed to Compliance will now make recommendations to the board regarding conflict of interest.

 

I'm sick of this board working with this group and setting up theatrical productions like this, and the one at the March board meeting against me, and the Wedgefield Examiner.  The staging is lousy and there are more than a few hypocrites and thugs, in this group who lack any eye toward decent governance over the very place we call home. 

 

Mrs. Z, established her own web site, assisted in the publication of articles in newspapers, etc.  Where were her thoughts about the thankless jobs of those board members?  Members of her group rioted at board meetings, video taped certain residents, punched a resident, heckled, etc.  I have no patience for her sanctimonious drivel.  She, De Marchi, and some others on this board should be ashamed of any connection with the actions of some of these members.

 

The resident speaker at the March board meeting, sitting shoulder to shoulder with approximately 10 of these individuals, should be embarrassed that he ever tied himself to a group with these behaviors, let alone, uniting with them to attempt to hurt another, again.

 



 

THE SECOND EMAIL, WILL MC MILLIN BE THE NEXT VICTIM OF THOSE WORKING IN BEHALF OF DE MARCHI?

 



 COMMENTS:    First to the March resident speaker, your new group has a history of violent, harassing, unethical behavior.  Would you like to address the behavior of this team member at the June board meeting.   Many on this board have shut their eyes and voted with board members who are coached by members like this writer.  Still worried about your property values?

 

 

EMAIL SUGGESTS VIOLENT ACTIONS BE TAKEN AGAINST THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER

 

 

 

COMMENTS:  Will this writer, an apparent De Marchi Concerned Citizen supporter have earned his badge and be rewarded with a nomination to Finance, Compliance, or maybe even Legal, to partner on the stacked committee with one of the others on this email list?  ALL OF THE EMAILS INCLUDING THE ONE WITH THE LIST OF EMAIL ADDRESSES, WILL BE SENT AS ATTACHMENTS TO THE AGENCIES I AM CURRENTLY PROVIDING INFORMATION, ON MONDAY.

 

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER EMAIL RECEIVES NOTICE REGARDING "TO ME"

 

 





THE OFFICE PARKING LOT RE-DO: WILL THERE BE ONE?

The thought of your board allowing McMillin to re-do the office parking lot is so ridiculous, I delayed writing about it.  The thought, idea, apparently developed "out of the blue", by McMillin.  It has been rumored that he often says that he needs another project.  If true, does that mean the residents of Wedgefield have to pay for what he creates as his next project?  I hope not.  This board is always busy "moving on", as they have sometimes written in correspondence.  Why your board has allowed McMillin to take their stated valuable time at three meetings with this, is beyond comprehension.

There is no need, or reason to spend any amount of time considering this, let alone voting for it.  Drive by the office any time of the day.  Usually, there is only one or two cars.  Usually, they are board member cars.  Consider that the Correspondence file has been reviewed, prior to this even coming to the board table, and not one person, has written to complain, or express concern.  Even if one had, how many does it take for the board to determine they will consider spending our association funds on it?  The only individual in this entire association that has mentioned it, is board member De Marchi's spouse, and that was only after Mc Millin brought his idea to the board table. 

McMillin was responsible for bids, and parking lot development, in 2009.  He did a great job securing bids and working with local government authorities.  He wants a re-do now?  Will the sponsorship of a board member's spouse be enough to swing a vote at the board table, if it comes to that?  It shouldn't, but stranger things have happened at this board table.

In the mean time, if McMillin does want a project, he should take care of the one he has.  He isn't - grounds.  If he is concerned for the safety of the Wedgefield population, perhaps he could get some movement on the pot hole near the front gate.

Will six residents who want to play board and card games at the WPA office, take priority, over our property values?  Items such as revamping the parking lot, appear to over ride concern for safety and PROPERTY VALUES.  We are living with this every day.  If your home is for sale, your potential home buyers get these views, every time they come in here.



 

TUESDAY MAY 13TH: WILL WE GET A REDESIGN ON THE WPA OFFICE PARKING LOT? DURING THE APRIL WPA MEETING MC MILLIN WAS GIVEN THE OK TO CONTINUE HIS RESEARCH DESPITE THE FACT THAT NOT ONE PERSON HAD WRITTEN THE BOARD ASKING FOR A CHANGE. HOW MUCH WILL ONE BOARD MEMBER'S SPOUCE'S VERBAL CLAIM OF REPRESENTING 6 WEIGH INTO THIS? WHAT IS THE MAJIC NUMBER FOR BEFORE ALL OF US HAVE TO PAY? IN THE MEAN TIME, SOME THINGS REMAIN THE SAME THIS MORNING.



 

DO YOU REALLY THINK POTENTIAL HOME BUYERS HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE OFFICE PARKING LOT?  DON'T YOU THINK THAT THEY WOULD TAKE ROAD REPAIR AND LOT MAINTENANCE INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE THEY BUY IN WEDGEFIELD?  WHERE ARE YOUR BOARD'S CONCERNS FOR YOU AND YOUR PROPERTY VALUES?

NEW ARTICLE ADDED TODAY (Friday, May 9th) FOLLOWS THIS ONE. THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT

 

 

 



BOARD MEMBER DE MARCHI RUDELY REQUESTS A RETRACTION REGARDING HIS SELF SERVING POT HOLE REPAIR. HE DOESN'T GET ONE.

HERE IS DE MARCHI'S EMAIL.  COMMENTS FOLLOW IN RED

 

 

 





COMMENTS & ANSWER TO BOARD MEMBER DE MARCHI:

First, Board Member De Marchi, you claim you never read the blog.  My suggestion to you is that if someone "told" you about an article, you should read it for yourself, or go back to the individual who carried the tale, and tell them they were wrong, and possibly it was their attempt to stir up trouble, and you bought it hook line and sinker!  I attended the April WPA Board Meeting and while you reported the self repair of the pot hole on Francis Parker, near the King George intersection, you never reported who paid for the supplies.   The Wedgefield Examiner, NEVER reported who paid for it, because it wasn't mentioned in the meeting.

 

Please go back and read, 'ROADS, COLD PATCH, A LETTER TO THE EDITOR, AND WHEN COLD PATCH WAS RECENTLY USED IN WEDGEFIELD.  WHO GOT SERVED FIRST?  IT WASN'T THE GENERAL WEDGEFIELD POPULATION.  THERE IS STILL A BIG CONE IN THE POT HOLE NEAR THE FRONT GATE", published on Friday, May 2, 2014.  No where in the article does it state who paid for the cold patch for your self, could be viewed as unauthorized, repair of the pot hole on Francis Parker near King George.  It does ask the simple question of how much could it have cost.  The article does go on to state the real problem regarding the pot hole repair.  "It is disregard for line management and line authority, respect, and constant failure to act according to policy and procedure."  I stand by that regardless of your RUDE, attempt to be intimidating, email.  Perhaps you should retract your email!

 

I was unaware that a resident, and that's what you are, nothing more, when you take matters into your own hands, disregarding proper approval, could do what they want, when they want, in the manner they want, to common grounds.  After all, a cone placed in a pot hole that 40-50% of the residents have to travel on is sufficient to protect our "front end alignment".  As a board member are you recommending that each of the residents repair, fix, or alter any problem they see on common grounds?

 



WPA BOARD MEMBER MC MILLIN DECLARES PRIVATE LOT MOWING IN 2013 WAS NOT SUBDIDIZED. INFACT, HE CLAIMS THERE WAS A PROFIT. DE MARCHI, CLINE, AND GARRISON QUESTION HIM AND HE'S WRONG. IN FACT HE OWES SOME RESIDENTS A REFUND - PROBABLY MORE RESIDENTS THAN THE BOARD ACKNOWLEDGES

NOTE:  The following portion of the Grounds' Report was presented at the April 15, 2014 WPA Board Meeting.  The Wedgefield Examiner attended the meeting, listened to the tape again today, and is presenting the following to the best of my ability.  Please review the tape for yourself at the Wedgefield Times, to verify the information, for yourself.  The Grounds' Report begins at about 35.35 minutes into the tape.  DIRECT QUOTES WILL BE PROVIDED IN BLUE, UNDERLINED, AND IN QUOTATION MARKS.  COMMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED IN RED.

 

McMillin begins his report talking about plantings, a garden group, and a motion to spend funds.  He then moves to private lot mowing.  It is time for discussion to renew the second year of Great Lawns contract.  There is a caveat in it that allows for discussion and changes in the private lot mowing portion of the contract.  Note, last year the contract approval and signing was delayed.  Both Garrison and DeMarchi declared they didn't want to subsidize private lot mowing.  They gave credible figures.  If allowed to proceed in the world according to Mc Millin, we would be subsidizing private lot mowing.  After much discussion, the board voted, allowed Mc Millin to proceed, despite the fact that you and I would be subsidizing private lot mowing.  Go back to the 2013 tapes and listen for yourself.

 

We'll start with quotes from Mc Millin as he begins discussion of this subject during the April 2014 meeting.  Mc Millin, "  I did a little bit of research and there is a perception that we are subsidizing the lot mowing.  Do any of you have any idea how much the subsidizing might amount to?"  De Marchi, "I think it was about $17.00 a lot."  Mc Millin, "Well, that turned out not to be true, because I did some research.  I had looked up how many lot owners we had signed up for the services, how much they have paid, and how many site visits they ACTUALLY RECEIVED for the last year.  NONE OF THEM GOT AS MANY LOT VISITS AS THEY PAID FOR, and 3 heavily wooded lots that were unimproved.  These people responded to the letter that we sent to all the non residents and they thought they were going to get their lots cleared and maintained."  (Laughter)  Mc Millin continues, "So a letter was sent out to them....how much it would cost in addition to have their lots cleared and then they would be maintained on a regular basis for the $85.00.  None of the three responded."  De Marchi, "Did they pay $85.00?"  Mc Millin, "Yes, they did."  De Marchi, "Did you refund their money?  Mc Millin, "No we didn't."  De Marchi, "We should."  Mc Millin, "All right, that was one of my questions." (Comment - ???????)  Mc Millin continues, "So any how, if you total up what we collected from the property owners, we collected $1,845.00.  This was at a rate of....the wooded lots were at a rate of $80.00 each which was for a total of 4 visits during the season and there were 17 of those that had signed up.  There were 4 grassy lots that we maintained for some time.  We raised theirs to $100.00 and that was suppose to have been for 6 visits during the growing.  As I say NONE OF THEM got the total number visits they were suppose to because there was a clause in the contract - it was SUPPOSE to be as needed.  They weren't guaranteed that many visits.  It was SUPPOSE to be as needed."    ( Comment: Sounds like the contract with the residents wasn't written the way it was SUPPOSE TO BE and your board failed to provide what the contract actually said.  Later you'll get some of the individual numbers, as to how little people got, but Mc Millin attempted to declare a profit, when the board failed to live up to individual contracts with residents.  Shoddy contract development could be the reason they violate state law, and won't allow copies of contracts.)  Mc Millin continues, "So any how, we collected $1,845.00 from the property owners.  We paid Great Lawns a total of 50 visits, at a rate of $33.33, which comes out to $1,666.50.  So WPA actually made $178.50 off this deal.  SO WE DIDN'T SUBSIDIZE ANYTHING."  Cline, "OK, now I....so after we give back $85.00 times 3"  Mc Millin, "OK, we'll have a negative balance."

Mc Millin goes on to tell the board about 2 additional lots that are in bad shape.  He doesn't know who owns one of them.  He suggests for 2014 that the visits per lot be reduced to 4. Garrison asks whether 4 visits is enough.  De Marchi wants to know if all the residents under contract in 2013, whose contracts read 6 visits (grassy lots) or 4 visits (not cleared), how many did not received all of their mowings? Mc Millin starts to read from a chart, "

3 mowings
 4
 2 instead of
2 instead of
3 instead of
2 instead of
2 instead of
2 instead of
2 instead of
2 instead of
2 instead of, etc."

Comments:  I stopped typing at this point.  You can listen to this sorry mess on the tape yourself.  I've transcribed the salient points.  Last year (2013), your board held up the grounds contract for months, first telling Mc Millin they wouldn't subsidize lot mowing.  Both De Marchi and Garrison went after Mc Millin, giving accurate loss figures, gave in, and voted with the rest of the board to allow us to subsidize private lot maintenance once more.  During that time, Mc Millin himself declared that it would only amount to about $2.00 per member.  Now, it sounds like the very people who signed these contracts were cheated, and he wants to declare a profit.  Thanks to Cline, Garrison, and De Marchi, at least three people will get their money back because they didn't receive any service at all.  What about the rest?

For those of you that are so concerned about your property values, why aren't you asking this board to quit fooling around and get the lots groomed, quit delaying the contract.  Living by a grassy lot (The owners are great!  They have had that lot mowed for years.), last year the weeds were over my knees before they started mowing.  This year, it is on it's way to the same. This board needs to be held responsible for their ridiculous contracting.  No wonder they want to hide their shoddy contracts!

A GRASSY LOT IN WEDGEFIELD ON 5/7/2014

NOW, MC MILLIN WANTS TO REDUCE THE MOWINGS TO 4???????

YES, IT IS STILL THERE

COULD THIS MAKE IT BETTER FOR MOTHER'S DAY WEEKEND?

 



 

A RESIDENT DELIVERS A "PROP" TO COVER THE UGLY CONE FOR THE MOTHER'S DAY WEEKEND VISITS

Today at about 4:00PM a resident, who wishes to remain in the background, delivered a iron structure with a Happy Mother's Day balloon and flowers.  The resident felt it might help obscure the ugly cone.  They want to remain unnamed, so as not to suffer the wrath of this board.  I'm use to it.  They make up rules, avoid state law after providing it to me, and quite frankly it doesn't keep me from doing what I need to do.  This is the resident's answer to the ugly cone, for the Mother's Day weekend.

OPP'S, THERE WAS A HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY BALLOON ATTACHED, BUT I COULDN'T GET IT IN THE PICTURE.

 

While I was trying to take the picture in the wind, a resident stopped, smiled, and asked what I was doing.  I asked them if they would like that cone out near them?  They responded, "not by my house."

 

 

If you are selling your home, wouldn't this be better than the cone that has been there for about 2 months?  We all want to maintain our property values.  Does your board really want to?

 



LATER TODAY, MAY 7, FROM THE APRIL WPA MEETING: MC MILLIN DECLARES PRIVATE LOT MOWING IN 2013 WAS NOT SUBIDIZED, INFACT HE CLAIMS THERE WAS A PROFIT. DE MARCHI AND GARRISON QUESTION HIM AND HE'S WRONG. IN FACT HE OWES SOME RESIDENTS A REFUND

IN THE MEAN TIME....... IT IS STILL THERE

 

IS THIS YOUR "ROAD" TO GREAT PROPERTY VALUES?





ROADS, COLD PATCH, A LETTER TO THE EDITOR, AND WHEN COLD PATCH WAS RECENTLY USED IN WEDGEFIELD. WHO GOT SERVED FIRST? IT WASN'T THE GENERAL WEDGEFIELD POPULATION. THERE IS STILL A BIG CONE IN THE HOLE NEAR THE FRONT GATE.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE  CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR PROPERTY VALUES -

THIS HAS BEEN SITTING IN ONE OF THE MOST TRAVELED ROADS IN THE ASSOCIATION FOR ABOUT 2 MONTHS (pot hole much longer).  YET, THE FIRST POT HOLE TO BE FIXED IS ON FRANCIS PARKER

Roads Chair, Anderson brought the board up to date on the projects his committee has been working on, during the April WPA Board Meeting.  To his credit, Anderson has stuck to proper engineered projects.  It has taken time, but is an improvement to the scattered, "we have the expertise" approach of the past.  As he finished the report, he was asked whether there was anything in the plans for pot holes.  He explained that he had reported on the planned projects, and that he didn't know enough about road repair.  DeMarchi told him that he could cold patch them. He further reported, that he, himself, had picked up the material and fixed a pot hole on Francis Parker, near the King George intersection.  He advised Anderson that he could provide him with some contractor names who could cold patch.  PLEASE LISTEN TO THE MEETING TAPE OF THE ROAD REPORT FOR YOURSELF.  I've relayed the report to the best of my ability.

COMMENTS:
It appeared that DeMarchi was making the Roads Chair aware of his own special project road work at the board table.  If so, how does DeMarchi get his hands into everything, regardless of committee chairmanship, the governing documents, etc.?  The man is everywhere.  No one at the board table asks him how he took the pot hole repair into his hands.  The pot hole just off the circle on Wedgefield Road, was mentioned at the board table in March.  A good 40 - 50% of the entire population of Wedgefield make that turn.  Once again, he takes care of Francis Parker first!  Some might ask, "how much could that have cost?  That's not the point.  It is the disregard for line management and line authority, respect, and constant failure to act according to policy and procedure. 

On April 23, 2014, the following Letter to the Editor, appeared in the Post and Courier.  I've removed the writers name.  I have no idea what this writer knows about roads.  He does possess observation skills.  Just as you and I do.  I have observed in the 10 years that I've been here, that poorly planned projects have lead to repeat fixes in the same road areas, and the roads of Wedgefield are all but half paved with cold patch.

As to the hole with the cone in it at the circle, that area was repaired in 2010 or 2011, when that board didn't want engineering and they knew best. 

HERE IS THE LETTER TO THE EDITOR

 

RESIDENT SHARES LETTER TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST