ANOTHER "GATE HOUSE FIX" BY OUR WPA BOARD, BY THE BOARD AND VOLUNTEERS. HAVE WE AS RESIDENTS HAD FULL DISCLOSURE ABOUT THIS PROJECT OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS? WHY, HAS THE CENTER PIECE OF OUR ENTRANCE BEEN NEGLECTED, FOR OTHER FLUFF PROJECTS?

The "gate house fix",  and I do mean it in the negative sense, has been on and off the table, by this board for almost two years.  "FIX",  was a word that I have used over time, because that is what it appears to be, by this sometimes pouting board.

It started with your board sending out a request for proposal to vendors, identified by them, including our president's firm.  The proposal included three sections.  The board sought quotes, for everything from windows (stage 1), to work inside to remove dry wall damaged by water, and mold clean up.  The bids were opened at the board table, and it was determined that stage 1, was the stage they would consider funding.  Surprise, surprise, our president's company bid was the lowest.  When questioned, at the board table, as to whether awarding a contract to the president's firm was conflict of interest, Garrison, Legal Chair, called the questioning board member moronic, and refused to get a legal opinion.  After months, he agreed to seek legal opinion, regarding whether awarding the president's company a contract, was in conflict of the very "Conflict of Interest", signed by each and every board member.  Having reviewed the request for proposal package (?), and the contract (?), prepared by DeMarchi, it can only be called incomplete, and certainly not instruments of true business transactions.

When the board was found in conflict of interest, with the very document each had signed, our president, quit the contract.  He had purchased windows, and the board reimbursed him for his expense, leaving a new contractor to deal with what he had ordered.  The windows have laid around for at least a year.

Recently, the board put out another request for proposal, which again appeared to be in three stages.  This time, DeMarchi's ex-boss had submitted a bid.  If I recall correctly, it was the only bid. The bid was left unopened, when a board member said he felt he could get one more person to bid.  A few meetings later, the second bid was opened, along with the one from DeMarchi's ex-boss.  The board spoke as though they felt both bids were too high.  No vendor was selected.  There has been conversation that board members and volunteers, would do the work.  During the conversations, some of the specific problems of the gate house came up.  Water had run behind the dry wall, and under the carpet.  There was mold.  One board member felt that a wall should be braced, and at least half replaced.

During the January WPA Board Meeting, McMillin, regarding the gate house, stated that the board had agreed to do the work with volunteers, and that they would install gutter guards on the outside, before they worked inside.  A motion was made, and passed, to spend up to $350 for gutter guards, corners, and down spouts.  Garrison went on to ask about take down of sheet rock, removal of  carpet and garbage, and something about a door on one side.  Someone mentioned that the moisture needed to be treated.

During the resident comment section, at the end of the January meeting, a resident asked if the WPA insurance has coverage for board member, and volunteer, do it yourself projects.  Legal Chair, Garrison, said that he didn't know.  Really?????  McMillin, responded saying, that the WPA umbrella policy covers just about everything.  I believe it was stated that the board would check.

By the end of the meeting, I was left disheartened for a number of reasons.  First, where are the board's priorities?  They change like the direction of the wind, and often could appear to lack the best interests of the association, and it's assets.  It also appears that they fail to act "as any reasonable" governing entity would, as it relates to sound business judgement. 

 First, almost two years ago, they wanted that gate house fixed now!  Decisions, had to be made now, to the point, that every board member minus one, failed to honor a governing document, everyone had signed.  When our president, gave back the contract, where speed was once needed, the project was shelved.  Now, a resident has a valid question about insurance, and it probably has been shelved, so they can proceed as they want to, risking all, until they are pressured.  Think that is rash judgement?  I don't, their actions repeat themselves, in miserable ways.  Test my opinionated judgement.  Write the board, and ask them to provide you the section of the insurance policy that covers volunteers doing manual, hazardous, work?  Ask them, who on the board, contacted the insurance carrier, when, what time, and who they spoke to, and what they said.  I doubt they can provide any of that information, because I doubt they followed through and checked.  

On January 28th, as I was coming into the gate, McMillin was out sweeping up, just outside the gate house.  A trailer, full of what appeared to be dry wall pieces, was parked by the gate house.  Some of the pieces of dry wall were almost black.  Was it mold?  It has been mentioned in the past.  Would the board allow non professionals to expose themselves to mold?  Probably!  Would the board be so arrogant as to believe that they know how to handle mold debris, and the proper cleaning?  Probably.  Ask them if the insurance company was aware, because it is very doubtful.  The board appears to ignore sound business judgement when they want, what they want, and they appear to think that the average resident, is too dumb, to ask, or realize it.  Far fetched?  No, remember DeMarchi said, "he was sick and tired of legislating for idiots, who do the wrong thing."

I have one last question.  The gate house is the center piece of the front entrance, and a concrete asset of the association.  I'll never understand the ridiculous, delayed path of this project.  Why, over the delay period, did this board have time and money, to see to a fountain, numerous benches, and go cheap, on a concrete asset of the association, that residents, potential home buyers, and business people, have to drive by every day?  The only answer that I can come up with, is that they are self serving to their own egos and projects, and view residents, as not being smart enough to know the difference.
   

NEXT: THE BOARD PLANS (??????REALLY) FOR THE BATTERED GATE HOUSE. WHY BATTERED? THE BOARD HAS BEEN KICKING IT AROUND FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF. STAY TUNED.

AS PROMISED, DID WE GET A COMPLETE WATER AMENITIES REPORT DURING THE JANUARY WPA BOARD MEETING? THE ANSWER IS NO!

The Water Amenities report was provided by it's chair, John Walton, with board member, McMillin chiming in.  Walton made a motion to add C. Carrol, J. Cristello, D. Hastings, L. McMillin, A. Anderson, K. Johnson to the committee.  Motion passed, unanimously. 

Walton, then went on to say that the first project of the year, would be a card reader for the landing.  Between, Walton and McMillin it was reported that there were two vehicles at the landing on a Saturday, neither having the appropriate stickers, and one possessing a landing card, not his, and he would not identify the resident, who had loaned it to him.  McMillan, reported that he called the police, and that they came. Both intruders were told that they would be towed, if it happened again. 

I attended the meeting, and waited for Walton to explain why the junk pictured below, was allowed at the landing.

This mess, was never brought up.  Why, when we had such detail with the incident of the two men?  Why was it there?  Who put it there?  Did the board have a project that they failed to tell us about?  Was it just another cover up, your board allowing a favored resident to haul his junk to a common area of the association?  Why would it be important anyway?

I believe that it was never brought up because your board only spends time reporting what they think will make them look like hero's who are hard at work in your behalf.  I believe, just like the dock from the landing that was said to be unrepairable, then hauled into the canals, and not talked about, until another board member, insisted, that they aren't bringing it up, because they wouldn't look good.  We now have a board, that doesn't have one member, who questions and brings things out in the open at the table.  I don't believe that they have a WPA project, but I do believe that once again, they may have a favored resident, that has a project in process, and they are allowing them to use it as a temporary dumping ground.  This particular committee, appears to love salvage, with ideas to use old stuff, save money, somewhere else, whether it be for the WPA, or themselves.  Far out?  I don't think so.  We have many of the same players on the Water Amenities Committee, who were on board during that ridiculous dock saga.  More confirmation needed?  Take a ride by board member, McMillin's house.  He has, what appears to be, some of the vary items in the picture, piled on his lot.

Why is it important?  I'll be brief here, but it defies open, fair, governance, by this board.  More will be covered on the subject as we make observations, about the January WPA Board Meeting.  It appears to be same old, same old, except there isn't anyone at the board table, with enough integrity to question.

COMING UP ON THURSDAY - DID WE GET A FULL REPORT ON WHAT WAS GOING ON AT THE LANDING, DURING THE JAN. WPA MONTHLY MEETING?

HAS THE WEDGEFIED LANDING BECOME A DUMPING GROUND? WHERE DID THIS CRAP COME FROM?

Today is a beautiful sunny day! It is one of the first we've had, and a great opportunity to head down, and sit by the water at the Wedgefield landing.  It isn't so beautiful down there.  Our board either has another project, and haven't told us about it, or perhaps they are allowing someone to use it for a dumping ground, for their project.  We don't know, but with so many homes for sale, and the landing often mentioned in the real estate ads, wouldn't you think that the board would think twice about allowing this mess.  Whose mess is it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JANUARY 14: TWO ARTICLES WERE ADDED TODAY. KEEP READING, THE SECOND ARTICLE SENDS CONGRATS TO THE BOARD, AND BOARD MEMBER MC MILLIN

QUESTIONS ARISE AS I REVIEW MY WPA ASSESSMENT AND MY GEORGETOWN COUNTY REAL ESTATE AND PERSONL PROPERTY TAX INVOICE. ONE IS CLEAR, THE OTHER NOT. WHY WOUD YOUR BOARD GIVE BENEFITS TO SLACKERS? PERHAPS, YOU SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS PERK, I GOING TO STARTING THIS YEAR.

During the past week, we began to review and pay the new year expense - taxes, and our Wedgefield Association assessment.  The two invoices lay side by side. I took time to review the information, provided on both.

Georgetown County Real Estate and Personal Property Tax Notice Provides:

*Total amount due
*Due date - Jan 15
*Penalty Schedule
   -Amount due after 1/15
   -Amount due after 2/15
   -After 2/16 "Placed in execution with additional costs added"

Wedgefield 2015 Assessment Provides:
   -Amount due
   -Due date 1/31  (NOTE: As required by our by-laws, they are due 30 days after issue.)
   -They do wish you a Happy New Year, but, unlike Georgetown County, they fail to tell you when late fees apply.

Our Georgetown County tax invoice is very clear as to what and when penalties will apply.  Our Wedgefield assessment invoice could be vague intentionally, leaving us to believe that we must pay by January 31.  Yet, in reality, unpublished, or detailed on our invoice, THERE WILL BE NO FINANCIAL PENALTIES, UNTIL MARCH 1.  In fact,  your board again discussed the value to residents of giving this extra time opportunity, again, at the December board meeting.  Yet, they don't publish this fact on their invoice, perhaps because they count on most of us doing the right thing. One, if not two of them, mentioned that they appreciated the extra time.  When asked what the disadvantage of not paying by January 31 was, one of them stated the resident wouldn't be in good standing, and couldn't vote.  It was then further stated with some what of a laugh, that residents really didn't have anything to vote on, until the annual meeting, which takes place in November.  BOARD, YOU ARE RESIDENTS, WHO RECEIVE INVOICES JUST LIKE THE REST OF US, WHO DO HAVE REASON TO VOTE AT EVERY MONTHLY BOARD MEETING.  If you don't pay by January 31, who will insure for the residents, that you have a right to vote at the February WPA Board Meeting?

Have other boards done this?  Yes!  This board however, has laid claim to cleaning everything up.  They have made great use of the policy manual, which they are constantly changing to suit themselves.  They congratulate themselves on the collection of old accounts.  They have spent considerable amounts of our assessment funds on legal fees, for collection of past due accounts.  I don't find a problem with that, as long as we are truly cleaning up the past due account mess.  I do find a problem with them encouraging late payments to deviants.  If that weren't the case, they would have published the date late fees apply, so we all could take advantage. 

I've been aware of the late fee schedule, because I attend board meetings.  I've always paid my assessment by January 31st.  This year, I'm waiting until the last day of February.  You should consider doing the same thing.  Why?  The board is charged with following our governing documents, and making decisions in the best interest of the association, with fairness to all residents, rather than special interest.  Let your board experience the residents all enjoying the benefit, of their decisions.

CONGRATS TO THE WPA BOARD, PARTICULARLY TO GROUNDS CHAIR, MC MILLIN!!!!!!

The Georgetown Times, January 14, newspaper, page 7, contains the following ad:

"WEDGEFIELD MAINTENANCE CONTRACT

 

ACCEPTING BIDS FOR UPCOING GROUNDS

MAINTENACE CONTRACT TO BEGIN 3/1

CONTACT WPA OFFICE (546-2748) TO ARRANGE

MEETING & TOUR OF PROPERTY.

ONLY SEALED BIDS IN WRITING, HAND DELIVERED

OR MAILED, ACCEPTED NO LATER THAN 2/12.

NO FAXES OR EMAIL"

 

For the first time, in a long time, this ad appears to be the first step, in a legitimate request for proposal process!  Let's hope that there is a written specification packet, available with the tour mentioned above. For right now, thank you board, and board member Mc Millin.  Congrats, on what appears to be the first step in a job well done.

COMING UP TOMORROW: SHOULD I FOLLOW MY ASSESSMENT INVOICE INSTRUCTIONS, AND MAKE MY PAYMENT BY JAN.31???

FIRST LETTER WRITER TO THE GEORGETOWN TIMES, RESPONDS TO LETTERS TWO AND THREE

The Wedgefield Examiner's policy is to remove the name of the writer to the blog.  In this case the writer's name is printed, with the approval of the writer.  It is a direct response to the other writers to the Georgetown Times.  Our policy remains the same, with this exception.



THREE LETTERS TO THE GEORGETOWN TIMES: (1) FROM A FORMER RESIDENT WHO VISITED WEDGEFIELD AND COMMENTED ON BOARD MEMBER MC MILLIN'S GROSS CHRISTMAS DISPLAY, (2) BOARD MEMBER MC MILLIN'S RESPONSE TO THE NEWSPAPER, (3) TWO RESIDENTS CO-AUTHOR A LETTER TO THE NEWSPAPER , SINGING HIS PRAISES, WHILE IGNORING HIS DISPLAY, AND COMMENTS FROM THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER

 

LETTER # 1, WRITTEN BY A FORMER RESIDENT WHO VISITED WEDGEFIELD FOR A CHRISTMAS PARTY

 

 

LETTER # 2, WRITTEN BY BOARD MEMBER MC MILLIN IN RESPONSE

 

 

LETTER # 3, WRITTEN IN GLORIFICATION OF MC MILLIN, LACKING ANY REFERENCE TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND,  MC MILLIN'S CRUDE CHRISTMAS DISPLAY

 

 

COMMENTS

 

I hope you will take time to really read the letters, as I - "the blogger", will flip back and forth between the letters, as I comment.  The first letter, written by former resident Jude Davis, was unsolicited by me, as McMillin might like to lead you to believe.  Do I agree with it?  Yes, not from friendship, but because her words tell the story of the disgrace to our community, provided by McMillin, and his family artist.  McMillin's statement, "Ms. Davis and the "blogger" were at the center of the canal controversy which was long ago resolved," is both an attack, a ridiculous add on (who spoke of canals), and exhibition of his apparent true dodge ball nature.  First, why bring the canals in?  No one else did, but perhaps it is his attempt to take the reader away from the issue, his gross, insult to the average person, banner.  Further, McMillin was on the board with Ms. Davis and the "blogger", and voted to dredge and fund the dredging, and was sued, and countersued, as we were.  Yet, at the vary same Christmas party mentioned by Ms. Davis, a new resident told of Mc Millin, telling him/her what a leadership role he played in the dredging!  I guess with Mc Millin it depends what page he is reading from in his boards' man ship story book. 

 

Mc Millin writes, "For a full year, I have been the victim of constant harassment in a "blog" from a close associate of Ms. Davis, henceforth referred to as the blogger."  The "blogger" finds fault with everything that I say or do in my function as a board member and uses this material for her vindictive "blog"  "The banner that Ms. Davis referred to came about as a result of my family members being deeply offended by what they read about me on the "blog." 

Board member, Mc Millin, your family should understand that when you put your big boy pants on, and accept the role of board member, if you are legit, you and they understand that what you say at the board table, or you write under the signature of board member, should be done with such integrity, that you would have no problem with your words, or documents, being distributed.  Since the words, your words, your documents, are transcribed from board tapes, or records secured from the office, your family should have no problem in how they represent you, unless you yourself, are embarrassed by your own words and actions. 

 

McMillin goes on about rights stating, "The "blogger" stands by her right to free speech and expression under the first amendment.  I expect the same.  I did remove the banner before Christmas at my own choosing since my point had obviously been made as evidenced by Ms. Davis' letter.  These trivial matters do not reflect the true character of Wedgefield, and this nonsense should be ended once and for all."  First board member, McMillin, as the blogger, I've made no call to my first amendment rights. Perhaps the board attorney has if you asked.  As to your first amendment rights, it appears that you are upset about your own words and actions, appearing on the blog, with appropriate references.  You apparently took offense by my relating your own behavior at the BOARD TABLE, and attacked a resident literally from your board seat, when you put my house number on the gross banner.  YOU were willing to insult and harm an entire community, including sellers of property, for your TRIVIAL temper tantrum, caused by your own words and actions.  You failed to fulfill your role as a board member by these actions, and by most of your words and actions, documented in the blog, over far more than one year.  Your fellow board members have obviously put you, and your ridiculous actions, before community, and any kind of decency standard.

 

To the two resident writers to the paper, who wrote of the wonders of board member McMillin,  I respectfully suggest that you attend board meetings to see him, and his cronies on the board, as they twist our governing documents, and cover actions like this one.  Maybe you are only getting the story of his actions at the board table from him.  Remember the new resident who he told about his leadership in the canal dredging, and then writes that Ms. Davis and I, obviously not him, were at the center of the canal controversy?  Perhaps board member, McMillin could have the banner duplicated, so it would be available for each of your neighborhoods next year.   While he places benches, clears a pond, purchases a fountain, the concrete assets of this community are falling apart.  Our assessment funds are wasted, and become more costly, when the board fails to get proper engineering and bid procurement, and contract awards.

 

Remember, we all have had to live with these problems.