Total Pageviews

Thursday, December 29, 2016

DECEMBER 29, 2016 - 4 ARTICLES WERE REPOSTED TODAY. 3 INVOLVE DREDGING - RESIDENTS ARE GOING BACK TO SEPTEMBER 2016 TO DO THEIR RESEARCH. THE 4TH ARTICLE LOOKS BACK AT RESIDENT CONCERNS A YEAR AGO - DECEMBER 2015


SOME RESIDENTS ARE GOING BACK TO SEPTEMBER 2016 ON THE BLOG TO RESEARCH THE CURRENT DREDGING PROPOSAL MESS - ILLEGAL. I'M REPOSTING BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON'S LETTER TO THE BLOG

The following has been submitted to The Wedgefield Examiner.  It is presented as sent, without comment from the Wedgefield Examiner.  It is another opinion.   NOTE:  NO DOCUMENTATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS MADE WITHIN THE DOCUMENT.  If you have an opinion, you are welcome to send it to wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com.  Unless requested otherwise, I will remove the name of the writer.

HERE IS THE LETTER:
October 28th, 2016


Madeline,


I would like to make an honest attempt at clearing up some information about the water amenities committee’s  approach to canal dredging and simply outline  the reasons we have chosen this course of action. We have studied the dredging issue for many years. We all experienced what the 2009 dredging did to our community. It was incredibly divisive and ripped the neighborhood apart. Our #1 priority in attempting this phase of dredging was to avoid anything that would initiate a repeat of the controversies surrounding the 2009 dredging. Every committee member and member of the board is in total agreement with this approach.  There will never be a dredging plan that pleases everyone. There are those that feel every lot throughout the plantation  should be assessed equally, and then there are those that feel the canal should be completely ignored by the WPA. What we have always tried to do is find that middle ground.That is how things get done. That has been our approach from day one.


Allow me to outline what our intentions are.


Every since the 2009 dredging was completed we have known that a second phase of dredging would be needed. That's the way it was engineered. We looked at all of the possible ways to assess for dredging without the controversies that surrounded the 2009 dredging. The board began allocating 15% of it’s budget 5 years ago. We needed a plan to come up with the rest. The ruling in the lawsuit challenging the individual assessment was that the 2009 board overreached its authority by using the individual assessment for the purpose of canal dredging. Whether or not you agree with this ruling,whether or not you think it was not a “real” judge,or if you think it is an invalid ruling, is not really relevant. The WPA board decided to accept the ruling and not appeal it on the advice of the WPA attorney. In a meeting with the attorney he laid out all the reasons for and against an appeal and made a compelling case as to why we should accept it and move on.  We took his advice. You are certainly free to criticize that decision, but it doesn't change the fact that the WPA had a weak case and faced a very expensive and uphill battle to win an appeal. We then began to look at the possibility of dredging using the monies allocated by the WPA . While not enough to completely fund a maintenance dredge, it is a significant amount. We then put together a plan to privately raise the remaining amounts through voluntary contributions. We realize this plan is not perfect but it is our only logical and ethical way to dredge. The WPA board will not do another individual assessment, and frankly would be foolish to do so again after having lost the lawsuit. The only other legal way would be to assess everyone an equal amount, which we feel is grossly unfair and would result in more controversy and litigation,something we desperately want to avoid. Our plan is clean and simple.The WPA contributes up to ⅓ of the cost and we raise the remaining ⅔ from private donations. It’s the only way this will ever happen again. If this plan fails, there is no plan B. It’s over, and your water access behind your home will be no more. There will never be a WPA board willing to do what you suggest, and do another individual assessment. The only other option the canal lot owners have is to file litigation against the WPA for failing to maintain the canals. That would be a ridiculous course of action for many reasons. It would be incredibly expensive and the money needed to pay for attorneys would need to be privately raised. Why not spend that money on dredging??? It would be an uphill battle that would take years to finish. We would need to prove the WPA has an obligation to maintain the canals.Our covenants are weak,  judges are lazy, and attorneys are greedy. It is simply not a risk I would be willing to take. All the while the canals would be filling in every day and the permit closer to expiring. That time and those resources could be better spent on actual dredging. Our plan gets this done in 18 months and give us 10-15 years of usable enjoyment out of the canals. We  have no interest in spending countless dollars and years of  fighting.


I respect you and what you do with your blog, even if I disagree with its content. Debate can be a healthy thing and I believe that is how you find the middle ground and actually get things accomplished. I believe that is what we have done here. We have listened to every conceivable opinion on dredging and drawn on those opinions in coming up with this plan. This is the best we can do.You have stated in your blog that you agree in principal with our plan, just not the private fundraising aspect. As someone that served on the WPA board during the 2009 dredging, I shouldn't have to tell you how difficult this issue can be. We have been openly discussing canal dredging for about 6 months now and haven't really heard any negative feedback from the residents most staunchly opposed to it last time. Most canal lot owners are also supportive and appreciative of our efforts. The Board of Directors is supportive. That indicates to us that we have found that middle ground that might just allow us to accomplish our goals without the controversies of the past.  


I appreciate you allowing us to use your forum to present our point of view. We realize it is unlikely that we will ever have your support and we accept that. We are not bad people. We are not the manipulative, secretive, incompetent  scoundrels you sometimes suggest we are.You seem to have a vendetta against us and our ideas but I ask you, what is your plan? What are you doing for canal lot owners? You often speak of our “governing documents” but our covenants are so weak and poorly written and outdated. Do you really think an individual assessment is going to happen? Do you think this course of action you are on is constructive? You are trying to destroy our efforts and the efforts of those that have worked tirelessly and donated tens of thousands of dollars to obtain the permit. And you seem hell bent on simply being “right”. What do you think you accomplish if you can suppress our efforts? The permit expires in 2018 and then it's over. Done! It will never be dredged again if we fail. We have a very realistic chance at accomplishing our goal. If you wish not to contribute to our efforts we certainly respect your decision. There are certain realities canal lot owners must accept. This plan is as close to perfect as we will ever get concerning dredging and we are united and as determined as ever to get this done. You will certainly continue to trash our efforts,but for every hour you work to hurt us, we will work 10 for the betterment of the canal community and Wedgefield as a whole.


I will never understand your way of thinking, but I will respect your right to voice your opinion. Thank you for allowing me to voice mine.


For the water amenities committee,


Adam Anderson

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER REPOSTS HER RESPONSE TO BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON'S LETTER TO THE BLOG, SEPTEMBER 2016

n order for you to understand what this article is about you will have to read the letter sent to The Wedgefield Examiner that is posted immediately above this one.  I'm sure that I will have comments beyond these, but my day is scheduled full of appointments.  The first items that jumped out at me were these:

1)"And you seem hell bent on simply being “right”.
Most of us want to be right, In this case it is not so important that I be right, but I do set myself up to be sued in providing the blog, so I document everything. My audience doesn't have to take my word, I present back up to everything.

The intention of the blog is to make sure that my board is doing the right thing for my community. It is more important, board member, Anderson that you as a board member live up to operating under the guidance of our governing documents, whether you like them, or not. You speak of all these conversations, and approvals by groups previously against dredging, and yet there is no documentation when you met with these people, and how they got invited when we didn't.

My expectation, unrealistic as it may seem to you, and my board is that you perform your duties to the benefit of all members, under the restrictions, and covenants that you personally signed, and therefore promised to uphold. Here is the document, and your promise to each of us, when you took office. So I'm calling on you, your committee, and your fellow board members to keep your word.
WEDGEFIELD PLANTATION ASSOCIATION POLICY MANUAL
CODE OF ETHICS
Appendix IV-1
Directors shall act with scrupulous good faith and candor. They will avoid even the perception of conflict of interest, favoritism and acting out of self-interest.
Directors shall uphold and safeguard the Bylaws, ConditionsRestrictions and Policies governing Wedgefield Plantation Association.
___________________________________________________________________________ Board Member Date 


2) "What are you doing for canal lot owners? You often speak of our “governing documents” but our covenants are so weak and poorly written and outdated."
What am I doing for canal lot owners? Asking them to force you, your committee, and fellow board members to live up to your responsibilities under those detested governing documents, and you aren't. We all have an opinion. We all bought our properties - golf course, condo, or canal, believing any board would have to live up to the governing documents that our deeds said you would govern us under. Perhaps, you, or your committee, or fellow board members would tell my fellow canal lot owners when you voted, who voted, who witnessed, this board's vote to give the canal maintenance effort $135,000 of our WPA funds. I would hate to see someone sue, halt the project, because you, your committee, and fellow board members have been leading the project down a very slippery slope.

I'm advising canal lot owners that this project is illegal, and divisive, by the manner in which you have structured it, and it does nothing to benefit property values overall, or for our fellow members in the condos, or on the golf course, at a time when the golf course is a mess, and general maintenance is even worse.

3) "We have been openly discussing canal dredging for about 6 months now and haven't really heard any negative feedback from the residents most staunchly opposed to it last time."
Would you provide me the dates, and the minutes from all those open discussions, because I've looked at the WPA website, and can't locate them - not even in the official minutes.

PART II ADDED SEPTEMBER 29
PART II - SEPTEMBER 29
4) "If this plan fails, there is no plan B. It’s over, and your water access behind your home will be no more. There will never be a WPA board willing to do what you suggest, and do another individual assessment. The only other option the canal lot owners have is to file litigation against the WPA for failing to maintain the canals. That would be a ridiculous course of action for many reasons. It would be incredibly expensive and the money needed to pay for attorneys would need to be privately raised. Why not spend that money on dredging??? It would be an uphill battle that would take years to finish. We would need to prove the WPA has an obligation to maintain the canals.Our covenants are weak,  judges are lazy, and attorneys are greedy".

"If this plan fails, there is no plan B." That is just poor planning, and another indication that this committee, and board, with no documented meetings of discussion, and a vote, at the board table, has just been hell bent on following this questionable, illegal, legal chair. "Our covenants are weak,  judges are lazy, and attorneys are greedy". This board has had to search through a number of "greedy" and dysfunctional lawyers, to find just the right one to give the opinion that legal chair/Garrison wanted. It appears divisive on the part of the committee, and board to make these statements about the very attorneys - some referees, and your claim to rulings, and judgements. I am no advocate of court, but to speak of judges with the distain you have for them, as a board member is questionable, when you've tried to attach judge to certain of your glorified greedy lawyers. Can we as members, trust you, your committee, and our board on any level? I think not! If I were this board, a court room, and a judge, would be one of the last places I would want to be, because I don't know how you would be able to defend the actions of this board, on any issue, let alone the canals, because this board is not following the requirements of our governing documents, on any level - no votes on $135,000, no discussions, and no plan B. You'd have no chance of winning, and this whole board has total disregard for our governing documents. Thank you for putting your opinion regarding our governing documents, in writing.

I question the integrity of the canal committee/board members: you, McMillin, Johnson, John Walton, in the matter of the high regard you present for yourselves, in your representation of the canal lot owners. If you wanted to look at options, and you really wanted to have a plan B, why did you let the rest of your board, our president, and legal chair cover up that moment in time when if you are a canal lot owner, WE HAD WON on BOTH TYPES OF ASSESSMENT? Actually we had won, and the victory papers laid around for about a year, and a half, without being mentioned. It was that long before anyone thought that there had to be some changes made (Go back to your official minutes.) This shows the divisiveness of your statements, and the apparent willingness to cover up good news, which would have not only helped the canal lot owners in the future, but aided in the resolution of every type of lot owner problem. At the 2015 Annual Meeting, when I asked a question, now recently resigned board member, DeMarchi said that when he saw those rulings (not) he was so happy that we had won, that he wanted to hold a parade on Wedgefield Rd. Yet, this is what Garrison reported in the minutes of the October 2013 WPA Board Meeting:
  1. "He also stated that a copy of the order from the Special Referee is in the office. This is regarding the 2 canal properties that have not paid the $5,000." 
Why didn't you, McMillin, Johnson, or John Walton, ask that Garrison explain what the order contained, as the strong, legal, non divisive canal lot representatives that you declare yourselves to be? Need time to come up with a reason not to win? I believe that if one of your lazy judges saw this, he/she would question your motives, let alone the rest of the board. "You will certainly continue to trash our efforts,but for every hour you work to hurt us, we will work 10 for the betterment of the canal community and Wedgefield as a whole." It is no wonder it takes you 10 hours VS one hour of my work. It is easier to provide truth, than construct a fabrication of the truth. I hate it when people like you try to kill the messenger of truth. You aren't, I'm stronger than that, and these issues are too important.

PART III ADDED 9/30
"There will never be a dredging plan that pleases everyone."
No, there never will be a dredging plan that pleases everyone, however, you, your committee, and your board have not acted in anyway that is legal according to our governing documents. I'm not publishing all those documents again. Regular readers of the blog know that I have presented all the necessary back up documents in previous articles. I have asked that you show me, and all of the membership, exactly what governing documents you have followed. I've asked you to name the dates, and times of the meetings where all these opinions within the board, and outside - with the membership, were gathered. I have asked you to give me reference to the date, and meeting notes where the board committed openly, and honestly, - discussed and voted -the $135,000 contribution to the dredging. I don't believe you can supply that information. This has been nothing but a secret operation - an illegal operation. You have spent more time damming the facts, rather than proving me wrong. Quite frankly, the entire board should be removed for their illegalities. What is worse, is for all your accusations, you have divided this community again by your actions, not my words, to benefit one group the canal lot owners - us first no matter what.

This is important because every member in Wedgefield is being impacted again - something you swear you avoided, because of the $135,000. Each, and every member household contributed, and you are using this money at a time when every lot owner in Wedgefield has a real need for the specific problems related to their lot asset to be addressed. None of the needs of all the lot owners are being addressed, and yet you will take $135,000 out of "all members money", to fix yours - illegally. You should not be talking to me, or anyone else about the intangible feelings driving your decisions. You should be showing the entire membership how you are doing it legally, and you are not, because you can't. What is worse is that you, and this entire board are making poor decisions - illegal decisions - about general maintenance, and ARC, and you address them, only when pushed by residents during the resident comment section of the monthly board meetings, and then this board sits on their hands, and allows Garrison to be just about the sole speaker, on all subjects, and he is often rude, and crude to the resident's questions, particularly if the resident comes armed with our governing documents. This board is illegal in every aspect of their work. Our governing documents are being ignored in every aspect of your work. You answer to no one with real authority because you don't have a legal leg to stand on. You'll make anyone who questions, the community enemy.

"You are trying to destroy our efforts and the efforts of those that have worked tirelessly and donated tens of thousands of dollars to obtain the permit. And you seem hell bent on simply being “right”. What do you think you accomplish if you can suppress our efforts? The permit expires in 2018 and then it's over. Done! It will never be dredged again if we fail."

I want the canals dredged. I want you, your committee, and your board to do this openly, honestly, and legally. I, as a canal lot owner living here from 2004 on, donated every time I was asked, to that permit. I lived under 4-5 years of lawsuit, contributed to the countersuit, spent hours, observing depositions, being deposed, and providing and reviewing discovery documents. All the while, WPA governing documents were being torn apart from both sides. You, your committee, and your board, would have nothing to bring to that legal setting. You have no meeting dates, no votes from the board table, etc. I will not participate, nor should my fellow canal lot owners, until you show us where the board has met, any of our governing documents requirements. You can't.

"The permit expires in 2018 and then it's over."
This to my knowledge, and at some point, I reviewed the permit, is a half truth intended to incite fear. As I recall, there is a clause in the permit itself that provides for a extension of time. You don't have to start all over again, you simply have to apply. You should not be moving forward with a dredge today, under the illegal guidance of this committee, and board, when all of Wedgefield is in such a mess. You, your committee, and board should get your illegal acts together, and clean up every corner of Wedgefield - ARC, vacant lots, and general grounds maintenance, and include a legal plan to help every lot owner.

"Our plan gets this done in 18 months and give us 10-15 years of usable enjoyment out of the canals. "
This is so short sighted, that I can't believe that you would even state it. No plan B. No long term resolution to future problems. Dredge now, without thought to the future, and enjoy 10-15 years of enjoyment, because this is it. If you dredge, you are one storm/flood away from being where you are today. According to you, this is it. So without a long term plan, you could be done in one year. I didn't buy my property with a dead line on water being in my back yard. Your so called plan isn't good for us individually, and it isn't good for property values anywhere in Wedgefield.

HERE'S MY PLAN:
*Extend the permit.
*Use the governing documents we have, like them, or not
*Hold regular monthly meetings with a real agenda, discussion, and votes.
*Throw out the whole committee, and start with a new one that is willing to develop a long term plan.
*Get rid of as many of the current board members who allowed this, and all the disastrous conditions throughout Wedgefield to develop. Four are up for re-election. A start can be made by voting no for Jacky Walton, Garrison, Johnson, and Phillips.
*Clean up the legal committee. Get a new chair, and committee members. They have been hiding too much, and not even getting written legal opinions.
*Clean up the compliance committee. It is an obvious conflict of function to have the same person (Garrison) serve as legal chair, and the compliance chair. Get a new chair, add more residents to the committee, and charge the compliance committee with doing a records audit of the actions of this board for at least two years. Follow every contract from procurement forward. Review all associated board actions against the governing documents. Issue a report to the community.

COMING UP NEXT: THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER WILL PUBLISH BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON'S REBUTTAL TO THE COMMENTS I HAVE MADE ON HIS ORIGINAL LETTER TO THE BLOG.






REPOST OF BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON'S REBUTTAL ON THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER'S COMMENTS TO HIS DREDGING LETTER

ANDERSON'S REBUTTAL:
Madeline,
I will address these one at a time


1)"And you seem hell bent on simply being “right”.
Meaning “right” in your mind. You are so far far from being correct. You clearly don’t care at all about dredging or maintaining the canal. Like I said in my letter, there is no plan B. The permit expires in 2018 and then it's over. That must be what you want. The WPA has ZERO power to levy an individual assessment like you recommend and when you tell people not to give to our efforts you are trying to destroy what we have built and the tens of thousands of dollars that were donated to obtain the permit.


2) "What are you doing for canal lot owners? You often speak of our “governing documents” but our covenants are so weak and poorly written and outdated."


They are. It’s just a fact. Anyone that has ever read a set of covenants and restrictions from a similar development will tell you the same thing. There should have been a designation of  zones that would allow the WPA to assess each zone independently. That is the way most HOA’s are set up. Ours unfortunately is not, and we are all paying the price.  The WPA has only two options for canal dredging. Assess equally for all lots ( unfair, controversial, never going to happen) or our current plan. When I say what are you doing for canal lot owners I want to know what information you have that eludes the rest of us.The WPA lost the individual assessment lawsuit and did not appeal that decision. It’s over. That door is closed. In front of you is a plan that is fair and that will work. That is working. And you are doing everything you can do undermine it, for what exactly????


3) "We have been openly discussing canal dredging for about 6 months now and haven't really heard any negative feedback from the residents most staunchly opposed to it last time."


We began discussing this in April of this year and have had approximately one meeting a month ever since. These meetings have been reported at EVERY board meeting. There have been NO meetings with residents opposed to it last time. My comment was derived from the fact that as Community Liaison I have not seen ONE negative letter about the idea of dredging or our plan. What was the public outcry like in 2009 when you were on the board?


Again,I fail to understand your mindset.You want to destroy our efforts, with no viable ideas or plan of your own. You are misleading your followers. There is no other way to dredge. Our plan is solid. We have several amazing preliminary prices for the dredge work and once we get the engineering and surveying work complete residents are going to be thrilled at the prices. That, along with the WPA monies that have been set aside make our plan incredibly viable. And yes, there has been no vote to spend that money, just money placed in reserve. No different than it would be for a  road or drainage project. But please, outline YOUR plans for dredging since you  are a candidate for the board. I look forward to hearing them.


And you may print my name


Adam Anderson

Lot 48

  I've provided back-up to my series of articles, prior to his initial letter.  I've had no answer, as to when the board voted from the board table to give the $135,000 to the canal dredging. HERE IS THE QUOTE FROM THE HANDOUT PROVIDED BY THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE,  AT THE CANAL LOT OWNERS MEETING:  "Meet with WPA leadership and garner their support and find out what they expect in order to gain that support.  We did this on May 12 2016.  We met with the president and vice president of the WPA to gather their ideas and support the project.  They were receptive to our ideas.  The general consensus of this meeting was if the waterfront properties can privately raise the money needed, the WPA will contribute the monies set aside for this purpose in the reserves.  The WPA will allow the use of the WPA name, permit and will generally support the project so long as these contingencies are met.  The WPA is willing to allocate up to 1/3 of the total cost not to exceed the reserve funding already in place.  For the past 5 years the WPA has allocated roughly 15% of its yearly budget for canal dredging.  This money is already in place and our plan will NOT cause any rise in assessments or cost ANYONE not living on the canal ANY additional money."

A little further into the handout we hear what else the WPA is willing to do, and I quote:  "The WPA currently has approximately $115,000 earmarked for dredging and by next year that number will be in the $135,000 range.  Once we have our funding in place the WPA will contribute their funding earmarked for dredging and then enter into a contract to dredge the canals.  All of the permitscontracts, etc. will be in the WPA name.  The WPA will be the responsible party."  Go to the May 2016 board minutes provided below.  Your board does not mention the May 12 meeting, let alone vote.  The reserve fund for dredging, like all the other reserve funds, are not restricted.  Speaking of the road reserve, I will remind Anderson that when we had the last road project, and the financial need to do a complete job, was more than the road reserve, the board voted, and took money from two of the other reserves to meet the need.  They are not restricted reserves.    Your board has made a contract with the canal lot owners, and 31 canal lot owners have depended on it, and paid their first monies for the studies.  It is a contract, a bad contract, because your board has committed the monies - $135,000, and they are tied up for an indefinite period of time, because there is no deadline on it.
 It is plainly illegal!  As to the minutes, you'll note he refers to, I have posted them before, and I will again - after his rebuttal, for his benefit. 

The permit has an extension clause.  Ask Anderson, the committee, and your board what that is because he fails to address it in his rebuttal.

Board member, Anderson spends a lot of time attacking me, rather than citing what portion of the governing documents allowed the board to approve the $135,000 of our WPA money, away from the board table, and the membership.  The approach from this board,  has been to distract by demeaning the member questioner, rather than answer the question, and back it up with legal facts.  He has two problems.  First, they are dealing with a resident who has an established blog, and I must use back up facts, - minutes, governing documents, their transcribed words.  Second, this member will not back down, until and when the board provides the back up that I request.  They will never be able to do that because what they are doing is illegal, and they resort to lying to the membership.  Read his rebuttal, and then look at the official minutes presented below.  No one can destroy their efforts, if they are doing the right thing, nor would I want to halt the project.  Your board is ignoring to many of our governing documents, in every aspect of their decision making.    

Board member, Anderson, as far as your requiring from one candidate a plan to dredge the canals, why isn't the question - What are you going to do for all of Wedgefield legally, ethically, and within the governing documents, as required by any board member?  Will you ask your short sighted, selfish question of every candidate?  Give us all a deadline, and we all should have to answer, and I'd be happy to share every candidates answers on the blog.

As a candidate, I don't really care whether I win, or not.  In fact, I have stated that from the beginning.  I believe that I can do a good job.  I am willing to do the work openly, honestly, according to our governing documents, not just for canal people, but every member circumstance.  You won't find me telling a resident who has waited over 11 months for the board to answer him regarding ARC issues, that the board members are volunteers, and too busy!
If I don't win, it won't be a surprise, and I'll keep the blog going, and fight for Wedgefield, a better, legal Wedgefield from my home, and write to any entity that can come in and make this board do what it was elected to do, because you, and this whole board crew, aren't.

FOR YOUR, AND BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON HERE ARE THE MINUTES, HE SAYS WILL FIND ALL THAT INFORMATION.  
MINUTES - DECEMBER 2015

Water Amenities:  John Walton reported damage to marina road; an estimate of $1605 from Doug & Doug.  Jacky suggested on getting a bid from JC Landscaping.  John explained that he and Bob Garrison have filed with FEMA and WPA doesn’t meet their criteria. 


MINUTES - JANUARY 2016
Water Amenities Bob Garrison read John Walton’s report asking residents to report any boats speeding or doing anything illegal to take the boat number and call the DNR or law enforcement.  WPA does not have the authority to do anything about it.

MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2016

Water Amenities:  John Walton thanked all the canal property owners about their concerns about the dumping of debris in the canals.  He asked that if they see anyone dumping again to make sure they take pictures.  If he doesn’t have pictures, there isn’t much he can do. 
John Walton made a motion, Bob Garrison 2nd to have Chris Carroll, Jamie Cristello, Ed Wozniak, Larry McMillin, Adam Anderson and Keith Johnson to be added to the Water Amenities Committee. Passed with 6 ayes

MINUTES - MARCH 2016

Water Amenities: John Walton reported the marina project is completed.  The bid was for 40 ton but could have used 60 tons. The boating season is upon us and John asked that all residents show courtesy to others while at the marina.   

MINUTES - APRIL 2016

Water Amenities: John Walton reported he needs to order more marina cards.  There are only three cards available in the office.  John asked the board how much could be spend before having to get approval from the board.  Bob Garrison replied he could spend up to $500 just needs one executive board member approval.

MINUTES - MAY 2016
Water Amenities: John Walton reported the committee has begun looking into doing a maintenance dredge on the canal.  We met with Army Core of Engineering on May 10 to confirm that our permits are still valid and have reached out to several dredging contractors for estimates.  We plan to have a meeting with the canal lot owners soon to discuss the dredging and what will be required from them in order to make this happen.  We want this process to be open and to keep everyone informed of what is going on.  We hope to have more to report next month.   COMMENTS:  "Keep EVERYONE INFORMED"  Yet, not  water amenities chair John Walton,  or president Walton, or legal/compliance chair/vice president Garrison tell us that the Water Amenities Committee not only has been meeting for months without reporting it from the board table, but they met with Jacky Walton, and Garrison on May 12th, and that Walton and Garrison assure them - commit up to 1/3 of the total cost of dredging, not to exceed the amount in the canal reserve account, if certain requirements are met.  I've reviewed the WPA website for announcements of meetings - open or closed, so it must have been a secret meeting.

 John stated that people are using the landing without stickers.  One resident was informed about needing stickers on vehicle and boat trailer.  One resident is allowing an underage driver to put in at the landing, if residents see this call the sheriff department, nothing WPA can do.   John Walton reported he will be looking into having a tow company available to tow vehicles if they are not abiding by the rules of the landing.

MINUTES - JUNE 2016

Water Amenities: John Walton reported
Boat Landing – Winyah Towing will now be our towing company for the landing parking area.  He will be patrolling on his own as well as being on call and will tow vehicles not displaying proper identification.  New signs have been installed per legal requirements.

Residents must affix and display a valid Wedgefield resident sticker in the lower left corner of vehicle windshield and on boat trailer or be subject to being towed as per policy manual section IX, paragraph 2.02

Vandalism – In the past month we have experienced vandalism at the landing area. While on routine inspection, I discovered the shielding had been deliberately broken and the wires for the big light that illuminates the boat ramp area had been cut.  Committee member Larry McMillin immediately acted to have this repaired.
Dredging – The committee has been looking into getting bids for dredging.  We have 4-5 contractors interested in bidding.  The contractors are all asking for a hydrographic survey before they will place bids.  This is the only way to accurately know how much needs to be removed.  We are in the process of acquiring estimates from engineering firms for the hydrographic surveys.

We intend to have a meeting of canal lot owners soon to explain what we are doing and what will be needed to make this happen.  We will have more details next month. 


MINUTES - JULY 2016
Water Amenities: John Walton Absent, Adam Anderson read report
A meeting is being planned for mid-August for the waterfront property owners to discuss the idea of maintenance dredging of the canals and to discuss all aspects of the project.  A letter will be mailed to all canal owners soon inviting them to this meeting. 

MINUTES - AUGUST 2016

Water Amenities: John Walton reported nothing new to report on the boat landing area at this time.  The committee met with the Wedgefield Waterfront Property Owners for the first time on August 11th.  The meeting was held to gauge interest in fund raising for canal dredging.  It was a very positive meeting.  We have started collecting money for Phase I of this project.  Phase I will involve surveys needed for the canals and spoil site area.  These are required by Army Corp. and dredging companies.  The committee has started to receive funds for this phase of the project.  I would like to thank my committee for covering all the printing, mailing, etc. cost.  All funds where donated by the committee members.




  




  

WHAT WERE THE ISSUES A YEAR AGO - DECEMBER 2015? NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED - FRUSTRATION ABOUT PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, AND YOUR BOARD'S FAILURE TO ADHERE TO WPA GOVERNING DOCUMENTS. THIS PARTICULAR RESIDENT LOOKS LIKE HE'LL TAKE SOME OF GARRISON'S PREVIOUS ADVICE, AND YOUR BOARD WON'T HAVE IT

HERE IS THE ARTICLE FROM DECEMBER 2015

This month, the board reported that a resident who is upset with the lack of maintenance on a vacant lot on his street, has written the board advising that until the situation is remedied that he/she will hold their assessment in an escrow account.   Vice President/Legal & Compliance Chair (conflict of check and balance in the board structure), Garrison notified the resident by letter, that the board levied the assessments, and the resident was required to pay according to our governing documents, or fines would be imposed, and necessary collection steps taken.

Where would a resident get the idea that they could settle a dispute over maintenance by holding their assessment in an escrow account?  Why, from Mr. Garrison himself.  QUICK HISTORY:  During the heat immediately following the WPA Board's vote to assess, fund, and dredge.  Mr. Garrison (then resident), along with two others, not only authored, and signed a letter to residents advising them to hold their assessments from the board, by placing them in accounts that they had arranged/ discussed, with Anderson Bros. Bank.  Basically, they/he were advising residents to ignore, hold hostage the funds necessary to complete a project, and vote of a duly elected board.

This resident, and you, should be insulted, and concerned that we have a board member - let alone one that holds the chairs of Legal, and Compliance, who appears to demonstrate here that he is quite comfortable speaking out of both sides of his mouth, at the expense of sound judgment, and apparent trust that you won't remember, or don't care.

I thank the resident for bringing this situation to the board, who appear to sway and vote, without thinking, investigating our governing documents, and voting with their independent thought, in the best interests of the association.  Why does he have all this power?  It starts with our President, who has the authority to name committee chairs, and bleeds on through this entire board.  You ought to be concerned, not just on this issue, but so many others.

Does the resident have a real issues?  Probably!  I've been writing about property maintenance - both built lots, and vacant, for several years.  This association looks like our neighborhood is in decline.  Can you hold your assessment payment if your board is failing to follow the governing documents?  I'm not sure.  I have thought at times, of taking it to Small Claims court.  In some respects, our governing documents relating to appearance and maintenance, are a promise to the person buying property here - the reason we bought here, and pay assessments.  Yet, I have documentation of just how far this board will let things slip, to the point of slip shod, trailer park appearance.

If the resident persists, could a battle go their way?  They, and you, will have to judge for yourself.  I would suggest that you follow the twisted real life, Wedgefield legal tale of the last standing canal lot owner, and the could appear corrupted results. Who was the Legal Chair who guided this mess?  Garrison.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

I WRITE THE BOARD



I, as a private resident, have sent a letter to the board, with just two questions.  I had a question from a resident that sent me to the WPA website, to verify for myself, that I was answering the question properly.  My research caused me to ask my own questions.  

First, I reviewed the election results, after hearing a report from president Walton.  His report, like the posted report, did not include the total number of people who voted.  I've been following that number for a few years, and it is usually provided.

Second, while on the site, I checked to see if the posting of approved minutes was up to date.  I noticed that the minutes from the September 2016 meeting were not posted, despite the fact that the months before, and after had been provided.  I spoke during one of the 5 minute slots available to residents each month, during the September 2016 board meeting .  It has been a year or so, since I spoke last, but each time the speaker provides their discussion in written form to be included in the minutes, and it is posted with the minutes.  I've been waiting for the posting.  Where is it?   We'll see what the board has to say.

HERE IS MY LETTER TO THE BOARD:

"Please distribute to the board, and place a copy in the correspondence file.

Board,

Please indicate the total number of people who voted in the 2016 election.

Why haven't the minutes from the September 2016 meeting been posted on the WPA website, when all the other months have been?

Thank you for your time.


Madeline Claveloux"

Stay tuned.  I'm sure there is a simple answer.

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE WPA DECEMBER BOARD MEETING



The Wedgefield Examiner took notes during the December WPA board meeting, and provides the following information to the best of my ability.  As always, take the time to verify information for yourself by listening to the tape of the meeting provided at The Wedgefield Times, as your board no longer provides the recordings, or much of anything on their website.  COMMENTS from the Wedgefield Examiner will be noted as such, and be typed in RED.  If you have a comment you would like to share (we remove your name) - agree or disagree, you are welcome to send it to:  wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com.

The meeting was called to order at 7:00PM by president Walton.  Board members in attendance:  president Walton, Ebert, John Walton, Phillips, Anderson, McMillin.  Board members absent:  Cline, Garrison, Johnson.  Members in attendance - 7.

Minutes were approved for the following meetings:
1) October 6 - CLOSED MEETING - regarding hiring of new office staff person, and a couple of things regarding landscaping.  Comments:  "the couple of things regarding landscaping" should have been handled in an open meeting.  It appears this is when the board awarded a contract to a new landscaper who would finish 6-7 months of a landscaping contract.  We don't know how the board selected the contractor, and the contract awards for grounds have been questionable at best.  Additionally, then this very contractor was hired to do storm clean up.  We have no idea of the discussion regarding that contract, or other related subcontracts.  

Vice president's report - read by president Walton, in Garrison's absence:
It was reported that the golf course was in escrow with local groups who would reinstate the golf course, and involve the community, and would close at the end of the month.  Comments: We don't know the date the report was written.  We hope that it is correct, and that recent rumors of a delay are just that rumors.

Treasurers report:
The treasurer reported the following balances in reserves:
1) Emergency - $29,390.01* see note
2) Roads - $118,803.00
3) Drainage - $10,682.08
4) Marina - $12,819,82
5) Canals - $113,301.39
6) Landscaping - $46,497.45
*Note: The treasurer reported that $25,000 had been moved from operating to emergency funds to cover the expense of storm clean up.

Finance report:
The treasurer reported that in preparation to send out the 2017 assessments that they were working to restore lost data, and the assessments would be mailed the last week of December.

Drainage report:
Jacky Walton reported that there were a couple of problems.  The first was on Wedgefield Village Road.  A ditch had filled in, and was flooding some condo units during heavy rains.  He then reported that during the process of a lot being sold on Joanna Gillard Lane, after a survey, a drainage pipe was found going directly across the property.  Comments:  Much of our drainage work has been done by the seat of the board's declaration of "we have the expertise.  We don't need engineers".  I wasn't surprised to hear that a pipe ran right through the middle of a lot.  A few years back, they ran a pipe right across a private road in that area, and argued with the owner of several lots on the road that they had the right to do it.  Could this be part of that miscreant job?

Water amenities:
John Walton made the report in a couple of areas.
1)  There has been storm damage in the landing area, and the canals.  Trees are down and obstructing navigation, and will need to be removed.

2) To date, $17,800 has been collected toward the $20,000 needed for the first phase of the dredging effort.  Several have said they would pay after the holidays.  Some Wedgefield residents off the canals have asked why they weren't asked to contribute.  Contributions from them would be welcomed.  Comments:  There are 79 canal lot properties.  To date, approximately 45 have contributed.  Each canal lot owner was asked in August to contribute $400 for the first stage of the effort.  The following is a quote from the committee's handout to canal lot owners regarding the $400 -"While the exact cost of dredging is not yet unknown, the engineering and surveying cost are approximately $20,000.  The rough dredging bids we have range from $210,000 to just over $600,000.  We want to raise this money in two phases with the engineering phase first.  Our goal is to ask for voluntary contributions of $400 per lot.  Once the engineering work is complete, we will know an exact figure for phase 2.  The money we raise will be held in an account at Anderson Brothers Bank.  The checks will be 2 signee checks and a complete accounting of all incoming and out going funds will be kept with complete transparency.  All of these tractions will be reported in depth at the monthly WPA meetings and all bookkeeping will be available to be viewed at any time by any contributor.  If for any reason the project is abandoned, the money will returned to the contributor.  However, the survey money once contracted, will not be." As of this date, I, as a canal lot owner, will not contribute, or participate, until a open, legal, ethical plan is presented.  Briefly, board member Anderson has put in writing to me that there was no vote from the board table to commit up to $135,000 to the effort.  The commitment was made in a private, undisclosed meeting between the committee, and the president and vice president.  Illegal!  The committee would not allow non canal lot owners to attend the information meeting to canal lot owners.  The written plan speaks to last dredge - good for 10 to 15 years, and no plan to care for the canals beyond this dredge.  Finally, because this committee just wants what they want now, and appear to not care for the future, they don't legally, and ethically disclose all.  For instance, I'm told - rumor, that we should be concerned about this ENGINEERING phase, because it is believed that they are not engineers, but surveyors.  I simply don't trust this group with the future of the canals, and their avoidance of truth, and closed meetings, and total disregard for our governing documents.  A little later in this report you'll see just how inept, and untruthful they are.  Beware of investing in a promise for Wedgefield that simply isn't a investment in progress, but a pig in a poke.

3) Then John Walton moved to a report on the spoil site.  He starts by saying that the maintenance has been NEGLECTED!  He goes on to say that it is OVERGROWN, and suggested a burn, and that it must be completed by March.  He makes a motion requesting a controlled burn.  He states it would be rather COSTLY.  Anderson seconds the motion!  Jacky Walton wants to know what the alternative is.  Someone at the board table says what they need is a driver tract (my best guess because I'm not familiar with the equipment).  It would be expensive because they would have to get it out there.  The words again, that the spoil site was NEGLECTED.  Now, McMillin says, "WE KNEW WHAT THE PROBLEMS WERE WITH THAT".  No one from that board table acknowledges what THEY KNEW.  McMillin goes on to say that he'll get Howard Landscaping out there - a crew of 4 with CHAIN SAWS.  Someone says the trees have to come down.  Jacky Walton says that he is concerned.  He states that there was a problem near water in the condo area where a burn was tried.  He states he doesn't want a wind change, and a Wedgefield house to burn down.  Another board member says that it is expensive to  do a PROFESSIONAL CONTROLLED BURN, AND THERE WASN'T ANY MONEY FACTORED INTO THE PROJECT FOR THIS.  The motion is tabled until next month when more investigation into cost, etc. can be developed.  Comments:  Some of you find me to be hard on this board.  I have no patience for people who fail to follow the governing documents, who exercise their power using my money foolishly, and lie to me thinking I am too stupid to see through it!  This is where I live - my home, and I am sick and tired of losing value, and reputation to where I live, because of fools.  How did this NEGLECT HAPPEN?  Your entire board, their mismanagement - failure to follow sound business contracting - oversight - arrogance - and total disregard for our governing documents.  Most of this NEGLIGENCE rests on McMillin's shoulders, and on the heads of every board member for allowing it, because they all ignore what each other does, and for sure McMillin's opps!  The maintenance of the spoil site resides in the grounds contract.  I believe that it called for 2 clean ups a year.  We don't know what he puts out to bid in his requests for proposals.  We don't know how he contracts, and selects.  His vendors just appear, after some CLOSED MEETING, and your board just lets it all happen, because many of them are just as bad.  McMillin lied to me, during a recent open meeting.  When your board gave Southern Lawns an approval on a second year contract with a raise, knowing they were going to be fired on a condo contract, I had some questions.  I directly asked McMillin about the spoil site maintenance.  I asked if the terms of contract had been met the previous year, and current year, and he stated YES!  Forget the fact that he won't look at you, makes gestures, and has total disregard for any respectful treatment of a questioning resident, who followed the rules of when you could question.  I won't contribute to an illegal, mismanaged project! 

As to whether I'm concerned about your board, or McMillin's nasty retaliation to a resident who isn't afraid to speak out when things are this bad.  I'm not concerned.  They have allowed, participated, and condoned crude, rude, retaliation against me.  Here was one of McMillin's.  One of his family members painted it with my house number on it.  Your board met with him for three hours, after complaints were received, and he refused to take it down.  The board later reported that they had received one complaint - NOT TRUE, and it was VIEWED as a Christmas display.  Merry Christmas - McMillin, and WPA BOARD STYLE.  WANT ONE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? 


  
  

DECEMBER 21: THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER WILL POST HIGHLIGHTS OF THE WPA DECEMBER BOARD MEETING BY NOON TODAY. WE'VE HAD OVER 70 PEOPLE LOOKING FOR THE ARTICLE THIS MORNING.

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER MASCOT - WONDER DOG BRADY SAYS "STAY TUNED"


Tuesday, December 20, 2016

TONIGHT, DECEMBER 20TH, IS THE DECEMBER WPA BOARD MEETING. WILL YOU ATTEND, AND HOPE YOUR BOARD REPORTS ON SOME CRITICAL ISSUES?



Tonight marks the last meeting of the year.  This "no report", or "report so limited there might as well have been no report", BOARD, might provide us with some answers to key issues.  If not - no surprise - that's usual, if you attend, you can always ask questions at the end of the meeting, and hope for answers - it is your only chance to draw out information from the board.  We have a lot of unanswered questions, and lack of updates.

*CANALS:  What is the status of the illegal dredging effort?  How many canal lot owners have made their voluntary payments?  How long will the effort to collect continue before the board either allows the committee to move forward, or brings the effort to a close, and releases the funds - could be up to $135,000, from their (not voted from the board table)  promise?  We should have answers.  It should be noted that this questionable, expensive, poorly planned and reported effort, was not even reported on from the board table during the annual meeting!

*GOLF COURSE:  The board has failed to even attempt to answer resident questions.  See resident letters posted on the blog.  Rumors are that the golf course was sold, and a closing was to take place at the end of December - just a few days away.  Then rumors were that the closing had been delayed for about a month.  As all the rumors were floating, I've had a few calls from residents who are concerned about whether the rumored deal was delayed because maybe the potential buyers were going to try and break the PUD, and build on the golf course.  I have no idea, except to say that it has been tried before, and therefore could be a possibility.  While the board is not in control of whether it is sold, there should be an effort to gather info, and share it with us.

*THE BOARD WEBSITE:  What has the "no report" BOARD done to make this site useful to residents, and to follow the requisites of our governing documents?  No minutes, financial reports, postings of special meetings, agendas, tape recordings, etc.  More of their "if they don't see it, they can't question it, or even be informed"?

Hope to see you at the meeting.  This is what we have to govern us.  As Judge Judy says, "you picked them".  We haven't even been told how many people voted at the annual meeting.

Thursday, December 15, 2016

TWO ARTICLES WERE POSTED NOVEMBER 15TH


CANAL LOT OWNERS --WEREN'T WE TOLD MONTHS AGO THAT WE WOULD BE RECEIVING A SURVEY? AS YOU'LL NOTE IN THE LAST THREE POSTINGS - SOME PEOPLE ARE SPENDING TIME GOING WAY BACK IN THE BLOG HISTORY TO EXPLORE ARTICLE 3-4 YEARS OLD. HERE WE GO AGAIN, BECAUSE THIS TIME IT IS ARTICLES FROM 2012 - A LETTER TO THE BLOG FROM A WEDGEFIELD RESIDENT.

Readers, this time I had to go back and do a little research to see what was happening in Nov. 2012, when the letter provided below was sent to the blog.  As now, at that point in 2012 canal lot owners had been promised a survey from the board, surveying canal lot owners thoughts on a sub regime.  Note some of the names of board members then (listed in the letter), are the same as now.  

Remember the invitation to that special canal lot owners meeting last summer?  Then, like with survey, not all canal lot owners got a invitation.  What was even worse in 2012, was that the survey was poorly constructed - no signature line, no return date, etc.  It was an insult, and only a few responded.

HERE IS THE NOVEMBER 25, 2012 LETTER TO THE BLOG.  THE WRITER TITLED IT, "WHAT AM I CHOPPED LIVER?"

From: WRITER NAME REMOVED
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:35 AM
Subject: What am I, CHOPPED LIVER?


Dear Examiner,


When we found out that others along the canal had received their survey and we hadn’t, NAME REMOVED asked,”What are we, chopped liver?” This was all before I called you and found out you had been ‘inadvertently’ left out too. Oh, by the way, Adam must think that you provide mail service as I have not received an e-mail from him. Considering some of the e-mails that I have received from Mr. Anderson, I know that he has my address! It is my opinion that this was a deliberate snub. I’m going to the office on Monday to get a copy of the survey and I want answers as to why, once again, I was treated differently. Watch, Kathy will take the blame and I won’t believe it for a minute. Adam needs to provide both of us with the truth.


Speaking as a mathematician with experience in statistics, a survey of a select group of people is flawed when it deliberately leaves members of the group out. Did this survey leave anyone else out? I am aware of the fact that I have stated publically that I could not, and would not, consider joining a sub-association until such time as I had answers to a few questions. I asked a very pertinent question at the annual meeting--Who is responsible for the spoil site?-- and received shrugged shoulders from Adam, and the statement from Bob Garrison that the sub-association is just conceptual and no one has answers to the questions that I keep raising. Really? The clock is ticking on the permit. I have put the WPA on notice that their failure to consider the spoil site for annual maintenance is, in my opinion, deliberate negligence . Consider the money spent behind someone’s house—over $7000-- to ‘preserve WPA property.’ I was told by Al DeMarchi that the WPA had a “responsibility’ to maintain WPA property. The spoil site is WPA property. Where’s the maintenance, Al?


I was recently asked by Jacky Walton to co-chair the holiday decorating and a tree lighting party similar to the one the Wedgefield Civic Group did in 2010. When I respectfully declined, he asked why. I was frank and told him that he, as president, has allowed members of the Board to continue to send me inappropriate e-mails, make snarky comments in public—including Al’s at the  annual meeting--, ignore legitimate questions, etc. I also reminded him that we have not received an accurate financial statement in months and told him that I can’t figure out where all of the money went! He thought that we should all get over ‘this’ and move forward. I suggested that, as president, he insist that his Board make the first step. I also told him that I am waiting for answers to questions that I asked months ago. I told him that I have received personal e-mails from Al DeMarchi and Adam Anderson. I asked if I was to take these responses, incomplete as they were, as the official Board answers. HE TOLD ME NO! I received, through Edmund on WPA letterhead, a response from John McBride as the official Board answer to one of my questions. I have also informed Edmund that I am STILL waiting for official answers.


I believe that this ‘cohesive’ Board does not answer my questions because they know that they are legitimate and they are embarrassed not to have thought of them first! Their continued discrimination just makes me want to find out what they are hiding. All members of the WPA are entitled to truthful answers.


NAME REMOVED