I HAVEN'T RECEIVED AN ANSWER FROM THE BOARD ABOUT THE CLOSED MEETING ON MARCH FIRST, OR THE CANAL LOT OWNERS MEETING. WHY? JUST STALLING UNTIL THEY HOLD THE MEETING ON MARCH 1ST?

*********************************************************************************

Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com.  We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it.  P.S.  If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.

******************************************************

HERE IS MY LETTER TO THE BOARD: NOTE COMMENTS FOLLOW IN RED AFTER THE LETTER:

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE ENTIRE BOARD, AND PLACE A COPY IN THE 

CORRESPONDENCE FILE

Board, 

I am requesting notice from you as to when I can review the following records:

!) Notice to all board members of the Closed Meeting to be held on March 1st.  

Proper Purpose of request:  

Our by-laws call for written notice, at least 3 days of the meeting, called by the 

president, or secretary.  

I would like to review for myself, whether the meeting was properly called, and 

the reason for the meeting.  

While notice of the meeting is posted outside of the building, as residents, we have 

no indication of who 

called it, or why it was called.  Such information use to be posted on the website.  

I reviewed information 

on the WPA website today, and it has not been made available to the membership.

2) Notice to board members of the "canal lot owners", meeting scheduled for 

March 7th.  Proper purpose 

of request:  I attended the February WPA meeting, and heard from the board table 

that all members would 

be invited to attend this meeting, that was to be scheduled prior to the March WPA

 meeting.  I have 

contacted another resident who attended the February board meeting, and they 

recalled hearing the same 

thing.  I want to see by reviewing the notice to board members of this meeting, 

how it was written, and 

who might have changed it as the meeting was being called.

I look forward to your notice as to when I can come in and review these notices.  

I appreciate your time, 

and consideration.

Madeline Y. Claveloux

**********COMMENTS**********

I've done everything properly with this email to the board, why won't they answer?  The meeting on March 1st should have been properly noticed to the board, and the notice should be a record that members have a right to review.  This type of lack of response to legitimate questions, based on actions they should have taken according to the governing documents, is just one more nail in their huge casket, in failing to follow the governing documents.  Members, wherever you live in Wedgefield on the canals, golf course, or condo, they have already promised a meeting from the board table on the suspicious handling of the spoil site. That meeting was announced to be open, and to be held between the January and February meetings. It didn't happen, and the spoil site wasn't even mentioned in the water amenities report during the Feb. meeting. They went silent on their mess.  During the Feb. meeting the water amenities committee announced they needed to extend the permit, had to hurry and apply by the deadline, when they lead you to believe one and half years ago, that their plan to dredge, was timely, and they had everything synchronized.  I wrote Anderson then (yr and 1/2 ago), and suggested that they had time to slow things down and do them right, and should extend the permit.  You should have questions, and write the board, because they haven't been leveling with any of us for a long time.

MAYBE THE BOARD JUST HASN'T TOLD THE CARRIER PIGEON THAT THE ANSWER CAN BE DELIVERED.

RESIDENT WRITES THE BLOG, AND TITLES THEIR EMAIL - "WHERE'S WALDO - BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON"

*********************************************************************************

Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com.  We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it.  P.S.  If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.

******************************************************

HERE IS THE RESIDENT'S UNEDITED EMAIL:

Where's Waldo?   Or should we be saying "Where's Keith?"    

Mr. Johnson was absent from 2 board meetings in December and left the January meeting early after giving a brief report on how many permits were approved and how many refunds were submitted.  Residents were enlightened.  After searching high and low, there was no Keith to be found at the February board meeting.    For any of us who've had the experience of sitting around and waiting for good ole Keith to show up and approve a project or refund a deposit, we ask, why is this man holding a seat when he's obviously not engaged in his responsibilities?    To top it off, Mr. Johnson is the defendant behind the lawsuit filed by a resident.   And if you read the complaint filed by this individual, it's not a glowing recommendation to  Mr. Johnson's communication skills or work style.   So why is the chronically absent Keith keeping his seat on the board and continuing to provide input on the water amenities committee?   Perhaps to push the dredging project through?   Let's face it, the board consists of 5 canal lot owners to 4 non-canal lot owners.    They wouldn't want to upset the apple cart if he stepped aside.  

Keith's absences may be legitimate; who knows?  But for the good of the community, no matter what the reason, if he can't bring himself to show up and sit through an entire board meeting, he should step aside and allow someone else to take his seat.

THE BOARD AND WATER AMENITIES' COMMITTEE MUST BE HIDING SOMETHING, BECAUSE THEY HAVE CALLED ANOTHER CANAL LOT OWNERS MEETING!

*********************************************************************************
Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com.  We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it.  P.S.  If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
******************************************************
Today, I went to the WPA website to see what information I could find posted regarding:

OUR BY-LAWS REQUIRE:

Section 7: Special Meetings: Special meetings of the Directors may be called by the President or must be called by the Secretary at the written request of one-third (1/3) of the Directors. Not less than three days notice of the meeting shall be given personally or by mail, telephone, or telegraph which said notice shall state the time, place and purpose of the meeting; provided, however, that notice requirement may be waived if signed in writing by two thirds (2/3) of all board members holding office at that time."  

LATER, IN THE BY-LAWS REGARDING ATTENDANCE BY MEMBERS AT BOARD MEETINGS:  "Meetings of the Board of Directors shall be open to all members except when conditions require an "Executive Session" which shall be open only to the elected Directors."  The sign doesn't say Executive Session, and board, please don't make me drag out the board's lawyer opinion as to what may be called "EXECUTIVE".

On to the subject at hand!  As I was looking on the WPA website, I couldn't help but notice, and copy the following notice:

"NOTICE TO ALL CANAL LOT OWNERS:

MEETING TO DISCUSS DREDGING

MARCH 6TH AT 7 PM - AT THE OFFICE."

It really didn't surprise me.  This cloak and dagger board will say anything at the board table, think no one was listening, and do what they want.  Here is what I recently published from my notes of the recent February WPA board meeting regarding the extension of the dredging permit.
"Garrison asks something about whether the expense would be out of WPA funds, and states that there are other things in the works??????.  We come to the point that we did in January with the spoil site, it is tabled, until there can be a meeting with the canal lot owners to determine real interest in the dredging.  Oh, and along the way it is mentioned that the meeting should be open to everyone.  Legally, when they held the meeting the first time they should have included everyone,".  

Readers, it didn't surprise me that much, but I'm sick of it, and you should be to.  I've taken my first step to find out what is going on with these meetings.  Today, I sent this email to the board. 

Today at 2:04 PM

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE ENTIRE BOARD, AND PLACE A COPY IN THE 

CORRESPONDENCE FILE

Board, 

I am requesting notice from you as to when I can review the following records:

!) Notice to all board members of the Closed Meeting to be held on March 1st.  

Proper Purpose of request:  

Our by-laws call for written notice, at least 3 days of the meeting, called by the 

president, or secretary.  

I would like to review for myself, whether the meeting was properly called, and 

the reason for the meeting.  

While notice of the meeting is posted outside of the building, as residents, we have 

no indication of who 

called it, or why it was called.  Such information use to be posted on the website.  

I reviewed information 

on the WPA website today, and it has not been made available to the membership.

2) Notice to board members of the "canal lot owners", meeting scheduled for 

March 7th.  Proper purpose 

of request:  I attended the February WPA meeting, and heard from the board table 

that all members would 

be invited to attend this meeting, that was to be scheduled prior to the March WPA

 meeting.  I have 

contacted another resident who attended the February board meeting, and they 

recalled hearing the same 

thing.  I want to see by reviewing the notice to board members of this meeting, 

how it was written, and 

who might have changed it as the meeting was being called.

I look forward to your notice as to when I can come in and review these notices.  

I appreciate your time, 

and consideration.

Madeline Y. Claveloux

Member readers in good standing, on or off the canals, 

we need more information from the board on both of 

these meetings.  Let's see what they answer.  As far as

that canal lot owners meeting you have a right to be

there.  If your neighbors on the canals had any guts, they

would see to it that you were included.  Wherever, you

live in Wedgefield, you should be writing - not calling

your favorite board member - get it on the record, and 

in the correspondence file so community liaison, 

Anderson, has to answer you in writing, and report your

letter at the next board meeting.  Don't take an answer

any way, but in writing.  This Water Amenities 

Committee, composed of board members Anderson,

Garrison, McMillin, Johnson, John Walton,and Vasey,

have not been following the governing documents, and

have violated our community governance, and have 

played their illegal games for too long.

The board might as well take down one more sign, 

because they aren't living up to it.

  

THE WPA's REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, SEALED LEGITIMATE BID PROCUREMENT HAVE LONG BEEN IN QUESTION. READERS ARE GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2015 TO READ THIS ARTICLE. IT ISN'T PRETTY, BUT IT IS THE WAY THINGS CONTINUE TO BE.

************************************************

Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com.  We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it .  P.S.  If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.

***************************************************

Sunday, February 1, 2015

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE WPA BOARD SECURING BIDS

This board, has claimed meeting after meeting, that they can't get bids.  They've claimed that no one wants to work in Wedgefield.  They have laid blame on a number of things, but of course, never the board itself.  The subject becomes important, once again, because McMillin announced during the January board meeting, that despite the efforts of posting an ad in the newspaper, and putting a sign out on the main road, that to date, only one bid had been submitted.  I contend, that it is the board's ridiculous behavior, lack of proper request for proposal, lack of honest sealed bids and review of bids, and failure to actually want to award a contract (We'll do it ourselves, or award a contract to the board president's company.), that has worn out any willingness by   contractors, to even consider wasting their time with this board.  Think about it.  If you attend the meetings, and observe their process, or lack there of, you might understand.

First, before we list a few things to consider on this point, remember that I posted the content of the newspaper ad for the ground's contract, and thanked the board for taking that step.  In the end, it could have been a case of too little, too late.

A SHORT LOOK AT THE BOARD'S HISTORY REGARDING REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL, SEALED BIDS, CONTRACT AWARDS, CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT, AND OVERSIGHT:

*The board often fails to prepare a proper bid package, including specific instructions that truly hold everyone to a sealed bid process.  For instance, I asked to review the very first request for proposal, the bids themselves, and the contract for the gate house repair, which really turned into "the gate house fix".  The proposal was specs, with no instructions for a sealed bid process, such as return no later than specified date and time, in a sealed envelope.  The spec's were outlined in three specific areas.  The award was given to our president's company.  I had made an appointment with the office, to review the documents.  When I asked for the contract it wasn't there.  First, I was told that it was probably at President Walton's for signature.  Then calls were made, and I was presented with Walton's company bid, and told that, that was the contract.  There wasn't even a line for signatures by both parties, let alone start date, total award, and terms!  Additionally, the board had only voted to fund stage I, which makes the instrument ridiculous, because the other two stages were bid, on the very sheet that I was presented with.  DeMarchi had put this package together.

*The board is so lax when voting, that it appears, each member has not taken the time to review the request for proposal, the bids, or whether, a true process was held.  During the last six months, when discussion about a bulk head, and other details of work for the pond just outside the gate, was discussed, McMillin first claimed to have written specs, held a envelope in his hand claiming it was a sealed bid, and then admitted that he had talked to some contractors, and when the facts came out, the bid had been sent via the fax machine, and placed in the envelope. When, in a credible bid process, except for a bidder's conference where all potential bidders are invited to hear the same thing - only after the package went out and included a date and time for the conference, is speaking to individual bidders, part of a legitimate process?  Talking to individual bidders, is nothing more than an opportunity to provide a favored bidder, an advantage. Additionally, at times, like the gate house, the pond project has had McMillin at one point, and DeMarchi, as leaders of the project.  It could appear to be a behind the scenes battle of who gets to be in charge.  The second, and latest round of bids for the gate house, finally had Johnson, asking to see the bids, and saying something about them not quite being what they should be.

*On a negative side, regarding the bidders, it sometimes appears that the board calls some of their particular industry friends, and asks them to bid.  In the case of the gate house, we have DeMarchi's ex-boss, who has been high before.  It could appear that they want you to think that they made the effort.  When DeMarchi, started his first drainage projects in his neighborhood, there were two bids, one was our current grounds vendor, and the other I believe, was contacted by DeMarchi.  DeMarchi stated at the board meeting that a contract was awarded, that there was only $20 difference, and he'd save $20 where he could.  At the time, I wondered why for $20, you wouldn't select a vendor with a concrete work history, with the WPA.  I went to the office to review the bids.   While they were $20 apart, the figures on the awarded contractor's bid were crossed out and changed in several places.  Additionally, when I reviewed the invoice for payment, the contractor had sent it requesting the original amount of his bid (before cross outs), and again, someone had crossed out again, and brought the invoice to $20 less than the other bidder.  What does it look like to you? 

*As to bidders, this board wouldn't get the time of day from me, after my exposure to their ridiculous behavior, the first time.  Legitimate professionals, expect a legitimate process with intention to really award the contract to SOMEONE, other than do it yourself-wanted it that way, in the first place - board and volunteers.  Professional time spent visiting a site, preparing a bid, is time wasted, if there was no real intention to take you seriously.  Additionally, those brave enough to bid, have at times been named as should be, but laughed about, from the board table, by our so called experts, in any field you can name.

Our board can appear to be unfair to the few bidders who have received awards.  If you consider the current ground's contractor,  I believe they have been working with the WPA since 2009, and have had little to no, raise, and have been cheated out of some of the very funded line items, of the contract.

The only time that the WPA has had several willing bidders has been when we hired an engineering firm to draw the specs, run the bidding process and oversee, the contract.  The recent road contracts would be an example.

As a vendor, I would not want to be overseen by people who claim they know it all, lack the credentials to oversee my work properly, and have an agenda that isn't always consistent with the project.

I sincerely hope we get more bids for the grounds contract.  It doesn't take an engineering firm to send out the request for proposal package, and handle oversight, but it require a legitimate process, and integrity by those who are supervising, and I think we lack that.

WILL THERE BE A CANAL MEETING PRIOR TO THE MARCH WPA REGULAR BOARD MEETING? PROMISES, PROMISES, THAT DON'T GET FULFILLED! IF THERE IS WILL EVERYONE BE INVITED? YOU WEREN'T LAST TIME! DANG THOSE PESTY CANALS, COMPLICATED BY THE UNEVEN HANDLING BY THIS BOARD.

************************************************

Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com.  We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it .  P.S.  If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.

***************************************************

Readers, this will be done as quick, but thorough as I can, as we continue to have ongoing medical issues here.  

The February water amenities report was somewhat ridiculous.  John Walton started with a report of work on the landing.  I'm not giving it a lot of time, but he claimed he had contacted 3 companies.  He had a bid from one of the committee's favorites JC something.  The other two didn't respond, but he drove over to one of the companies, got some basic figures, and had a scrap of paper that could have been toilet paper, and he decided what the project would have cost from that vendor if they had bid.  Was there specs, and a real bid package, with a proper return date, and the bids opened at the table?  NO.  Yet, your board new, and old members, voted unanimously to approve, despite the fact that the month before this same committee had presented bids on the spoil site that had over a $200,000 spread.  It should be noted, that at the time of the spoil site fiasco, Garrison stated that they needed to table the motion, the water amenities committee should hold an OPEN meeting prior to the February meeting, and discuss the wide range and specs, something every board member should have had in January, to review and question.  Well folks, we arrived at the February meeting, with no open meeting having been called, and surprise, surprise, - not one board member asked about it!  What this open, above board, follow the governing documents (not), secretive board, didn't follow through?  I believe it is because there is in fighting behind the scenes, because they are turning on each other, and some aren't keeping their misguided, illegal (against the governing documents) promises to each other.

After the half baked landing discussion and vote, John Walton mumbles something about he may have more, but has some rewriting to do.  The meeting moves on, and gets almost to resident comments, and Walton says he has more to discuss.  He has to talk about the fact that the committee now wants to extend the dredging permit.  They would like to work with Earth Works, who has stated that they want to work by the hour in filling out all the necessary documents to the various entities necessary.  Right now, as near as they can project the expense will be about $2,500 plus a filing fee of $300.  At some point it is rounded up to $3,000.  It is important Walton says that they move as soon as possible, because if they miss the filing deadline, and they have to start the permit process all over again, it gets real expensive because you have to post public notice of intent, and then lawsuits usually follow by environmental groups. (Last time, it cost canal lot owners approximately $162,000 - privately collected.)  

Garrison asks something about whether the expense would be out of WPA funds, and states that there are other things in the works??????.  We come to the point that we did in January with the spoil site, it is tabled, until there can be a meeting with the canal lot owners to determine real interest in the dredging.  Oh, and along the way it is mentioned that the meeting should be open to everyone.  Legally, when they held the meeting the first time they should have included everyone, but this time their plan - illegal as it is, with you on the canals just wanting the dredging done any way you can get it, and you on the golf course, not only don't stand up for what is proper, legal good business, ethical and moral, YOU VOTE THEM IN, SHUN PEOPLE WHO SPEAK OUT, AND LINK YOURSELVES TO THEIR CLUBS, AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF PEOPLE WHO GET IN THEIR WAY BY LISTENING TO THEM, AND CONTRIBUTE TO HARMING YOUR NEIGHBORS, TO HELP THEM.  You think I'm wrong, don't want to take an HONEST look here?  Last week, I was contacted by a person who wanted me to know what was being said about a resident who lived on the canals, contributed more than most could to the last process, has been quiet since, but as valuable as they were last time, nasty, untrue rumors are being spread about them.  This is right, in any world?  Well it is in Wedgefield, and by your cooperation with McMillin, Walton, Garrison, Anderson, Johnson, and even our president, and failing to stand up and demand answers, it is what we have.  Where are the newly elected board members?  Have they questioned in our behalf?  No, they are unanimously voting with them.  

WATCH FOR THAT MEETING NOTICE!

READ THROUGH THE POSTS RELATING TO MY REQUEST TO OPEN THE LAST CANAL LOT OWNERS MEETING, AND WONDERFUL BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON'S RESPONSE:

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, Conditions, Restrictions 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:

0. "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 permits, contracts, 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 2^nd 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 11^th.  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.