Total Pageviews

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER HITS 1,000!!!


THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER HAS REASON TO CELEBRATE!!!!

I created the blog all by myself! I am quite the computer illiterate, determined to get a blog up and running.  I had offers of help - thank you, but I had a need to do this on my own.  I did it!  I realize it needs whistles and bells, but I'll get there.  Each day a new lesson is learned, often the hard way by trial and error.  Some days I learn things by accident and don't know how I did it and can't repeat it.  Today, it took me 4 hours to learn how to insert imagines, free imagines, but here it is!

The blog, allows me to stay committed to good governance, report what is happening at the WPA Board table, backed up with documentation, and name the persons responsible.

Today, I'm proud of 1,000 hits to the blog (really proud of getting this picture up)!!

Stay tuned!!!

 

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

THE WPA 2010 AUDIT

BACKGROUND

I emailed the Board and asked to review the 2010 Audit including the management letter. I asked the Board to email me if there was a problem with my review of the record.   Board Member McBride, wrote that I should be allowed access to the record.  Today, prior to my 10:00 AM appointment I emailed the office to verify whether I would be allowed access.  The staff secretary responded that I could review the record and stated that two Board Members had sent their approval.  The rest of the Board had failed to respond.  I asked who the second Board Member was and she stated that it was Garrison.  My thanks to both of them for answering a resident question, and for their "open door" treatment of this request.

I felt that it was important to review the fiscal health of the Association, prior to voting.  This year we have several Board Members who are running for re-election.  They are Wilson, Thomas, Walters, McBride and McMillin.  Additionally, candidates Pietkewicz and Zieske have served on previous Boards.  Infact,  Zieske served on the 2010 Finance Committee.

Recently, I have not been allowed copies of documents.  I had been paying for them when some on the Board made special rules, for special residents.  Today, I hand copied the audit management letter.   Here it is for your review:

______________________________

Lawlor & Brady, LLC
Certified Public Accountants
5187 Horry Drive
Murrells Inlet, SC 29576

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the Wedgefield Plantation Association, Inc. as of and for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, we considered the Wedgefield Plantation Association, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the organization's internal control.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the proceeding paragraph and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies.

A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis.  A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or a combination of control deficiencies that adversely affects the Organization's ability to initiate, authorize, record, process or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the Organization's financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the Organization's internal control.  We consider the following deficiencies to be significant deficiency in internal control:

During our audit we discovered that several invoices were paid without proper back up and authorization.  The auditor will review these during our audit conference.

During our audit we discovered that the operating bank reconciliation was not properly prepared.  The closing date of the bank statement did not match with the financial statement dates and outstanding checks were improperly listed.  In addition, the Edward Jones accounts did not have bank reconciliations prepared resulting in a significant internal control deficiency internal control deficiency.

During our audit we discovered that computer file backups were kept in a file left on the premises.  One copy of the accounting files backup must be kept off-site under the custody of a responsible party such as the Association's Treasurer or other executive officer. Although the Association utilizes an on-line backup service (Carbonite), these services may prove to be inadequate during a power outage or other weather related situation.  When it comes to data security a little redundancy can go a long way.

This communication is intended solely for the information and use of management and the board of directors and is not intended and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

___________________________

Does the management letter cause you any concern about the incumbent candidates?  I've presented the letter in an effort to provide you with information that may help you determine who you will vote for this weekend.  I'm concerned about the stated deficiencies.

As I reviewed the audit itself, I'm concerned about the uncollected assessments.  I'm concerned about the message sent by a failure to collect the unpaid assessments according to our governing documents. Failure to make every attempt to collect legally and according to our governing documents just sends a message that there is inequity in the treatment of our residents.

I'm concerned about several of the line items.  I reviewed the detail. Take the opportunity to set up an appointment to review the entire document. This is a report on how our assessment dollars are managed.

HOW DOES THIS IMPACT THE ELECTION?

In the end, you'll be the judge and vote.  Consider cleaning the slate, and giving Janine Cline, Alan DeMarchi, and Bill Steiner an opportunity to move Wedgefield forward.  Consider incumbent McBride's  proven dedication to adherence to our governing documents and open discussion at Board Meetings.  NOTE:   In fairness, while McMillin is an incumbent, he was not responsible as Treasurer and did not have a seat on the Finance Committee, during the period of time reflected in this audit.

You should be concerned that in July 2010, after their hostile Board take over that the Concerned Citizen element of the Board, took over finances, ignored our governing documents, and the platform of their candidates will take you back to their financial tactics!!!!





Monday, November 14, 2011

A RESIDENT'S LETTER REGARDING THE ELECTION

Taco Wijthoff
90 Ricefield Place
Georgetown, SC 29440
November 12, 2011

My Dear Neighbors:

The election for the Wedgefield Plantation Association Board of Directors is coming up on November 19.  Here are some of my thoughts, and yes I  have put my name on this letter!!!!

Here is why I cannot vote for the FIVE so-called "concerned citizen" candidates Ron, Carol, George, Fred, and Jackie:

*Ron and Carol betrayed us when they were on the board in 2008.  They quit!  They left us in the lurch, and turned the board over to members sympathetic to the canal issue.  THEY are thus to blame for the canals being dredged.  It would never have happened if they had stayed on!

*They also betrayed us again and again in their previous terms on the board.  They approved wasteful spending with a crony contractor, for example $50,000 on pipes under the road that should have cost only a few thousand, had they shopped around.

*They built an office building that cost us three times what it should have.

*Ron had the roads "surfaced" for a king's ransom, as if that coating would hold an 80,000 pound concrete truck.  It was just plain stupid.

*These so-called "concerned citizens" contacted the newspapers and spread horrible stories about our beautiful and full-of-love plantation.

*Carol, George and Fred started the lawsuit that has cost us all dearly.

*They support a board member who is up for reelection that could have killed a fellow neighbor by sucker punching him at the end of a WPA meeting.  Can you Imagine???? Do we want that kind of bully on the board???

These five want the controversies to go on, and they continue to ruin Wedgefield.  That's why I cannot vote for the so-called "concerned citizen" candidates; I will vote for the other five candidates.  I do not know half of them, but that's alright.  This is not Chicago, where a few full-of-themselves bullies think they can hold a life-long claim to the WPA board.  I want to give the fresh blood a chance.  I urge you to join me in voting for:

Janine Cline * Alan DeMarchi * John McBride * Larry McMillin * Bill Steiner


Sincerely,

Taco Wijthoff

PS:  I hear Mr. Huggins may step down after the elections so Ron or Carol can be appointed should one of them not make it in.  It is Chicago alright.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

VOTING PREPARATION - ASK TO REVIEW THE COMPLETE 2010 AUDIT

WHY WAIT TO REVIEW THE 2010 AUDIT BEFORE YOU VOTE?

The ten candidates have made finances a key element of their platforms. Some of the candidates have served on the Board and should have a record. 

The Concerned Citizens are discussing giving you back your dredging assessment payments , declaring legal victories that we've proven are undocumented  - NO signed ruling/order, and have recently engaged the Board Attorney to start acting at your expense, with no one's word but theirs as to exactly what the court ruled.

A review of the 2010 audit, including the management letter would provide a unique review of the Concerned Citizen Candidates and whether they have acted according to good business judgement and sound accepted accounting principles.  Why?  In June 2010, the Concerned Citizens, through a hostile Recall, took over the Board.  Review of the 2010 audit and management letter would allow you, the voter, to draw some conclusions, as to whether you should vote for them, and allow them to oversee our funds again.

I don't have any inside information as to what the audit reveals but I view it as a critical document to assist in making a decision as to who to vote for, who to trust, with my assessment dollars.Just like the court ruling, I want to see and read for myself.  Did the Concerned Citizens demonstrate, as provided by an outside audit, that they will follow through responsibly?

George Wilson and Fred Thomas played key roles in the governance of our association after the recall.  Zieske sat on the Finance Committee.  This is your opportunity to view them in a documented report, before you vote.

I have sent the following to the Board:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"REQUEST TO REVIEW 2010 AUDIT, ATTENTION TREASURER MCMILLIN

Please distribute to the Board and place a copy in the correspondence file.

Board,

I will come to the office on November 15th, at 10:00 AM to review the 2010 audit, including the management letter.  If you view my request to review the complete document, including the management letter a problem, please respond via email, prior to the scheduled time for the visit.  If you deny any portion of the request, please explain.  I'll appreciate your cooperation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will they answer?  If they do will they allow me to see the complete report, including the management letter?  They should.  As Executive Director of a non profit who had a CPA performing our accounting services, and a yearly audit, I looked forward to sharing the entire document with Board and the benefactors of our services.  The audit and management letter were required on all grant applications, and as we responded to requests for proposals. It is a guiding document for improvement and change, if needed, and reassurance to the community at large, that you are operating under sound accounting principles and good business judgement.  While the Wedgefield Plantation Association Board, is not seeking grants, in similar fashion they are asking for your money through your assessments, and your approval through your votes on individual candidates.  I don't think it is too much to ask, WILL THEY?  I'll update this article on Tuesday, November 15th.  In the mean time, perphaps you should email or call and ask to see the entire 2010 audit.



Monday, November 7, 2011

UPDATE TO THE ARTICLE TITLED, "WHERE'S THE BEEF?"

BACKGROUND

Please review the previous article, "Where's The Beef?"  Much of what Wilson, Thomas, Walters, Zieske, and Pietkewicz are promising you in their "campaign literature", is based on their  interpretation of a court hearing on October 3rd.  They are making promises about how they will proceed when infact, we don't have a final written ruling/order.  In fact, Thomas made a motion at the October Meeting to start spending our assessment dollars to drag the association into potential legal procedings.   Since the Concerned Citizen element of the Board voted to approve Thomas' motion, wouldn't you like to know, that they had all the "legal facts of the ruling?

I sent the following request for information to the Board: 

From: mclaveloux@sc.rr.com [mclaveloux@sc.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:57 AM
To: Wedgefield Office
Subject: CONFIRMATION OF A DOCUMENT'S EXISTENCE

Please forward to the Board and place a copy in the correspondence file.

Board,

ATTENTION:  Johnny Huggins, Legal Chair

My request requires a simple yes or no.  Does the Board have a copy of an order
from the Oct. 3rd. court hearing? You may have voted on a premature motion by
Thomas, during the October meeting, to start a process, based on the October 3rd
court case.  Candiates currently serving on the Board running for re-election,
are making statements about what was determined on October 3rd, and what steps
the Board should take, based on the ruling.  I have checked the court website,
made some phone calls, and still no one has seen the order.  As a resident, I
would like a response from you, since so many of you are candidates.  Just a
simple yes or no will answer my questions.

Please respond as soon as possible.

Madeline Y. Claveloux 

The only Board Member to respond was McBride:

---- John McBride <> wrote:
> I have not seen any final court order signed by the Judge.  Until the Judge
signs an order there is no resolution to the law suit. 

 
Kind Regards, John McBride 

I have sent the following response to the Board:Kathy, please send to the Board and place a copy in the correspondence file. 

Board,

First, thank you John McBride for answering a resident question.  To the rest of
you currently serving on the Board and running for re-election, how can you make
promises to get money back, project potential legal options, etc.. when you lack
legal confirmation and the detail associated with  a signed court order/ruling? 
I posted information at
http://thewedgefieldexaminer.blogspot.com over the
weekend.  I'll add this information as an update. 

Madeline Y. Claveloux 



VOTERS:  Remember that McBride answered and give him your support.  MOST IMPORTANT:  Remember Wilson, Thomas, Walters, Zieske, and Pietkewicz are just making promises to use your assessment dollars to drag you into more lawsuits!




________________________________



Sunday, November 6, 2011

WHERE'S THE BEEF?

I, as most of you, received a unsigned mailing, post marked November 2nd, from post office box 244.  While no one signed it, under a section titled, "Elections", it endorses Ron Pietkewicz, Fred Thomas, Jackie Walters, George Wilson, and Carol Zieske.  It states, "they are more than willing to do the job that needs to be done in Wedgefield."  If this document represents their beliefs, as to how to proceed in behalf of Wedgefield, and asks you - as addressed - "Fellow Property Owners", to vote for them, I encourage you to reread the document, and the premise it is based on, and ask....

WHERE'S THE BEEF????????

Remember the burger commercial of several years ago when the little old lady would yell, "where's the beef"?   Well I'm willing to be the little old lady of Wedgefield, and ask Pietkewicz, Thomas, Walters, Wilson, and Zieske, "where is the court order from the October 3rd. hearing?"  Just like the little old lady wanting to verify for herself there was real meat, I want the real meat of their platform, rather than the claims they are making, as to what the court decided.  I want them to present it, so I can read it and verify their claims for myself!  If they can't produce it, it isn't so.  

They claim, "The State of South Carolina was declared the owner of the canals in Wedgefield Plantation.  As a result, the WPA has NO authority or obligation to dredge or maintain the canals, the Board must now deal with a number of issues as a result of that Declaratory Judgement.

*The "Special Assessment" was illegal as well as the $175 added to our yearly assessment.
*The Board has placed liens on canal property owners who have not paid the $5,000.
*There is a matter of the bank loan with First Federal.  This transaction may be illegal also.    This  issue will have t be addressed right away." 

Demand the truth.  They are counting on you to fall into place, and take their word for it.  They want you to buy their "filler filled beef", without reading the label.  Ask them to provide you a copy of the signed order.  They won't be able to provide it.  It doesn't exist, as of November 6th.

This whole document lacks truth and integrity. They make accusations about the dredging permit, proper authorization and signature on the bank loan, and $7,500.  They are making charges like a bull without horns.  Go back to the tapes and minutes of the Board Meetings.  The dredging permit was recently discussed.  Go to the minutes of the August 2009 Board Meeting, regarding the canal and dredging and funding public votes, and read and listen to fact.

Just for a moment, a glorious, happy, moment, as I read this document, I assumed there was another candidate running for Board - Jude Davis.  Why?  About 40%  of the publication was spent attacking Jude Davis.  Why, while promoting your candidates for election, would you find it helpful to attack a resident, who wasn't running for Board?  They pulled that hat, out of their own dark closet! 

They ask if Davis has sued you yet?   The document talks about what they view as the Board's next legal challenge, if they are in charge.  They speak about misrepresentation in the signing of the loan, and dredging permit.  Not true!  They fail to tell you the gross misrepresentation of three of their candidates:  Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas, when they sued the 2009 Board, in behalf of "Wedgefield Plantation".   THEY WEREN'T ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME. NO ONE VOTED FOR THEM TO REPRESENT US AND TO SUE, IN BEHALF OF WEDGEFIELD PLANTATION.  That's a court document you can review!

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE LEFT WITH IF THIS BURGER HAS NO BEEF?  If you elect Zieske, Wilson, Thomas, Walters, Pietkewicz, you are left with a Board without substance, quality, and truth.  MAKE THEM PROVIDE YOU WITH A COPY OF THE WRITTEN OCTOBER 3RD. COURT ORDER BEFORE YOU VOTE. DON'T TRUST THEM TO DO ANY THING IN BEHALF OF WEDGEFIELD. 



Thursday, November 3, 2011

LAUGHTER, CAN LEAD TO THE SIMPLEST TRUTH

THE PREMISE & THE UPCOMING ELECTION

I had a call from a friend who had me laughing so hard I had to get off the phone.  Their idea was to put the truth, hidden in all the verbiage of the election, in simple form.  Hilarity, took over as we jested about what a short message on a post card might look like.  After we finished our conversation, I couldn't help but think what a novel approach it was, based in truth, in a simple form.

Much has been written by the Concerned Citizens about how they have to save you from the votes of that nasty 2009 canal majority Board.  We won't take the time to go over again, the lack of truth in that statement.  We'll go from the fact, that on the day of the 2008 Annual Meeting, there were six Concerned Citizens on the Board, including Zieske and Pietkewicz.

No more explaining, just the post card message that could read, something like this:

________________________________________________________________________________

I'M MAD AS HELL AT ZIESKE & PIETKEWICZ,
FOR DREDGING THE CANALS,
AND COSTING ME ALL THAT MONEY!
IF THEY WEREN'T QUITTERS - IT WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED!

NOW THEY WANT ME TO BELIEVE THEY'LL GET MY MONEY BACK?
NOW, THEY WANT TO USE MY ASSESSMENT DOLLARS TO HIRE A LAWYER, BECAUSE THEY QUIT, AND DIDN'T HELP ME?

I STILL HADN'T GOTTEN OVER MY ANGER THAT THEY QUIT, AND LET THOSE CANAL PEOPLE FINISH  BUILDING THE WPA OFFICE!
DIDN'T THEY TELL ME THAT THEY SAVED A LOT OF MY MONEY BY HURRYING IT THROUGH, WITHOUT A PUBLIC BOARD VOTE?

THE ONLY THING LEFT FOR ME TO DO IS GIVE THE NEW FRESH GROUP MY VOTES,

VOTE FOR CLINE, DEMARCHI, STEINER,

STAND TALL DURING HARD TIMES - MCBRIDE,

MCMILLIN (FINISHED THE OFFICE)

_________________________________________________________________________________

If my friend could type, the post card message, might have looked like this.  We would have included a graphic, but my friend can't type, and I don't know how to include a graphic on the blog.  You'll have to imagine a frustrated voter holding their head.