HOW LONG WILL YOU TRUST THE CONFIDENTIALITY MISUSE AND NOT CALL IT WHAT IT IS - PLAIN OLD SECRECY?

This morning I resigned from the Canal Committee, a sub committee of the Water Amenities Committee.  No one individual is so important that a workplace, or your local government, etc., can't live without them.  So for those of you who think I don't know that, I do.  Therefore, no big loss.

What you should be concerned about is the abuse your Board is placing on this association.  They have enforced signing the Confidentiality Agreement, intended to protect private resident financial information, in order to silence all committee members, so they can tell you, what they want to tell you.  SECRECY is what you should be concerned about.  Several of your Board have already violated the true intent of the agreement in Board Meetings and in the Wragg. To date, they haven't enforced it, or even informed us how they will enforce it, on their own.  Would the heavy hand fall on a committee member publicly?  Would the member be thrown off the committee?

In this case, they want secrecy about a possible solution to the canals.  Skip all the reflection back to the ugliest time in our history.  What was it all about?  Those dreaded canals!  What were most of the ugly claims about? SECRECY, regardless if it was true, or not.  How do they start research on this option?  They do it with SECRECY!

HERE IS MY RESIGNATION LETTER, MINUS A PARAGRAGH THAT MIGHT HAVE EXPOSED THE BOARD'S SECRET OPTION:

                 

ERROR IN MINUTES OF MARCH 2012 MEETING, A UPDATE TO: YOU'LL HAVE TO READ IT TO BELIEVE IT - A LETTER TO THE BOARD THAT WILL PROBABLY RESULT IN , "NO ANSWER, WE AREN'T HOME"

I don't have a lot of time to spend on this.  It is end of day and I have been busy.  I have done my homework.  Will you do your homework?  First, if you haven't already, go to the previous article and read through it.  I've quoted the APPROVED  MINUTES, OF THE MARCH 20TH 2012 MEETING.   I've done a little more homework.  YOUR Board promised you that they would post the meeting tapes of our monthly meetings on the WPA website.  It has been almost a year and they haven't done it.  So I went to the only source you have to listen to a complete tape of the meetings - The Wedgefield Times.  I am grateful for this site.

BOTTOM LINE:  There is no motion, as stated in the APPOVED MINUTES OF THE MARCH 20, 2012 MINUTES.   In case you haven't gone back to the previous mentioned article, here is the motion,

"Bob Garrison made a motion to provide funding to have Attorney Moody to proceed with

a motion regarding re-instating Karl Gettmann and Jude Davis to the Board of

Directors. This is associated with their removal from the Board in July or August of

2010. A second was made by Al DeMarchi. Motion Passed"
Now you go to the Wedgefield Times and listen to the tape at approximately 57 minutes and 47 seconds.  IT ISN'T THERE.  I SUGGEST THAT YOU BACK UP AND LISTEN TO THE WHOLE LEGAL REPORT.

What does it mean?  You decide.  A few facts.  First, here is a quote from the April 2012 APPROVED MINUTES regarding APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 2012 MINUTES, "Approval of minutes.  Approve March minutes - A motion was made by Janine Cline and seconded by Bob Garrison to accept the March as submitted.  Motion passed unanimously."  Second fact, these were the Board Members present at the meeting:  Anderson, Cline, Garrison, McBride, Walton (President), McMillin, Barrier, John Walton.  Absent:  DeMarchi.  QUESTION:  Did they read the minutes?  How did this happen?  What is behind this?

I won't speculate.  I've been sued.  I've countersued.  I have no intention of misquoting, or misguiding anyone.  I questioned this Board when they decided that transcription of ALL OF THE TAPE WASN'T MINUTES.  I know that,  but obviously we are living during litigious times and it is a safe guard for ALL.  People, LISTEN TO THE TAPE.  THIS MOTION IS NOT THERE.

Will you do your homework and write the Board?  Will you find out WHY WE ARE BEING MISLEAD THROUGH OUR MINUTES?

This appears to be a lie to our Wedgefield residents.  You'll decide, but it reminds me of two things. 

I'm involved with an eight year old who told a white lie.  A little white lie.  She is in counseling for other reasons.  Her parents advised her to tell her counselor about the white lie.  After her session, when asked what she talked about, she said she told the advisor about the lie.  What did she have to say? she was asked.  She said the advisor drew a tiny circle and said that was like a lie.  Then she drew bigger and bigger circles and it was explained to the child that once you tell a little, tiny lie, it grous and grows, to cover the lie.  Were we lied to?  I don't know.  You'll decide, but let's see if we get bigger circles.  How will your Board explain this?  Will we see big circles?

Finally, I'm as human as anyone else.  I will confess that whenn I'm cooking, ironing, etc., that I listen to Judge Judy.  No laughing, she has a long, sterling court history, and then TV, which can be viewed as daytime drama.  She is true to herself.  Often when she is confronted by a lie, she says this, "don't pee on my leg, and tell me it is raining."

How will your Board respond?  Will they respond?  I don't know.  I'm not accussing anyone, but we all deserve an answer.  Where is my umbrella?  Who knows whether it will be rain, or not?

YOU'LL HAVE TO READ IT TO BELIEVE IT - A LETTER TO THE BOARD THAT WILL PROBABLY RESULT IN A "NO ANSWER, WE AREN'T HOME"

Today I was researching information on the WPA website.  I still can't believe what I read.  How did I miss this?  What has the Board done about it since?  What was the purpose?  Were Gettmann and Davis advised, asked, or anything?   What is Garrison up to?  THE FOLLOWING WAS TAKEN FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 20, 2012 LEGAL REPORT:

"Bob Garrison made a motion to provide funding to have Attorney Moody to proceed with

a motion regarding re-instating Karl Gettmann and Jude Davis to the Board of

Directors. This is associated with their removal from the Board in July or August of

2010. A second was made by Al DeMarchi. Motion Passed"

Rattled by this, I checked the approved minutes for April & May.  There was no update in either month under the legal report, or old business. 

I've always believed that Davis and Gettmann were robbed of their seats.  Garrison was one of the headliners in the propaganda leading up to their  (illegal - my humble opinion) removal.  I personally can't wait for Moody's opinion.  Will it be in my life time?  No one would like to see Gettmann & Davis back at the Board table, more than I would.  Could someone please tell me what is going on?  What is more baffling is that I was at the March Meeting. I don't remember this happening.  I would have been writing about it immediately.

IN THE MEAN TIME GO TO THE WPA WEBSITE AND REVIEW THE MARCH 2012 LEGAL REPORT FOR YOURSELF

P.S.  I'm cutting a pasting this and sending it straignt to the Board.  The management company wasn't involved during this time.  Either way, I probably won't get an answer.

SECOND UPDATE TO:TIME OUT TO WRITE THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Second UpDate:  Management Company (Mr. LaFrance) acknowledges emails. As you read you'll note that our representative has had a death in the family.  I am sincerely sorry to read that.  In an effort to keep you informed I'm providing the following response:



I published the email I sent c/o the management company on June 20th.  To date, I don't know whether our representative has received it, or intends to answer it.  I sent the following today, June 26th.  Here it is:

UPDATE 6/26/12: MR. LaFrance Acknowledges Today's Email:  I'll Keep You Informed and Share Any Response Relating to My Emails of 6/20 and 6/26

Edmund LaFrance <elafrance@wmdouglas.com> mclaveloux@sc.rr.com

Subject: Read: Correspondence Attached

Priority: Normal Date: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:16 AM Size: 4 KB

Attachments:

Your message To: elafrance@wmdouglas.com Subject: Correspondence Attached Sent: 6/26/2012 8:41 AM was read on 6/26/2012 10:15 AM. Reporting-UA: wmdouglas.com; Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Final-Recipient: rfc822;elafrance@wmdouglas.com Original-Message-ID: <20120626124109.JC3UI.183643.root@cdptpa-web26-z01> Disposition: manual-action/MDN-sent-automatically; displayed

PART III, THE JUNE 19TH WPA BOARD MEETING - TREASURER'S REPORT

NOTE: A reminder to you, if you didn't attend the meeting, or require clarification, GO TO THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES and LISTEN TO THE TAPE YOURSELF. In 2011 your Board agreed to post their copy of the meeting tapes on the WPA website, but it hasn't happened.

CONTACT THE BLOG:wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Be sure and note whether you would like your name published with your email.

DON'T FORGET TO READ THE JUNE 25TH UPDATE ON PART II.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WPA Treasurer, Janine Cline, was absent. Al DeMarchi gave the report. The first item of business was to make a motion to contract for audit services for year 2011.  The Board had sought bids and this appeared to be a legal, ethical, process and vote by the Board.

Again, I remind you to listen to the tape.  I do my best to take notes during the meeting.  I'll report what I saw and heard.  DeMarchi stated that it was necessary to allocate our reserves because it was necessary for filing taxes and they didn't want it noted in another audit.  The Board would have to vote through a motion to approve the allocations.

DeMarchi went on to say that he had done a 5 year study of expense and allocated accordingly.  When McBride started to question DeMarchi said he had given his figures to Cline and to remember they were allocated to specific areas, not restricted.

McBride had questions.What did you decide was important?  What values did you look at? DeMarchi asks, "John do you disagree with amount, percentages, or what John."  McBride responds, "the method."  He (I'm summarizing what I heard.) goes on to say that this is not a decision of one or two people.  He says the equivalent of this is important, we are Board Members, we all should know.

Garrison jumps in (again summarized).  Says it is misunderstood.  There are two purposes that are not even  remotely the same.  It isn't about how the money will be spent, but has to do with requirements.  It doesn't make a difference to function.  He doesn't disagree with a reserve study.  Finally he says this falls under preview of the Treasurer.

There was more to be said, but not for you and me.  What do I mean?  The resident audience "Twitter Sisters" were at it again, at the back of the room.  No gavel pounding, no, "let's have order", but like the poorly trained second grade teacher admonishing her students, they get a smile and a hand motion like "you naughty girls".   Hmm, wonder if these two, who don't understand respectful silence will count ballots this year?

At some point in all this DeMarchi says (not verbatim) that he sent his proposed distribution of reserves to the 2009 Board, the 2010 Board, and brought them forward now - 2012 Board. Two Boards did nothing with his figures so put them on the table now?

They vote on the motion.  Eight Board Members vote, knowing this, knowing at least two Boards have ignored these figures, knowing that according to McBride they weren't involved in review, consideration, planning of these figures.  The vote is 7 - 1.

Who is the one who says no?  Barrier. I never thought I would do this, but I thank Barrier, in fact compliment him on his "no".  Doesn't mean I know how he thinks.  I don't.  I'm not sure I'll ever understand Barrier.  I think if you asked him, he doesn't understand me and doesn't want to.  I won't put words in his mouth.  We don't speak.  I do say this, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck, and this motion, on this flimsy foundation has no substance, no order, no back up, and in my view, even Barrier couldn't go with the flow.

I digress. At one point in this mad discussion, Garrison says, "whatever it says ....doesn't make a difference."  Really?  They are about to allocate our reserves!

Some where in this MESS, McBride wants to make a motion to do a Reserve Study.  President Walton says he'll have to do that under New Business.  McBride says, "I can do that."  Thank you, McBride.

McMillin announces that there is no money in the budget for a Reserve Study.

This whole mess could have been termed, like the old soap opera, but we'll call it - "As The Stomach Turns", because it could cause ulcers.


,

UPDATED -PART II, THE JUNE 19TH BOARD MEETING - THE SECRETARY'S REPORT

SEE JUNE 24TH UPDATE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE

NOTE: A reminder to you, if you didn't attend the meeting, or require clarification, GO TO THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES and LISTEN TO THE TAPE YOURSELF.  In 2011 your Board agreed to post their copy of the meeting tapes on the WPA website, but it hasn't happened.

CONTACT THE BLOG:wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Be sure and note whether you would like your name published with email.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board Secretary, Al DeMarchi announced that the 2012 Annual Meeting would be held on November 17th, 2012 at the Presbyterian  Church's newly renovated hall.  The doors will open at 9:00AM and registration (regarding voting on that day) will close promptly at 10:00AM.

Discussion followed with questions from Garrison regarding the mailing of the Annual Meeting packet and post mark deadlines for those who will vote by proxy.

Board Member, Anderson asked about on-line voting.  President Walton said it would require a By-Law change.

It was announced that more volunteers are needed to count ballots.  If volunteers are unwilling to sign the Confidentiality Agreement they could still volunteer for set-up, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUST A FEW THOUGHTS:   First in many respects it appears the Board is trying to organize the mailing, cover potential pitfalls, and give every resident the opportunity to vote.  If you recall during the 2011 Annual Meeting, some residents showed up after 10:00 to vote and we had scenes on the meeting room floor about the fact that they weren't going to be allowed to vote.  One claimed he had driven from North Myrtle Beach.  In the end, they were allowed to vote.   I'm sure the Board will detail the packet advising people of deadline dates for proxy voting, and make sure it is noted about the firm 10:00 AM close time on voting the day of the Annual Meeting.  Life doesn't always allow us to follow our plans to get to the meeting to vote in person.  Elections have been lost and won because residents thought they would be able to attend, and life got in the way.  Use your proxy.

In the past, if you were a volunteer on the Election Committee, when you went to training you were advised that you could not reveal information regarding who voted for who, or the count in general(during the process).  This year your Board will miss use the Confidentiality Agreement, that has nothing to do with anything other than holding confidentiality on individual resident financial information, in hopes of maintaining the integrity of the process.  Good Luck!  In my humble opinion, if you start off with a document that ties you to silence in one area, and expect it to hold the integrity of silence on another, you are damaging the process and intent. 

I believe they said they already had five volunteers for the Election Committee.  While they didn't have to vote yet on the members of the Election Committee, naming those who were prepared to serve, might have encouraged others.

UPDATE JUNE 25:  This morning I received a call from a reader who told me I had missed something regarding this topic.  YOU will have to listen to the tape at the Wedgefield Times under Secretary's report.  I missed catching this in my notes from the meeting.  It appears that after the statement was made regarding the Confidentiality Agreement signing, that those who didn't want to sign, could help with set up.  Someone on the Board said for consistency, ALL VOLUNTEERS would have to sign.  This miss use of the power of a piece of paper that intends to lock the lips of all who deal with the Board is nothing short of ridiculous.  It would be laughable, if it weren't so serious.

So if you were thinking of volunteering for set up, don't worry, read the document, follow it exactly, and just keep your mouth shut if you happen to hear any resident's PRIVATE FINANCIAL INFORMATION, because whether you are in a Welcome, Roads, Drainage, or Water Amenities Committee Meeting, you really haven't signed up for silence on ANYTHING else.  Obviously, my opinion, but I'M LOSING PATIENCE  with this Board treating us like we don't have a brain and can't read and comprehend what we signed.  This tactic to silence you should be insulting. 

Wonder what they are going to do to President Walton for breaking the Confidentiality Agreement?  In case you forgot, he published PRIVATE, RESIDENT FINANCIAL INFORMATION IN THE WRAGG.  Where was my head when I asked this question?  I forgot that was one of them.


When asked about this incident, Garrison tried to say it was public record. It certainly was not at the point this Wragg was published.  No one had filed court papers at this point. Excuses, excuses, excuses, when they abuse what they are trying to force on you.


Here it is:

UPDATED -THE JUNE 19TH WPA BOARD MEETING, PART I, THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT

NOTE:  A reminder to you, if you didn't attend the meeting, or require clarification, GO TO THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES and LISTEN TO THE TAPE YOURSELF.

CONTACT THE BLOG: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Be sure and note whether you would like your name published with email.

The President's report was brief.  President Walton reported we were drawing near completion of the transition with William Douglas, our management company.  It should be complete by July 1st.  He took a few minutes to clarify what portions of collected past due accounts William Douglas would receive.  The Wedgefield Examiner received clarification on the subject and it is contained in a previous article.  We won't go over that again.

As I was listening to the report a resident sitting near me quietly, pointed to the finance report to the payments received by William Douglas, to date.  The Expense Sheet indicates that William Douglas received $2000.00 in April, and $53,000.00 in May, for a total of $55,000.00.  How can that be?  Will you write the Board for an explanation?

I don't recall the exact figure, but I thought as I sat in a meeting when their contract was approved, that I heard a contract figure under $35,000.00.

I have two concerns.  First, why weren't we given more detail on this contract.  Two, I asked the Board to post the contract on the WPA website and received a verbal explanation at the time that at first glance was OK.  After thinking about it, discussing it with others, it comes down to this.  Why can't a contract awarded by the WPA, in a genuine competitive bid process, be posted?  All of our contracts, should be competitive bid.  Does that mean we should be kept in the dark?  I don't think so.

I wrote the Board already this week.  This weekend I'll have to write, ask about the expense, and ask if I can at least come in and review the contract.  I'm afraid we are being kept in the dark on too many major issues.  Finally, remember I supported the idea of a management company.   I just would like some answers.   When will it mean enough to you to attend meetings, write the Board, and share the answers?  If you have written the Board and received an answer, please share the information.

UPDATE ADDED JUNE 23, THE WPA MAY EXPENSE REPORT: