THE LET IT GO BOARD

Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.


After reading and thinking about Secretary DeMarchi's letter to Jude Davis I couldn't help but feel that this is the "let it go board".  No thought to what is right but "it is one of ours so it is OK".  More of their so called "cohesiveness"?  Wedgefield has had a lot of strife, lawsuits, and slurs, but what Secretary DeMarchi implies in his definition of pandering shows us just how much this board will ignore and condone.  They don't mind, after all this is definitely not one of their favored residents. 

Think about it.  Why the whole board?  Remember, DeMarchi sent his email to the entire board.  Did you see or hear any out cry about his ridiculous innuendo?  Not one word.  Protocol has been that when a board member prepares an answer to a resident that he/she sends a draft to the entire board, comment can be made, changes if necessary, and then it is sent from the office.  When DeMarchi sent this nasty piece, copied the board, he wrote from his board seat.  Your board did nothing!  They obviously condone his writings!


Remember, this whole board and the management company, through their lack of action, failure to answer residents, ignore and condone.

This board voted and approved a Confidentiality Agreement, presented by DeMarchi, that they have broken over and over themselves, and failed to self enforce.  They let it go.

This board has been asked to clarify attorney opinions presented to the public through Garrison, even when it is shown to contradict other documents.  They don't answer.  They move on and let it go. 

This board has either hindered the management company from their work, or the management company isn't providing the service we expect.  They let it go because the truth might hurt.

This board has watched Barrier month after month, with no report, or a snarky verbal report, without written answer to the resident who wrote. They take no action and move on.


We have 24 new familes who haven't been welcomed.  They have done nothing all year.  Now the annual vote and meeting is coming up so they make a big show at discussion, and let it go until after the annual meeting.


This board has sat back as recent as during the October meeting and spoke of possibily using 2013 monies now, in certain line items.  Not one said, "weren't we assured when we voted to pay down $81,000 on the dredging loan that we had enough money to get to the end of the year?'  No one asked.  They just let it go.

This board used our money for a legal opinion on a canal option that they wouldn't discuss for months.  2-3 months ago, they presented it, no written legal opinion (only Garrison's verbal), and promised a survey to canal owners regarding the option.  To date, it hasn't happened.  They sit by, don't question, and let it go.

This board has signed a Code of Ethics that they fail to follow and each of them either abuse it themselves, or sit back and let it go.

We could go on and on.  You have to consider who you will vote for in the upcoming Wedgefield Elections.  There are three board vacancies, three current board members running - Anderson, DeMarch, Walton (John), and a fourth who hasn't severved on the board - Taco Wijthoff.  Vote for Wijthoff.  The other three have sat back, watched it happen, and let it go. Note: Wijthoff has not asked for this endorsement and The Wedgefield Examiner has not sought his opinion on this article.

RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS ANSWERS SECRETARY DE MARCHI

 Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.

 

 

Mr.De Marchi,

Thank you for educating me on additional uses for the word pander. I never meant to accuse you of soliciting sexual favors. Quite frankly, that definition never crossed my mind and I apologize.

Why did you and your attorney decide to take the sexual definition as opposed to the political when my e-mail was quite specific? Let me quote : I hate to think that this was an attempt by a member of the Board running for office to pander for votes, but that is exactly what it looks like. Pandering for votes is unethical.

There are many definitions for pander. According to several sites, the most common usage is political. In my mind, pandering, especially pandering for votes, means:

Pandering is essentially a reaction of panic in elected officials who must either tailor their views to public opinion or risk losing their existing or potential seat.

When you pander to people, you cater to their needs because you want something from them. A good example is a politician who says what the voters want to hear, to get their votes--politicians pander to voters. The verb pander is used in a negative way to denote the behavior of someone who has ulterior motives or just wants to indulge the person to whom they are pandering.

With all of the ugliness in this Plantation since 2009, no one has interpreted ,until you, anything said to mean something sexual. You twisted what I said and used an archaic and seldom used definition for pander to threaten me. You, and others on the Board, have tried in many ways to silence anyone in the Plantation who asks questions. What are you all hiding?Threatening legal action is nothing new. You continue to be a disappointment.

I stand by my original statement:

Pandering for votes is unethical

Mrs. Davis

From: Alan DeMarchi

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:46 AM

To: Jude & Mike Davis

Cc: John Walton ; John & Carolyn McBride ; Wedgefield Plantation Association ; Larry & Sandra McMillan ; Jacky Walton ; Janine Cline ; Jason & Crissy Barrier ; Bob & Johanna Garrison ; Adam Anderson ; Edmund LaFrance

Subject: Criminal accusations

Ms. Davis:

I quote, "In the State of South Carolina, pandering is illegal. According to the criminal law of the State of South Carolina, pandering includes the following acts:

• procuring a female for a house of prostitution
• causing, inducing or persuading a female by threat, violence or promise to become a prostitute
• receive anything of value to become a prostitute
• accept money or something of value from a prostitute
• aid, abet or knowingly participate in any of the acts listed above"

Based upon legal advice I have received, you are bordering on slander. You have wrongfully accused me of "pandering" for votes, which in South Carolina suggest some form of sexual illegalities. You have publicized this accusation in writing to the Wedgefield Plantation Board of Directors, and also posted this to an internet site for public access.

If you persist with your distortions of the truth, inaccuracies, and false criminal accusations, I will seek legal recourse against you.

I am writing this based upon the recommendations of my attorney and trust this will put an end to your accusations.

Alan A. De Marchi

A QUICK REPORT ON THE OCTOBER 16TH BOARD MEETING

Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.


I wanted to start this report with the phrase that is often used in national political talks.  Many end it with "God bless America".  After this October meeting, I say God bless Wedgefield.  We need all the help we can get.  The other thought that came to mind was "The Mickey Mouse Club".  I think that Mickey was at the meeting.  Nothing, absolutely nothing was settled, nothing accomplished.  The show put on by this board was ridiculous.  All board members were present except for Garrison.  Edmund LaFrance from the management company attended.

You are about to vote for three of these board members, as they are running for re-election.  This board has had almost a full year to accomplish something that would represent leadership. The reports were quick and failed to cover significant challenges facing this association.  So little has been accomplished that your president did not even attempt to list the board's accomplishments for 2012 in his letter to residents in the annual meeting packet.  We've reached the point where stagnation must be an accomplishment.

Back to the October meeting.  Our time was spent on the following, which took significant time, about two hours.  On top of that the discussions were frivolous, and caused one to question why the board had bothered to meet at all.  Please go to The Wedgefield Times and listen for yourself. Here are the issues your board took significant time with:

*Under Old Business, your board launches a discussion on John Walton's Welcome Committee. NOTHING has been done to welcome new residents all year long.  Now it is so important that we spend an inordinate amount of time on it, even though the general consensus is that any welcome event should be held after the annual meeting. It seems some on the board have discussed this prior to the meeting.  DeMarchi says they have an idea to help Walton.  There are 24 families who have moved in and not been welcomed (Nothing has been done since the end of 2010 and some of these board members have been in their board seats that long.).  It is suggested and a motion made by Walton to invite families to a meet and greet with the board and present those who attend with a $20 Walmart gift card.  The discussion goes on for some time and then it is time for me to both thank and praise Barrier.  He says something about he doesn't feel that handing out association money...he isn't sure it would be allowed to basically write residents a check.  DeMarchi wants to know what the difference would be between buying them a sandwich at the Manor House or giving them a Walmart gift card.  Edmund LaFrance cautions not to do it.  Now we get into a labored discussion about bags with plants and community information in them that could be left at the new resident doors, or a meet and greet with beverages and food at the office.  It went on and on.  At times they said there was $200 in the budget to welcome new residents, then someone discussed using part of the 2013 budget.  At some point Anderson offers to give $20 so they can move on.  Could someone just welcome the new residents?  Some have been here so long that it would be embarrassing to WELCOME them now. 

*McMillin's Grounds Report went almost as long.  The problem was that it was almost entirely about the golf course.  He had met with the new management and discussed with them what he felt they should do about a number of things.  He spent time explaining each of his suggestions.  He was going to do a follow up visit with them to see if they had taken his suggestions seriously.  This also went on and on and on.  Why take so much time on something we don't own and quite frankly, why would they listen to him.  Just toward the end he mentions that he has talked to them about maybe leasing the pool to the WPA!  It could be set up with memberships for Wedgefield residents, only.  Why?  What is alarming is that McMillin wanted that pool in 2009 when I was on the board.  One of the family members from the golf course owners sat on the Board.  That time the offer was made from the golf course to the board.  The board considered it and McMillin wanted it.  Some of us on the board asked numerous times to be provided information on the cost of running it, cost of insurance, etc.  No one would provide that information and yet, McMillin continued to want to move forward with it.  It was voted down.  Would you lease a business, or portion of a business that was struggling with membership?

Mc Millin wanted to seek approval to buy no more than $600 worth of fall flowers for the front entrance and nearby area.  Someone asked about the budget.  Again, the thought that maybe some could come from 2013 came up.  Why?

*Barrier had a Community Liaison Report this month.  How?  I don't know.  It would seem to me that you would have to answer someone in order to report on it.  I've reviewed the correspondence file.  He hasn't answered anyone.  Instead he says he has two things and gives a snarky, from the board table answer to residents who may or may not be there.  I sat through it and I don't understand the first item.  You can draw your own conclusions. He says that personal emails between residents coming to the office with personal disputes needn't be on his computer.  I have no idea, except that DeMarchi had both sent and received emails at home from the resident with 2 lots that became 4.  Finally, the lot owner had sent his big thank you to DeMarchi to the office.  When I reviewed the correspondence file it included those that were sent and received from DeMarchi's home.  Maybe Barrier was reprimanding DeMarchi. 

Next Barrier implies the some residents may be trying to use the Confidentiality Agreement to remove a board member and they can't.  He further states that he disputed the Confidentiality Agreement with DeMarchi when it first came up.  Then he says you can't remove a board member using it.  Next, he looks at DeMarchi and asks him if he intends to step down from the board.  DeMarchi says, "no".  Barrier then says that he feels DeMarchi is an excellent board member.  Do you think that was rehearsed?  I do.  Back to the subject.  I ,and I know of one other resident who protested the Confidentiality Agreement have each written the board.  From the beginning each of us stated that our governing documents would not allow the board to self remove another sitting board member.  It was the board attorney who said that those who broke it, could be removed.  So Barrier was just adding drama, hoping to cast aspersions on residents that were untrue, and failing to address the fact that DeMarchi and several of the board members are the only ones who have breached the Confidentiality Agreement.  So the Board who imposed it on resident volunteers, misused it on many occasions, can do as they want and not suffer the consequences. Now Barrier would like to hang false accusations on those who write.  He fails to answer them because the truth would sting. 

*Janine Cline provided the best financial reports we've seen since February.  She states that there are a few items to work on but the improvement is noticeable.  Someone states that DeMarchi and Cline are working on the financial reports.  McBride volunteers to help.  He says, "let me know and I'll be there."  It appeared he was ignored once again.  Just see what happens during the resident questions.

*At one point in this long meeting as discussions regarding budget are in progress, McBride says that  directors need to go through the financial reports and understand them.  He asks if everyone reviewed the financials prior to the meeting (not word for word but equivalent).  DeMarchi asks when the board received them.  McBride gives an answer of two or three days.  DeMarchi says he hasn't seen them and he may have deleted them.  Yet, our board, at least twice during the meeting talked about maybe they could use money budgeted in certain line items, this year??????

There will be more on the meeting later in other posts.

During the resident comment section a resident says that since residents are required to put concerns, questions, etc., in writing that it is reasonable that they should be answered in writing.  They ask President Walton what progress has been made on the committee he said he would form to set a procedure for answering residents.  You may remember that during the September meeting our president said he would form a committee to work on it.  John McBride volunteered, was ignored, and another board member reminded the president that he could select who served on the committee.  Well, he should have taken McBride up on his offer and then maybe something would have been done.  Our president reported he had done nothing regarding forming the committee.  I guess that he and his board don't think it is important to answer residents.  After all  his Community Liaison doesn't answer and keeps his job.  Your presidents appoints him and could relieve him of that responsibility and hasn't.  Your president has watched your board ignore the newly approved policy manual directives on answering residents.  Your president has presided over meetings where DeMarchi announced new guidelines for answering residents and no one followed them.  Your president has stood by while our management company has failed to answer residents.  Why would he hurry now when the annual meeting is next month?

The sorry thing about all of this is your board - those who have their seats for one or two more years, those who have to run for re-election, seem to take for granted that it is OK to ignore the residents.  Three of the current members - Anderson, DeMarchi, and Walton (John) are running for re-election.  As you vote remember that they have accomplished very little, set rules that only they break, set more rules that they don't follow, and sit by while others on the board fail to treat each other decently - break the Code of Ethics our president so wanted everyone of them to sign and yet they want your vote.  There are three board seats open and four candidates.  The only candidate who has not been part of all of this is Wijthoff.  Give Wijthoff your vote.  Note:  Wijthoff has not asked for this endorsement and The Wedgefield Examiner has not sought his opinion on this article. 

OUR NEXT ARTICLE WILL BE WRITTEN ABOUT THE CONDO REGIME WHO WAITED 3 MONTHS TO GET A PAYMENT BACK FROM THE WPA.

DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR CHILDREN WERE AT ABOUT 6:10 PM ON SATURDAY EVENING?

Some one's preteen - young teens, one dressed in a red shirt, 4 or 5 in a group that may have been mixed but if so, more of them  females, may have told you they were out for a stroll but were out for mischief.. They were walking on Pine Grove entered a neighbor's yard once and then appeared to move on.  A few minutes later they returned to the neighbors yard and then went charging through our large flower bed stepping on small plantings, exiting our yard on William Screven.  A walk to socialize isn't a walk when you tear through property.  We got in our car and tried to find them so we could notify their parents.  They disappeared.  If your young person entered the house quickly and a little out of breath you might want to ask them if they were trespassing and destroying property.

RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS WRITES REGARDING THE OCTOBER 16TH BOARD MEETING

Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.


Dear Examiner, Board of Directors, and Edmund LaFrance,

Were you as frustrated by the October board meeting as I was? This two hour meeting, the last before the annual, left me with a very unsatisfied feeling. With no President’s report, no Vice-president’s report, no Legal, Condo, Communication, etc., we were, instead, treated to an inaccurate and snarky Community Liaison report, an over long and off topic Grounds report, a and ridiculous Welcome committee report.

According to the present Policy Manual, after a resident’s letter goes through hoops, the final response is to be authored by the Community Liaison Chair—Jason Barrier. I am not among the favored few who ever get a written response from Jason. In fact, he has told me that he will NOT respond to my questions. This attitude towards a single resident seems to be supported by the majority of the Board.

I have written to the Board each time a member of the Board violates the Confidentiality Agreement they supported and signed. It was the attorney, Mr. Moody, who opined that , according to our By-laws, a Board member could be removed from his/her position for violating this agreement, not me. Although our By-laws do not have this provision, no one has ever questioned Mr. Moody. By the same token, NO Board member has acknowledged violating the Confidentiality Agreement.

Yes, I wrote to the Board concerning Al DeMarchi’s involvement with the recent two lot/four lot debacle. I questioned his violation of confidentiality when he mentioned the lot owner by name. I also questioned his intense involvement in resolving this issue, including ‘hours’ down at the county offices. It should not have been the job of any Board member, let alone one running for re-election, to resolve the question. It was the property owner’s job. I considered this special treatment of a single property owner pandering for votes and a violation of the Code of Ethics. I hope that each and every Board member has examined the papers that Al held up in September and is satisfied with their accuracy!

Why aren’t the changes to the Policy Manual documented at the bottom of the page?

When I asked Jacky Walton about the committee he was forming to expedite responses to residents, he looked at me as if I had two heads. When questioned further, he admitted that the committee has not been formed and has certainly not met. It frustrates me that the members of the WPA are treated so disparately! It remains my contention that ALL residents are entitled to a written response to written questions.

It is my understanding that the fiscal year starts January 1^st. Looking towards next year’s budget to fund this year’s projects seems wrong!

Judith Davis

ReplyReply All

Move...

 

RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS - MASTER DEED

Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.


Dear Examiner,

I have included an e-mail exchange that I recently had with the office. This is not the first time Mr. Moody has made assertions that can’t be substantiated.

Sent 9/24

I thought I heard Bob say that the attorney examined the master deed. This was confirmed by listening to the tape of the meeting.

I would like to come to the office on Wednesday to see a copy of the master deed that Mr. Moody examined.

Judith Davis

When I went to the office on Wednesday, Kathy informed me that she did not have a Master Deed to show me.

Received 10/2

Per Bob Garrison:

"We are seeking an answer to your inquiry regarding the question about the "Master Deed" from Mr. Moody."

Kathy Phelan-Stilwell

Received 10/15

Jude,

No one has brought this to me and as far as I know there has been nothing further done on this issue.

Kathy Phelan-Stilwell

I can’t understand why my question about the Master Deed has gone unanswered for over three weeks. Someone gave Mr. Moody a deed to examine and led him to believe it was the Master Deed to the Plantation. What deed did he look at and who told him it was the Master Deed?

It is my understanding that each property in Wedgefield has its own deed. While very similar, there are subtle differences. Each bankruptcy and subsequent developer had the opportunity, and did, make minor changes.

The WPA does not have a Master Deed—one that would be the same for ALL single family, detached homes. My question, unanswered, remains:” What deed did Moody look at and who told him it was the Master Deed?” The continuing question that I have is:”Why doesn’t anyone on the Board care?”

Judith Davis

UPDATED OCT. 15TH (NOW TWO PARTS) A FIRST FOR THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER

Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.


PART I:

The Wedgefield Examiner always includes a statement telling our readers that they are welcome to respond to an article.  To date,  I have published every email sent to the blog.  I do not comment on the opinion.  I publish it as it was sent.  Not today.  I will not disclose the name of the writer.  I have emailed them (below) and asked for clarification.  The writer made statements about candidate Wijthoff, an issue with lots & votes, without documentation.  Writers to the blog provide documentation with their opinion, or I have witnessed the actions, or reviewed documents, regarding the topic that they are discussing.  Not the case today.  The writer claims (amongst other things) that The Wedgefield Examiner is part of Wijthoff's "team". Read what I have to say about that.  If there is a "team", I can't find it.  When the writer provides documentation I'll be happy to print their letter.

 

 

October 15, 2012

　

 

I have received your email addressed to Taco Wijthoff, WPA Board, and The Wedgefield Examiner. As Editor of the Wedgefield Examiner, I stand by the statement that if you have an opinion you are welcome to send it and it will be printed, with or without your name. Your recent letter presents unusual circumstance to The Wedgefield Examiner as it contains unsubstantiated statements. The Wedgefield Examiner provides back up to statements that includes actual documents, transcription of tapes - including reference to the tapes, and actual minutes, etc. To date, I have printed every communication that has come to the blog. I have printed items that are substantiated either by documents I have seen, Board Meetings I have attended and saw and heard, or by the writer’s provision of documents. I hope that you will take the time to provide the following clarification.

*Your email is peppered with numerous references to “Taco’s team“, or “they” or “them“, referring to the team, and at least once - The Wedgefield Examiner, as though Mr. Wijthoff’s approval has been sought by the blog. First, you’ll note that anytime The Wedgefield Examiner suggests supporting Taco Wijthoff that a disclaimer always follows stating that Wijthoff has not asked for endorsement, and The Wedgefield Examiner has not sought his approval. Simply stated, no one directs me. The blog belongs to me. Anyone who knows me, knows that I will not bend, let alone be lumped with an unknown “team”, or directed by Taco Wijthoff, or anyone else.

Please provide documentation regarding the “team“. I know as Editor of The Wedgefield Examiner, that I am not part of the “team“. Who is? When was the “team” organized? Has the “team” sent out any election propaganda? If so, please reference or provide it.

*I have personally reviewed many documents regarding your lots. I am not an expert. Please clarify the date when your lots were recognized by the county as four single family lots. What year did you begin paying property tax on four single family lots?

*I, as the Editor of the Wedgefield Examiner have sighted numerous instances when the WPA Board has failed to serve in the best interests of Wedgefield Plantation residents. It is my opinion supported by all the documentation listed above. Again, Wijthoff has had no part in my documented writings. Please provide a list of serious accomplishments, achieved by this Board. I’ll be happy to publish them with appropriate documentation.

*I ask how you can speak to harmony, a positive approach, and moving forward in a positive direction, when you call 81 independent lot owners the equivalent of mud hole people? Interestingly, two of the candidates you support come from the canal mud hole lot owners, does your endorsement make you part of their team. Do they approve of your writings?

I look forward to your documented response. In the recent past, I have been sued by people who called names, made false claims- no documentation, and waged a long costly lawsuit, while tearing up my community. As Editor of The Wedgefield Examiner I refuse to play a part in harming anyone, including Taco Wijthoff. To my knowledge, he is his own person, true to his beliefs, and willing to work to make our community strong. I can’t imagine any “team” directing him to harm anyone, let alone the residents of the community where he lives and has invested. Again, I have not sought his opinion or approval on my correspondence.

Sincerely,

Madeline Y. Claveloux

Editor, The Wedgefield Examiner

PART II - A RESPONSE FROM THE WRITER PRODUCES NO CLARIFICATION:
The almost immediate response from the writer to the blog follows.  Read through and you will note that they are unable or unwilling to provide clarification. This is obviously a person who can't back up what they say.  It is exactly the reason I asked for clarification.

This individual speaks from both sides of their mouth.  They write,"It is sickening how backward and negative the current process continues to fester. This is a war on Wedgefield which has to stop. Who would want to live in this environment? Who is enjoying this madness? Our property values are declining, and the negatives are fully apparent outside of Wedgefield. This is not good!" Yet, he/she has been a part of a "team"  ( spoke at a Board meeting for the team) that has threatened lawsuit aganist this very Board, noting in writing that if the individual Board Members failed to vote as directed that they would be sued.  This person doesn't live in this environment.  They own property here but don't live here.  They rarely attend Board Meetings.  Yet, they claim they support this Board.  Where more double talk comes in is that they wrote the following in the letter I refused to print without clarification, " (name removed) and I will vote for the other three highly qualified candidates (Adam Anderson, Alan DeMarchi, and John Walton), and so advise our fellow residents to vote in your opposition."  They can't back up what they say, and support Board Members for re-election that they threatened to sue.  Do you want to follow this team's endorsement?

HERE IT IS:

Ms. Claveloux,

Thank you for your hasty response, and all your reasons for not publishing my letter to Taco. I would not have expected anything different, but I certainly respect your wishes. Please determine for yourself who is the ‘team’, ‘they’, ‘them’…. In the longer run, this ‘team’, whoever it is composed of, will lose! More objectively, Wedgefield needs to win!

Privately speaking, there are just a few folks who may want to continue the destruction of Wedgefield with what I call ‘Mud Hole Politics’. This does not encompass all the 81 canal lot owners which you, as editor, wrongly associate. I do not place many wonderful people who live on the canals into this group, in fact, many canal lot owners are embarrassed with the tactics that involve such poor, nasty, and divisive policies. In the long run, the many battles that are promoted may be won or lost, but for certain Wedgefield will be the loser. It has suffered the continuing attacks on its board members, its clear division, and negative exposure to the community outside of the plantation. Why wouldn’t you as editor consider a more constructive approach, and help lead us to a more unified strategy with more common objectives? Why not motivate Taco to better use the power of his 31 votes? Why wouldn’t he lead this community in a different direction? You may be surprised with the potential outcome, and the potential support for needed canal maintenance!

It is sickening how backward and negative the current process continues to fester. This is a war on Wedgefield which has to stop. Who would want to live in this environment? Who is enjoying this madness? Our property values are declining, and the negatives are fully apparent outside of Wedgefield. This is not good!

Madeline, please change the ‘spin’ as editor of your blog. I think you may come to enjoy the beauties of Wedgefield, instead of the unsightly effects of the ‘Mud Hole Politics’ that permeate the atmosphere. We are all human beings trying to live our lives without turmoil. Unfortunately, such policies provoke adverse reactions to result in further discomfort. Someone has to break the ice!

Try it, you may like it!

Respectfully,