***************************************************
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.
****************************************************************************
I've had a call from a resident about the tree cutting on private canal lots. The individual had read my letter to the board including the questions. They had also reviewed the research of documents and notations relating to the vote, and transfer of money to the emergency fund. Their question, really comment was, did I really think the board would ever answer in writing to me, and expose themselves to trying to answer to this travesty?
I've thought about it, and responded at the time, that I doubt it. This transaction, like so many others, smells of illegality. Now, no tapes of meetings (for some time now), no minutes, no financials, on the WPA website. Looks like a lock down of their pithy history. I don't know how any board could explain this away. I'll share my answer with you if I EVER get one.
A few weeks ago, I asked where residents were who shouted from roof tops that they wouldn't pay one dollar for the last dredging. Today, I'm asking where the residents are that came to board meetings in 2009, and yelled "where are last month's minutes. They aren't posted on the website? What are you hiding?" They wouldn't accept the logical, legal answer that those very minutes of the meeting the month before, had to be approved by the board the following month, and would be posted, at the end of the very meeting they were shouting at. Where are you residents, when we have fallen so far down the road of information, that this board's removal of vital, concrete information to residents, can only be labeled a dictatorship?
Thursday, June 29, 2017
YOUR BOARD'S SLIMY TREE CUTTING ON PRIVATE CANAL LOTS
On June 18, 2017 I wrote the board requesting permission to review records according to SC non profit law, as provided to me by the board quite some time ago. It should be noted, that I, and many people had been reviewing records, and receiving copies for years, according to ourgoverning documents. Your board in their singling out of certain residents determined that I alone would have to live up to SC non profit law requirements. I don't care, but maybe you should, because if you read the last few articles they've been singling out other residents for no reason, except that they feel they can, AND YOU WILL LET THEM. I had been recently concerned about a expenditure of $7,950 by this board to remove trees damaged by last year's hurricane, from private canal lots, at our expense. The state law requires that I give a proper purpose for the review of records. Here is what I wrote to the board. "My concern is made in good faith when you consider the following quote from the March WPA Minutes –“We received two bids to remove trees from canals; JC’s Landscaping of $7,950 and Thomas Bone Construction of $14,600. John made a Motion to Approve $7,950 to JC’s Landscaping for tree removal from canals with homeowner’s permission, Bob seconded and motion carried.” Funds appear to have been transferred to storm damage to cover the expense. " Read the article immediately below quoting residents with tree issues from the hurricane. They all paid for their own tree removal. Each of us understood that if we wanted ANY debris from the storm hauled away from our property, that we had to get it to the road side in front of our property within a designated period of time. Even if we had fallen large trees it would have been legal to saw them up and carry them to the road - some did. Many who had huge fallen trees in their yards hired contractors to come in and haul them away at their own expense - as was their responsibility under the governing documents. The board even put out a special policy through ARC during this time to remove residents from having to get permits.
The governing documents scream the fact that you, and I shouldn't have to pay for this tree removal. The governing documents charge the board to keep this place to a standard as defined in the documents. The governing documents give the board the power to go onto property, correct the violation, and charge the resident. Your board - each and every member, voted to do this illegally, at all of our expense.
HERE ARE THE QUOTES FROM OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS RELATING TO USE OF ASSESSMENT FUNDS, AND LOT MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE:
COVENANTS
Section 4: Use of Assessments Revenues: The funds derived from said
assessments shall be used for the payment of common area maintenance expenses of the subdivision
Section 5: Penalties for Violations of By-Laws, Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions, and Board Policies: The Board of Directors shall have the right, in addition to any other rights set forth in these By-Laws or in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, to pursue remedies against an Owner for violations by that Owner or Owner's tenant of the Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, or By-Laws. Such remedies may include but not be limited to injunctive relief, monetary damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees.
Section 6: It is the responsibility of each lot owner to prevent the development unkempt conditions of building grounds on such lot, which shall tend to substantially decrease the beauty for the neighborhood as a whole or the specific area.
Section 7. There shall not be maintained any plants or animals, or device or thing of any sort whose normal activities or existence destroy the enjoyment of the other property in the neighborhood by the owners there of.
BY-LAWS
Section I, Powers
The property and business of The Association shall be managed by the board of Directors, which may exercise all corporate power not specifically prohibited by the South Carolina Statues, the Articles of Incorporation, or the deed Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions.
I was advised by president Walton verbally, that I could review the records on the 27th, as I requested. HERE IS WHAT I WROTE AND ASKED THE BOARD TO REVIEW IN REGARD TO THE TREE REMOVAL ON PRIVATE CANAL LOTS:
"*request for proposal and related statement of work
*all vendor responses/quotes
*the contract
*all invoices related to the contract
*all payments related to the contract"
HERE IS WHAT THE POLICY MANUAL SAYS IN REGARD TO PROCUREMENT OVER $5,000:
HERE IS WHAT THE POLICY MANUAL SAYS IN REGARD TO PROCUREMENT OVER $5,000:
WEDGEFIELD PLANTATION ASSOCIATION POLICY MANUAL
PROCUREMENT
Purchases of $5,000 or more- Major Expenditures (Rev. 6/16/15)
Expenditures in excess of $5,000 are considered major expenditures and may only be made after Board approval. These expenditures require a scope of work to be prepared prior to being submitted to the Board. The scope of work will specify: a) why the work is to be done; b) exactly what is to be accomplished by the expenditure; and c) the measurable results from the work. (Rev. 6/16/15)
If the project is of such a large magnitude that it will require partial payment as specific aspects of the work is accomplished, then deliverables at the end of these milestones must be provided in the scope of work. A licensed professional engineer may be hired at the Board’s discretion. (Rev. 6/16/15)
It is desirable to secure three bids for this work. If this is not practical, the Board may accept a single bid.. In some instances if there is insufficient expertise on the Board, project review by an engineer or other qualified professional may be desirable.
(Rev. 6/16/15)
(Rev. 6/16/15)
It is the Board’s responsibility to inspect the work accomplished and to review the project at the next Board meeting subsequent to the completion of the work. After Board agreement and approval of the accomplished work, the Board will issue an approval to pay the contractor who performed the work. This procedure will be applied to milestone payments as well as total project payments.
It is essential that a paper trail be developed for each step in the project so the Board Audit Committee can review these expenditures and work performance at year end.
Let's look at what I requested, and what I found. 1) "request for proposal and related statement of work". There was no request for proposal which would have included a statement of work, dead line for submission, how to submit - sealed envelope, etc. How could it have been presented to the board for consideration and a vote?
2) "all vendor responses/quotes". There were two supposed bids for this project - JC's Landscaping = $7,950.00 and Thomas Bone = $14,600.00. I couldn't tell who Thomas Bone's was sent to, but JC's Landscaping was sent to canal committee member - not a board member. Further indication of no statement of work, or request for proposal submitted to both was the fact that JC's Landscaping submitted their bid on 3/5/17, and Thomas Bone's on 1/25/17. When I read each of the bids, you would wonder whether there ever was a written statement of work, but it did explain the vast difference in cost, because it could appear that the bids were on two different projects.
JC'S Landscaping's bid was laid out as follows:
*tree removal canal 1 (by boat ramp) $3,500
*tree removal canal 2 500
*tree removal canal 3 650
*tree removal canal 4 3,300
$7,950
Thomas Bone's bid:
This bid did not address the job by canals 1,2,3,4. It only spoke to 12 trees, use of barges, 60 feet of excavation, and dressing up the bank after tree removal. The total was for $14,600.
3) "the contract" There was NO CONTRACT! NO document signed by both parties, NO date to complete, NO terms of payment, NO measurement of job completion, etc.
4) "all invoices related to the contract" We can't really have an invoice related to the contract, because there wasn't a contract. There was an invoice addressed to the same canal committee member. The invoice was dated 5/15/2017, # 2280, amount due to JC's Landscaping in the amount of $7,950. NOTE: One of the reasons that I had asked for "all invoices related to the contract", was just in case your board had done the right thing and invoiced the individual private canal lot owners for their individual cost of work on their lot. There were no such invoices!
5) "all payments related to the contract" Again, we can't really have payments related to the contract because there wasn't one. Again, I had worded it this way so that if the board really had intended to invoice residents responsibly, and legally, that I could determine whether those residents paid.
Residents, this was so illegal! Each and every board member, and at least one canal committee member, have violated our governing documents! Each and everyone of them has financially violated every resident who did what they were suppose to legally, and ethically. Each and everyone of them have insulted our individual intelligence by even thinking they could pull this off. We have violated each other, and the values of our properties, by letting this entire board - each member do these type of things over, and over again. So if you had fallen trees on your lot you paid above your assessment dollars to bring your private lot in line with our governing documents, but if you were a certain number of canal lot owners - we all paid for tree removal on their private lots - canal lot owners, golf course lot owners, condo owners, and those that have lots that aren't in any of those areas. It is time you wrote your board, or maybe hired an attorney, because there is a whole lot of this slimy business going on, and your entire board is involved! (END OF ARTICLE)
A LETTER TO THE BOARD ABOUT TREE REMOVAL ON PRIVATE CANAL LOTS
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.
****************************************************************************
August 26, 2017
TO: WPA BOARD
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: TWO QUESTIONS REGARDING EXPENDITURE OF WPA
FUNDS - $7,950 FOR REMOVAL OF TREES FROM
PRIVATE LOTS ON THE CANALS
CC: THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER
I reviewed the file for the expenditure of $7,950 to remove fallen trees left from last falls hurricane, on private canal lots. The board had indicated from the board table, “that lot owners had been notified.” Review of the file indicated that there was only one bid related to the scope of work despite the fact that the board had reported two bids from the board table. The second bid, by scope of work alone, appeared related only to work on the landing, with no mention of canals. There wasn’t a signed contract in the file. I had asked to review related invoices, and payments, and there was only one invoice in the file, that of the vendor. We were informed from the board table that funds had been transferred to the depleted emergency fund to cover the expense of this tree removal. There weren’t any invoice/assessments to the private lot owners where the trees were cut, nor did the board indicate from the board table, that the expense related to private lots, would be billed to the lot owners.
All of these observations of file, and fact, are very concerning, compounded further by the fact that I also reviewed the correspondence file, and there were at least two letters from canal lot owners stating that they had paid to remove the fallen trees from their lots, and asking the board to notify their neighbors to get their trees removed. Additionally, all members were told immediately after the storm, to get their storm related debris to the roadside if they wanted them picked up by the contractor who had been hired, at the association’s expense (emergency fund). Additionally, at one point during the legitimate removal from the road side, with the emergency funds running down, the board chastised residents for putting things at the road side, and running up costs, with debris unrelated to the storm. All this leaves some residents wondering how months later, that our board expenses the emergency fund to remove trees on private canal lots.
I reviewed the file for the expenditure of $7,950 to remove fallen trees left from last falls hurricane, on private canal lots. The board had indicated from the board table, “that lot owners had been notified.” Review of the file indicated that there was only one bid related to the scope of work despite the fact that the board had reported two bids from the board table. The second bid, by scope of work alone, appeared related only to work on the landing, with no mention of canals. There wasn’t a signed contract in the file. I had asked to review related invoices, and payments, and there was only one invoice in the file, that of the vendor. We were informed from the board table that funds had been transferred to the depleted emergency fund to cover the expense of this tree removal. There weren’t any invoice/assessments to the private lot owners where the trees were cut, nor did the board indicate from the board table, that the expense related to private lots, would be billed to the lot owners.
All of these observations of file, and fact, are very concerning, compounded further by the fact that I also reviewed the correspondence file, and there were at least two letters from canal lot owners stating that they had paid to remove the fallen trees from their lots, and asking the board to notify their neighbors to get their trees removed. Additionally, all members were told immediately after the storm, to get their storm related debris to the roadside if they wanted them picked up by the contractor who had been hired, at the association’s expense (emergency fund). Additionally, at one point during the legitimate removal from the road side, with the emergency funds running down, the board chastised residents for putting things at the road side, and running up costs, with debris unrelated to the storm. All this leaves some residents wondering how months later, that our board expenses the emergency fund to remove trees on private canal lots.
After my review, I’m left with two questions for the board for clarification.
1) Did the board assess the private canal lot owners for their share of the expense for tree removal on their lots? If so, why weren’t we told, and how did you assign their share, when the scope of work details canals, but not lots?
2) If the board has not assessed the private canal lot owners, please reference the section, and specific language in the governing documents that allowed the board to use WPA funds, for the tree removal on private lots.
Thank you for your time and attention to my questions. I look forward to your response.
