Monday, December 18, 2017
YOUR BOARD CAN'T CLAIM ANY WISDOM IN GIVING MCMILLIN HIS CHRISTMAS PRESENT - RECONFIGURING THE OFFICE PARKING LOT. WISDOM IN DECISION MAKING - THE VOTE 3 MONTHS IN A ROW OF A PROJECT RIDDLED WITH DECEPTION AND TOO MANY COINCIDENTAL OOPS, WENT DOWN THE DRAIN, AND THERE WAS NO THOUGHT OF "THE BEST INTERESTS OF WEDGEFIELD", BUDGET, OR GOVERNING ACCORDING TO OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS. YET, THE NEW REVISED - ACCORDING TO THE WHIMS AND DEMANDS OF MCMILLIN - HIS MONUMENT - THE REVISED PARKING LOT WENT IN TODAY. BA HUMBUG MCMILLIN! SORRY RESIDENTS, THIS IS NOTHING BUT COAL IN YOUR RESIDENT STOCKING FOR CHRISTMAS.
Saturday, December 16, 2017
THERE IS A BOARD MEETING ON TUESDAY. WILL YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO ATTEND?
THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER MASCOT, BRADY SAY'S
"TIS THE SEASON, BUT BOARD MEETINGS ARE IMPORTANT. THIS IS WHERE WE LIVE, AND OFTEN YOUR BOARD, IN DOING THEIR OWN THING, RATHER THAN WHAT OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS PROMISED US, FORGET HOW IMPORTANT WEDGEFIELD - OUR HOME, IS TO US. SHOW THEM YOU CARE, AND THAT YOU ARE WATCHING, BY GETTING TO THE BOARD MEETINGS."
Friday, December 15, 2017
THE OPEN BOARD MEETING ON DECEMBER 11TH LEAVES SANTA CARRYING A BAG OF TRICKS TO SECURE MCMILLIN'S OFFICE PARKING LOT, AND IT COULD APPEAR THAT OUR RECENT ELECTION OF TWO NEW BOARD MEMBERS HAS ADDED MORE ELVES TO THIS SLEIGH RIDE!
BOARD MEMBER MCMILLIN MUST HAVE BEEN DANCING WITH THE BOARD'S CHRISTMAS PRESENT TO HIM AT OUR EXPENSE - APPROVAL OF HIS PARKING LOT FOR THE THIRD TIME IN AS MANY MONTHS! TWO NEWLY ELECTED BOARD MEMBERS VOTED WITH THE REST OF THE BOARD TO APPROVE HIS HI-JINXED PROJECT!
************************************************
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 was unable to attend the December 11th open board meeting, but I have contacted a few people who attended the meeting. I mean a few - there were only 4-6 residents who attended the meeting. It was short, but certainly not productive for the "best interests of Wedgefield", but the onset of another three years of McMillin's selfish antics. What was even more dismaying was the vote by the two new board members to approve the project - add two more shovels to the snow job of the board.
I've been told that the meeting had to be called because McMillin's board approved vendor for the project, Love Concrete told McMillin that they were too busy to do his job and recommended he find someone else. McMillin called Creative Concret Solutions of Conway and they gave him a price of $2400 for the same specs. Seven board members voted to approve, including the two newly elected. Anderson and Johnson were absent.
Unlike most board meetings, including the rare open meetings, the board wasn't interested in resident comments. However, it been noted that one resident did speak up, and had a issue with the project, and president Walton, and Garrison told him that he was the only one who had an issue with it. REALLY?????? When McMillin brought the project to the board table for the first time a few months ago, even Garrison asked who wanted it besides him!
We have to follow this project from the beginning to see just how twisted it is.
I attended the September 2017 board meeting, and reported the following:
"How did all this go down? McMillin announces that he has sought bids to reconfigure the parking lot. He has two bids. The first company from Conway bid $2,600 - $3,000. The second, Love Concrete bid $2,300, on the entire job, and can complete it in 2 days. It should be noted that earlier in the week, the grass around the parking lot was marked with paint lines - evidently certainty that this board would approve. He reports that he has enough in his budget on line item - 65-100. Additionally he notes that he'll need another $200 for his do-it-yourself painting of lines, and direction arrows. Cline seconds his motion for $2,500 for the reconfiguration of the parking lot. Garrison asks if he has the bids in writing, and McMillin pats some papers at his side. (Someone should write and ask to review the whole bid process.) Garrison continues in his snaky role by asking who besides McMillin , who has been pushing this for 5 years needs this? McMillin responds by telling him to ask Johnson who has a big truck. Yes, Johnson can see problems. Then McMillin says, "I think I should have done this when I designed it, but we were trying to save money, etc." McMillin asks President Walton since he has a truck whether it is a problem. His truck isn't as big as their trucks, but when the WVA (condo meeting) meets there on a few Saturday's, it can be a problem. At some point McMillin is passing his drawing of parking places, and mentions he is moving the handicapped parking space somewhere off to the side. Johnson mentions specs for public places requirements for the handicapped. McMillin says in upset, "I've only seen one handicapped person in what ten years????? He isn't happy, but conversation at the table causes him to say that he will leave it where it is if has to, but it is going to mess up his parking plan!"
I attended the October 2017 meeting and this is what I reported at the time.
"CLUE # 5: This clue comes humorously forward during the October board meeting. It's our assessment dollars, and your board's - as Garrison has stated "so what are you going to do about it?" - attitude of we don't have to follow the governing documents, which by the way - look at the revision date - they WROTE. McMillin becomes the chief comedian. He reports at the October meeting, that he made an error on the parking lot proposal. The actual bid from the cement contractor wasn't $2,300, it was $2,800, and of course you'd have to add the $200 more for painting the lines, etc. for a total of $3,000. He states that it is his problem of "bad eyes and a weak mind". Those dang glasses, should have had them! What were they missing every time he had touched that bid? If he had followed the governing documents, and provided a review of proposal etc., to everyone of the board members as required to review before a vote, maybe some of them would have had their glasses and noticed it. The rest of the board (only Anderson is absent), adds themselves to the comedy crew line up, as McMillin motions his selfish parking lot redesign to cost $3000. John Walton seconds the motion, and your whole board approves, including Ebert, who voted "NO" on the $2,500 at the September meeting. Let's use a recent Garrisonism "who got to you" Ebert? I got this part, it was your corrupt board!"
So the meeting on December 11th brought not only McMillin's willfulness - I want what I want, and this board will support me, because they need my vote when they are ridiculous, and illegal (against the governing documents), and I don't care if the residents don't need or want the change to the parking lot.
I close providing the governing document that through all three board meetings, every board member failed to responsibly, and ethically review, before they voted "yes". The vote on December 11th is the worst, because two new board members that we hoped would change things voted yes to give McMillin his way, without due diligence. Here is the quote from the policy manual, which many on this board had voted to change in 2015 - and still there is no adherence. "Expenditures in excess of $2,500 but less than $5,000 can 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. It is desirable to secure three or more bids for this work; however, if not practical, the Board may accept a single bid for the work. (Rev. 6/16/15)"
I somewhat understand your tolerance of what McMillin does at the board table. You might be concerned that he will do to you, as he has to me for speaking out. Yet, some of you are easily offended by what I write, and it appears that you aren't offended by his crudeness, and neither is your board, because they allowed him to retaliate against me, by putting this offense display on his house, with my house number on it. Your board couldn't get him to take it down, and called it a Christmas decoration. MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALL MCMILLIN STYLE.
Unlike most board meetings, including the rare open meetings, the board wasn't interested in resident comments. However, it been noted that one resident did speak up, and had a issue with the project, and president Walton, and Garrison told him that he was the only one who had an issue with it. REALLY?????? When McMillin brought the project to the board table for the first time a few months ago, even Garrison asked who wanted it besides him!
We have to follow this project from the beginning to see just how twisted it is.
I attended the September 2017 board meeting, and reported the following:
"How did all this go down? McMillin announces that he has sought bids to reconfigure the parking lot. He has two bids. The first company from Conway bid $2,600 - $3,000. The second, Love Concrete bid $2,300, on the entire job, and can complete it in 2 days. It should be noted that earlier in the week, the grass around the parking lot was marked with paint lines - evidently certainty that this board would approve. He reports that he has enough in his budget on line item - 65-100. Additionally he notes that he'll need another $200 for his do-it-yourself painting of lines, and direction arrows. Cline seconds his motion for $2,500 for the reconfiguration of the parking lot. Garrison asks if he has the bids in writing, and McMillin pats some papers at his side. (Someone should write and ask to review the whole bid process.) Garrison continues in his snaky role by asking who besides McMillin , who has been pushing this for 5 years needs this? McMillin responds by telling him to ask Johnson who has a big truck. Yes, Johnson can see problems. Then McMillin says, "I think I should have done this when I designed it, but we were trying to save money, etc." McMillin asks President Walton since he has a truck whether it is a problem. His truck isn't as big as their trucks, but when the WVA (condo meeting) meets there on a few Saturday's, it can be a problem. At some point McMillin is passing his drawing of parking places, and mentions he is moving the handicapped parking space somewhere off to the side. Johnson mentions specs for public places requirements for the handicapped. McMillin says in upset, "I've only seen one handicapped person in what ten years????? He isn't happy, but conversation at the table causes him to say that he will leave it where it is if has to, but it is going to mess up his parking plan!"
I attended the October 2017 meeting and this is what I reported at the time.
"CLUE # 5: This clue comes humorously forward during the October board meeting. It's our assessment dollars, and your board's - as Garrison has stated "so what are you going to do about it?" - attitude of we don't have to follow the governing documents, which by the way - look at the revision date - they WROTE. McMillin becomes the chief comedian. He reports at the October meeting, that he made an error on the parking lot proposal. The actual bid from the cement contractor wasn't $2,300, it was $2,800, and of course you'd have to add the $200 more for painting the lines, etc. for a total of $3,000. He states that it is his problem of "bad eyes and a weak mind". Those dang glasses, should have had them! What were they missing every time he had touched that bid? If he had followed the governing documents, and provided a review of proposal etc., to everyone of the board members as required to review before a vote, maybe some of them would have had their glasses and noticed it. The rest of the board (only Anderson is absent), adds themselves to the comedy crew line up, as McMillin motions his selfish parking lot redesign to cost $3000. John Walton seconds the motion, and your whole board approves, including Ebert, who voted "NO" on the $2,500 at the September meeting. Let's use a recent Garrisonism "who got to you" Ebert? I got this part, it was your corrupt board!"
So the meeting on December 11th brought not only McMillin's willfulness - I want what I want, and this board will support me, because they need my vote when they are ridiculous, and illegal (against the governing documents), and I don't care if the residents don't need or want the change to the parking lot.
I close providing the governing document that through all three board meetings, every board member failed to responsibly, and ethically review, before they voted "yes". The vote on December 11th is the worst, because two new board members that we hoped would change things voted yes to give McMillin his way, without due diligence. Here is the quote from the policy manual, which many on this board had voted to change in 2015 - and still there is no adherence. "Expenditures in excess of $2,500 but less than $5,000 can 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. It is desirable to secure three or more bids for this work; however, if not practical, the Board may accept a single bid for the work. (Rev. 6/16/15)"
I somewhat understand your tolerance of what McMillin does at the board table. You might be concerned that he will do to you, as he has to me for speaking out. Yet, some of you are easily offended by what I write, and it appears that you aren't offended by his crudeness, and neither is your board, because they allowed him to retaliate against me, by putting this offense display on his house, with my house number on it. Your board couldn't get him to take it down, and called it a Christmas decoration. MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALL MCMILLIN STYLE.
Sunday, December 10, 2017
THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER HOPES TO BEGIN PUBLISHING ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12TH.
WE'VE BEEN BUSY CELEBRATING AN EARLY CHRISTMAS. MY YOUNGEST DAUGHTER CAME OUT OF THE HOSPITAL IN CT TO CELEBRATE IN OUR HOME, AND HER OLDEST SISTER, AND HUSBAND, CAME FROM MICHIGAN, TO HELP ME MANAGE, WITH TWO OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN WELL. IT WAS A GREAT EARLY CELEBRATION.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
MORE DISCUSSION ON YOUR BOARD'S COMPLIANCE DISCUSSION
************************************************
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, the following is a little follow up on yesterday's article, "THE 2018 WPA BOARD PRESENTS THE BOARD OFFICERS, AND THE PRESIDENT'S APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE CHAIRS.", and contains a message to the board officer who came to me twice the day of the 2017 annual meeting. Here is a quote from the above mentioned article.
"Twice during my time at the annual meeting, I was approached by a board officer, and told that that officer "didn't realize that". The second time on that day, the board officer, told me that he/she would contact me after the meeting to discuss this. So far no call has come my way to meet. I won't take time to prove the violation in this writing that the board has failed to follow the approved resident by-law." At the time, the board officer seemed sincere to me, why???, as I reflect now, I don't know. How could she/he say that they didn't know? How could any board member, let alone a board officer not know? Who has been mixing the kool aide on that board that they blindly follow, and ignore the very guiding documents, that they are suppose to govern us by? PRINTED IN QUOTES, AND UNDERLINED BELOW IS A QUOTE FROM A SC HOA LEGAL ARTICLE, ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH AND EVERY BOARD MEMBER'S RESPONSIBILITY.
"III. Association director liability
Homeowners have the right to have directors act within their fiduciary duties. Homeowners may bring an action against a director of a community association on the grounds of breach of fiduciary duty of the director. Directors, also sometimes referred to as Managers, Trustees, Administrators or the Executive Board, owe fiduciary duties of care to homeowners to exercise ordinary care in performing their duties, to act reasonably and in good faith in their performance of their duties as members of the governing body of the community association.
Directors must exercise reasonable diligence in following through and carrying out the responsibilities assumed by or assigned to them under the governing legal documents. Generally, directors must remain informed about the community association’s business at all times, be knowledgeable about the legal documents governing the affairs of the association, and attend and participate in the association meetings. Directors may be held responsible for obtaining and reading the minutes of those association meetings the director was unable to attend. Directors must also vote against actions taken or adopted by the Board of Directors that they are in disagreement with and record their disagreement in the meeting minutes. Failure to perform any of these duties in a reasonably diligent and prudent manner could expose the director to liability to homeowners for breach of fiduciary duty."
Ignorance is never a escape in the law. Just so the board officer knows, that she/he can't plead ignorance in any circumstance - not under the law - not under our governing documents, but she/he speaks an untruth, even in her/his communication with me on that day. Below, is an article posted in June of 2013.
Your board was put on notice in 2013, even before, and since, but look what came out then.
BLOG ARTICLE POSTED JUNE 5TH 2013
Your board has finally posted the 2011 by-law change, voted into the by-laws at the annual meeting in November 2011. It is quite simple and very clear. It states, "A motion to change the policy manual must be presented at an open board meeting, post on the Wedgefield Plantation Association website for resident comments, and NOT voted on until the following Board meeting."
Your board has made rapid changes in the policy manual for about a year. Go back to the agenda and minutes for the last twelve months. There is rarely a month that changes to the policy manual have not been presented. Your board has failed to follow the by-law EVERY TIME! They have never POSTED the changes on the WPA website for resident comments. They were well aware of the by-law, although ignorance is never a defense. They brought their changes to the board table two consecutive months, voting the second month. WHAT DIDN'T THEY WANT YOU TO SEE AND COMMENT ON. I guess it is strike while the iron is hot and don't worry who gets burned.
I'm aware of the resident who wrote the amendment, and others who would have if they hadn't. The proposed by-law change was written after residents were angered over then treasurer McMillin's quick, on the spot changes to the policy manual to lower the standards of the individual who would maintain our financial books. He also lowered the bonding required for the individual he wanted to hire. That individual would have to pay for their own bonding. One of the changes to the policy manual recently presented by treasurer DeMarchi goes back to how and who will maintain our books. He told us at two meetings, never completely read the changes out loud, and never put the changes up on the WPA website. During the May meeting, we find out that he has further reduced the bonding of the person he wishes to hire, and we will pay for his/her bonding! While DeMarchi's latest is important, they are all important because they appear to keep changing things to suit their next favored project.
When I went to review records May 21, day of the board meeting, I was told that legal chair Garrison was checking with the attorney to see if it was filed?????? What does that mean? Is Garrison and your board going to try and use that as a scape hatch for not following the by-law? I hope not. Your board, should have to rescind EVERY policy manual change, back to the date YOU and I approved this by-law change!!!!!! They certainly acted IMMEDIATELY on the votes that YOU and I cast on that same date to put some of them in office!
Garrison reported at the May 21 meeting that the by-law had been filed. He did not speak to why the board didn't follow it, what the ramifications were of filed versus not, or what your board was going to about this injustice. The document HAD NOT BEEN FILED ON MAY 21. The document was filed on May 22, 2013.
I don't believe a word they say. They do what they want, how they want to, ignore our votes, won't answer us and just move on according to their misdirected rule of governing documents, and honesty.
One more example of their word:
THE POSTED BY-LAW IS PRESENTED BELOW:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)