OUR LANDMARK GATEHOUSE LOOKS LIKE IT HAS STRUCTURAL DAMAGE

Like many of you, I stayed in with most of the snow, and slippery roads.  Saturday, we crawled down Wedgefield Rd. to 701.  When we returned I was so involved in driving on the slippery roads, that when I went past the gate house, I really didn't see how bad it was.  Sunday, still slippery, but no one in sight, and I saw just how bad the damage is.  Tonight, I stopped and took pictures.  I'm sharing them here.

SOME OF YOU WONDER WHY THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER DISTRUSTS THE BOARD. WE CONTINUE TO HAVE MANY OF THE SAME PEOPLE AT THE BOARD TABLE, AND THEIR ACTIONS HAVEN'T REALLY CHANGED. ENOUGH SAID FOR TODAY. BE AWARE THAT WE FINALLY HAVE SOME RESIDENTS GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE BLOG'S BEGINNINGS TO READ DOCUMENTED POSTS ON CRITICAL ISSUES. TODAY, THE BLOG'S BACK PAGE INDICATES THAT WE HAD READERS GOING TO 2012. THE ISSUES - THE CANALS, AND LEGAL OPINIONS, AND THEY AREN'T IN WRITING! WHO DOES THAT IN THE REAL WORLD?

************************************************

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.

***************************************************

HERE IS THE ARTICLE FROM 2012:

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

UPDATED 9/6 AM -RESPONSE FROM THE BOARD REGARDING CANAL SUB ASSOCIATION LEGAL OPINION

UPDATE 9/6 AM IS PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE IN RED


MY LETTER TO THE BOARD:

Gentleman,

I was present at the August 21, 2012 Board Meeting and heard Canal Sub Chair, Anderson’s report. As I listened, I expected there to be one more detail. What appeared to be missing was a legal opinion from the Board Attorney of Record, regarding the possible formation of a sub association for the canal lot owners. The option was not presented during Legal Chair, Garrison’s report. Why?

The Board passed a motion almost three months ago to seek a legal opinion regarding a undisclosed (at the time) canal option. I also attended the first joint meeting of the Canal Sub Committee and the Legal Committee. During that meeting Garrison stated that he would make a motion to seek a legal opinion on the potential formation of a sub association. The motion passed and we, the residents, have been waiting for the Board to disclose the canal option and related legal opinion. Why just half of the report?  

Rumor has it that there is no written opinion. Call me skeptical, but it causes me to ask whether a verbal opinion was presented at the last meeting of the Canal and Legal committees? If not, why not? If so, please provide your understanding of the verbal opinion, in writing. I believe I deserve an answer.  

Thank you. I look forward to your response

BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON'S RESPONSE:

Subject: Re: LETTER TO THE BOARD

Madeline,
As I understand it there is no written opinion at this time. Bob's conversation
with Mr. Moody was preliminary and informal. Mr. Moody's verbal opinion was that
it was a legal and viable idea and probably the best scenario available to us.
The biggest hurdle will be getting enough canal lot owners to agree to be a part
of a new regime. He advised us to peruse that aspect first, before we waste any
more time or resources on the other details of the regime. Just last week Kathy
compiled a complete list of all canal lot owners and very soon the committee
will begin the task of polling everyone to gauge their interest. If this is an
idea that is attractive to enough canal lot owners we will take it to the next
level. I would agree Mr. Moody's opinion should probably have been provided in
writing but I understand the reasoning behind why it was not. I hope you find
this answer satisfactory and if you have any further questions fell free to
contact me via the office and I will do my best to answer them.

Sincerely,
Adam Anderson

MY RESPONSE TO THE BOARD:
Adam, thank you for your quick, honest response to my question. I appreciated the detail. I’m not asking for a response to the following. I have real concerns about the manner in which the option is being considered by the Board.

1) A vote was taken to seek legal opinion on a undisclosed option. It was approved. I believe most residents would have expected that the legal opinion be provided in writing, under any circumstance, let alone those that exist in Wedgefield in regard to the canals. The most recent dredging brought a lawsuit, countersuit, and as recent as Feb. 2012 - written and verbal threats of another lawsuit.

2) Without casting any aspersions on Garrison, I believe every Board Member deserved the opportunity to review, consider, and discuss a written, first hand legal opinion.

3) I believe the residents deserved the opportunity to review, consider, and determine whether they would be “served well” by following the opinion. Was the opinion as presented, of value in making a decision?

4) I, and maybe others, lack trust in a Board that moves forward on critical issues without a sound legal foundation.  
UPDATE:  I would hope that when the Board surveys the canal lot owners in regard to formation of a sub association that the survey is a WRITTEN SURVEY.  As a canal lot owner, I will not respond to any survey that is not in writing.  WHY?  First, I believe it is the only sound way to receive concrete answers and to report exactly what the sentiments are regarding this critical subject.  I want a concrete point of reference to refer to.  Otherwise, you are left with nothing but speculation and someone else's impressions of what was said.  I don't trust our Board to report exactly what was said.  Why?  They haven't provided a legal opinion in writing.  I'm forced to have to consider whether I believe what someone else told us the lawyer said.  It gets worse.  If I, and others hadn't asked the question your Board wouldn't have provided you any opinion at all.  Think about it.  They could have done it in July or August during the Board Meeting. They could have reported it under the Canal Report or the Legal Report and they didn't.  It appears that they just want you to move forward with their idea without substantiating it!  BEWARE!

THE SNOW STORM REMINDS US ALL OF HOW IMPORTANT OUR WEDGEFIELD FACEBOOK SITES ARE. THEY PROVIDE WEDGEFIELD WITH TIMELY, HELPFUL INFORMATION. THE RESIDENTS WHO MANAGE THEM DESERVE A BIG THANK YOU!

This morning as I looked forward to my day, I went to FaceBook to take a look at what was happening in Wedgefield, regarding safety in driving, what was happening on the golf course, and what fellow residents' observations were.  I've become quite dependent on Wedgefield's three FaceBook sites:

1) THE WEDGEFIELD COMMUNITY SUPPORT GROUP

2) WEDGEFIELD COMMUNITY CHAMPIONS

3)WEDGEFIELD PLANTATION CRIME WATCH

I think we owe the organizers of these three sites a big thanks for their efforts of establishing, and maintaining these sites.  I follow them day by day, but since the snow, and residual icing, they have been better than my weather, and TV news channels.  We are able to view postings from our fellow residents as to what the road conditions actually are, damage to the gate house because of icy conditions, days of lack of mail delivery, etc.  The valuable information kept me in, but not feeling shut out from our Wedgefield world, and helped me make sound safety decisions.  Thank you!

RESIDENT WRITES ABOUT THE DANGERS OF OUR ROADS, ASKS WHAT THE BOARD IS DOING ABOUT IT, AND A HIT AND RUN ON THE GATE HOUSE

************************************************

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.

***************************************************

HERE IS THE RESIDENT LETTER:

The residents of Wedgefield need to stop accepting the minimum from this board.   Why didn't the board contact the county about the treacherous conditions of Wedgefield Road?   I wonder if the county is liable for serious injuries?   I had the honor of driving the road today to get to an appointment and it scared the hell out of me.  There were cars either off or stuck in the lanes of the road.  I had to strategically maneuver around disabled vehicles.   Tomorrow is day 4 of this horror ride.     It's easy to say stay off the roads, but if you work or have an appointment, you don't have a choice.   And God forbid an ambulance has to crawl to the hospital while transporting a seriously ill or injured person.   We can only hope they stay on the road til they reach 701.   Fingers crossed no one has to call the fire department or EMS before a deep thaw.    Our board members should be calling the county non stop until they properly treat Wedgefield Road.    Isn't this what we count on them for?   To advocate for our safety?

I heard the gatehouse got hit today and the driver not only did substantial damage, but left the scene.   Nice Neighbor!!!!   Now how about those security cameras that residents have been asking the board to install at the gatehouse.  Perhaps if they actually splurged on something necessary, it would be the driver paying for the repairs and not our HOA assessments.  

I JUST COULDN'T RESIST THIS! READ ON, A SHORT NEW ARTICLE HAS BEEN POSTED. AFTER POSTING IT, I CAME ACROSS THIS, AND IT SEEMED APPROPRIATE TO TODAY

WHERE'S THE NEW POSTINGS ON THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER?

The Wedgefield Examiner made notes, downloaded files, and researched some topics, prior to family emergencies, and hospitalizations in November and December, and put them aside.  I'm going through files and preparing drafts.  It isn't quick, and will take some time.  Just like you, we are winding down from the holidays, and enjoying the fireplace in this cold weather.  I'll get things up as soon as possible.  Happy New Year!

In the mean time, the blog bag page stats indicate some readers are going back to 2014 to read the following article about lot mowing, McMillin's attempt at reporting figures of profit on his project, and the twist of the lips of some of our board members, and what they say out loud, and then how they vote.  HERE IS THE ARTICLE:

Thursday, May 8, 2014

WPA BOARD MEMBER MC MILLIN DECLARES PRIVATE LOT MOWING IN 2013 WAS NOT SUBDIDIZED. INFACT, HE CLAIMS THERE WAS A PROFIT. DE MARCHI, CLINE, AND GARRISON QUESTION HIM AND HE'S WRONG. IN FACT HE OWES SOME RESIDENTS A REFUND - PROBABLY MORE RESIDENTS THAN THE BOARD ACKNOWLEDGES

NOTE:  The following portion of the Grounds' Report was presented at the April 15, 2014 WPA Board Meeting.  The Wedgefield Examiner attended the meeting, listened to the tape again today, and is presenting the following to the best of my ability.  Please review the tape for yourself at the Wedgefield Times, to verify the information, for yourself.  The Grounds' Report begins at about 35.35 minutes into the tape.  DIRECT QUOTES WILL BE PROVIDED IN BLUE, UNDERLINED, AND IN QUOTATION MARKS.  COMMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED IN RED.

 

McMillin begins his report talking about plantings, a garden group, and a motion to spend funds.  He then moves to private lot mowing.  It is time for discussion to renew the second year of Great Lawns contract.  There is a caveat in it that allows for discussion and changes in the private lot mowing portion of the contract.  Note, last year the contract approval and signing was delayed.  Both Garrison and DeMarchi declared they didn't want to subsidize private lot mowing.  They gave credible figures.  If allowed to proceed in the world according to Mc Millin, we would be subsidizing private lot mowing.  After much discussion, the board voted, allowed Mc Millin to proceed, despite the fact that you and I would be subsidizing private lot mowing.  Go back to the 2013 tapes and listen for yourself.

 

We'll start with quotes from Mc Millin as he begins discussion of this subject during the April 2014 meeting.  Mc Millin, "  I did a little bit of research and there is a perception that we are subsidizing the lot mowing.  Do any of you have any idea how much the subsidizing might amount to?"  De Marchi, "I think it was about $17.00 a lot."  Mc Millin, "Well, that turned out not to be true, because I did some research.  I had looked up how many lot owners we had signed up for the services, how much they have paid, and how many site visits they ACTUALLY RECEIVED for the last year.  NONE OF THEM GOT AS MANY LOT VISITS AS THEY PAID FOR, and 3 heavily wooded lots that were unimproved.  These people responded to the letter that we sent to all the non residents and they thought they were going to get their lots cleared and maintained."  (Laughter)  Mc Millin continues, "So a letter was sent out to them....how much it would cost in addition to have their lots cleared and then they would be maintained on a regular basis for the $85.00.  None of the three responded."  De Marchi, "Did they pay $85.00?"  Mc Millin, "Yes, they did."  De Marchi, "Did you refund their money?  Mc Millin, "No we didn't."  De Marchi, "We should."  Mc Millin, "All right, that was one of my questions." (Comment - ???????)  Mc Millin continues, "So any how, if you total up what we collected from the property owners, we collected $1,845.00.  This was at a rate of....the wooded lots were at a rate of $80.00 each which was for a total of 4 visits during the season and there were 17 of those that had signed up.  There were 4 grassy lots that we maintained for some time.  We raised theirs to $100.00 and that was suppose to have been for 6 visits during the growing.  As I say NONE OF THEM got the total number visits they were suppose to because there was a clause in the contract - it was SUPPOSE to be as needed.  They weren't guaranteed that many visits.  It was SUPPOSE to be as needed."    ( Comment: Sounds like the contract with the residents wasn't written the way it was SUPPOSE TO BE and your board failed to provide what the contract actually said.  Later you'll get some of the individual numbers, as to how little people got, but Mc Millin attempted to declare a profit, when the board failed to live up to individual contracts with residents.  Shoddy contract development could be the reason they violate state law, and won't allow copies of contracts.)  Mc Millin continues, "So any how, we collected $1,845.00 from the property owners.  We paid Great Lawns a total of 50 visits, at a rate of $33.33, which comes out to $1,666.50.  So WPA actually made $178.50 off this deal.  SO WE DIDN'T SUBSIDIZE ANYTHING."  Cline, "OK, now I....so after we give back $85.00 times 3"  Mc Millin, "OK, we'll have a negative balance."

Mc Millin goes on to tell the board about 2 additional lots that are in bad shape.  He doesn't know who owns one of them.  He suggests for 2014 that the visits per lot be reduced to 4. Garrison asks whether 4 visits is enough.  De Marchi wants to know if all the residents under contract in 2013, whose contracts read 6 visits (grassy lots) or 4 visits (not cleared), how many did not received all of their mowings? Mc Millin starts to read from a chart, "

3 mowings
 4
 2 instead of
2 instead of
3 instead of
2 instead of
2 instead of
2 instead of
2 instead of
2 instead of
2 instead of, etc."

Comments:  I stopped typing at this point.  You can listen to this sorry mess on the tape yourself.  I've transcribed the salient points.  Last year (2013), your board held up the grounds contract for months, first telling Mc Millin they wouldn't subsidize lot mowing.  Both De Marchi and Garrison went after Mc Millin, giving accurate loss figures, gave in, and voted with the rest of the board to allow us to subsidize private lot maintenance once more.  During that time, Mc Millin himself declared that it would only amount to about $2.00 per member.  Now, it sounds like the very people who signed these contracts were cheated, and he wants to declare a profit.  Thanks to Cline, Garrison, and De Marchi, at least three people will get their money back because they didn't receive any service at all.  What about the rest?

For those of you that are so concerned about your property values, why aren't you asking this board to quit fooling around and get the lots groomed, quit delaying the contract.  Living by a grassy lot (The owners are great!  They have had that lot mowed for years.), last year the weeds were over my knees before they started mowing.  This year, it is on it's way to the same. This board needs to be held responsible for their ridiculous contracting.  No wonder they want to hide their shoddy contracts!

A GRASSY LOT IN WEDGEFIELD ON 5/7/2014

NOW, MC MILLIN WANTS TO REDUCE THE MOWINGS TO 4???????

A NEW YEARS WISH FOR WEDGEFIELD

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER IS WISHING AND HOPING THAT WEDGEFIELD ESCAPES ICE STORM DAMAGE FROM THIS STORM

It is noon, and the trees outside my window are starting to ice.  If you lived here in February 2014, the thought of ice storm damage leaves you fearful.  Yes, we had storm damage then, and clean up went on for weeks, and brought arguments as to who was in charge at the board table, and clean up was handled by the board treasurer, and started at his front door on Francis Parker, and didn't get to the main roads - Wedgefield, and Wraggs Ferry, until the very end.

It is cold out, and the roads are icy, take a few minutes, and read through the articles posted at the time.  Let's hope this board doesn't get tested by the weather again.

HERE ARE A FEW ARTICLES - THERE WERE MANY - FROM MARCH 2014:

Sunday, February 23, 2014

HOW IS THE CLEAN UP WORKING OUT FOR YOU? WOULDN'T YOU THINK THAT THE MAIN (EVERYBODY HAS TO DRIVE ON THEM) ROADWAYS OF THE ASSOCIATION WOULD BE DONE FIRST? NOT SO! THE DUKEDOM WAS DONE FIRST!

Today, I took a ride through Wedgefield.  For the most part, the sides of the roads are cluttered with debris.  That's the case unless you live in the Enclave, or on Francis Parker. I attended the Feb. 18 WPA board meeting.  Our Treasurer announced that the clean up contractor would be staging in the Enclave, and would start there first.  Wouldn't you think that for once, he'd consider what was best for the ENTIRE association?  He hasn't in the past, why would he now?  What does staging in an area have anything to do with' where YOU tell them to start. Oh, I forget.  The Treasurer lives in the Enclave and has taken care of it at our expense in the past.  He's and expert - self proclaimed. Every resident who lives in Wedgefield has to enter, or leave, on Wedgefield Rd., or Wraggs Ferry. Why weren't the masses considered first?

As I drove around Wedgefield, I noticed the number of homes that were for sale.  Wouldn't you think that clearing the main roads, would give a better first impression to buyers?  At least you could explain that it was a work in progress on less traveled roads.  You probably wouldn't want to explain why your board hired a vendor who they knew would have a delayed start, because the contractor was clearing a lot for a new build.  

It looks clean and spiffy in the Enclave, Dukedom of our Treasurer.  What is most insulting is that he appears to think that if he states something, that it must be so.  He appears to think that people are too stupid to figure out his motives.  This clean up contract wasn't for all of Georgetown County!  That contractor is going to have to make the same trips from the staging area now, that he would have if the MAIN ARTERIES OF THE ASSOCIATION HAD BEEN TAKEN CARE OF FIRST.  

Could anyone tell us when the serfs will receive clean up.