HERE IT IS, NO EDITING, NAME WITHHELD BY EDITOR:
Reader Comment :"In reading your article I can't help but think that this is why no one wants to be a board member. As you well know, every decision you make will offend someone. Without being over critical of your recent writings about Larry, to somehow suggest we not support his candidacy seems out of line. Would you be more comfortable with some of the CC candidates instead? I believe that government is like a barge, it moves slowly, and it takes a lot of power to move it one way or the other. Our homeowners association is a smaller version of government. In order to find the middle ground, sometimes you have to compromise. One could easily assume Larry was just trying to move forward , work with the cc element of the board on this and maybe get that. I think the same can be said for Mr. Garrison, as he also has been known to support ideas outside of the CC way of thinking. While I don't know Larry all that well, I have noticed he does a lot for the plantation as a whole. He seems to stay on top of the landscaping and maintenance as well as bringing those cost down from what they were prior to him being a board member. Most importantly to me, he is also a fellow canal lot owner. He supported and voted for the dredging and did considerable amounts of work on the project. At a time when we have virtually no board support, he and John are the only voice we have. For that alone, he will have my vote. Is he perfect? Of course not, but he is willing to volunteer for a difficult job and do it reasonably well.
Things don't always get done the way we think they should. All of this grief is caused by one issue, the canal dredging. I was always of the opinion that the dredging should have been paid for by only the lots bordering the canal. I always felt it wasn't worth the strife it would cause to assess everyone.I readily gave my opinion, but it was never my decision to make, so I supported the plan that was eventually implemented. It was a complicated issue and you guys that developed and supported that plan did an amazing job and paid a high price for it. You will always have my respect and appreciation for getting it done under the extreme circumstances.
On another note, I have always enjoyed your writings on the WT and now on your blog. I may not always agree with you, but your points are well taken and I would encourage you to keep it up. The freedom to express your opinions in a public forum is one of the greatest things about our country."
Editor's Note: I have great respect for the writer. I understand moving forward, but I'll never understand, how you move forward, if you do it on lies, and to cover them, you intentionally harm others. The Concerned Citizens have long used, McMillins methods - first deny it happened or your said it, if scrutinized further damage and discredit those foolish enough to try and do the right thing, then gather a group who will support you in that effort.
Monday, October 31, 2011
PART II, THE CONCERNED CITIZENS, THE WEDGEFIELD CIVIC GROUP - THEIR PLATFORMS & THEIR CANDIDATES
See Part I, Posted October 29THE WEDGEFIELD CIVIC GROUPTHE WEDGEFIELD CIVIC GROUP PLATFORM
The Wedgefield Civic Group presents, "Our Pledge To Wedgefield". As with the Concerned Citizens, I don't believe that it was mailed to every home. To their credit, unlike the Concerned Citizens, it can be viewed by everyone at The Wedgefield Times. The pledge is one page, with several key bullets. They promise to insist on open, above-board dealings and transparency: no closed "executive meetings" - except those required by law, no votes in closed meetings, contract of services legally and properly through written competitive bids, contracts with licensed, bonded, and insured vendors. They will treat each other, and residents with respect, provide responses to resident questions, and sign and live by the WPA Code of Ethics. Board Members will provide written monthly reports. They will ensure residents have access to documents as outlined in the By-Laws and Policy Manual. In the financial area, they will retain a properly certified CPA for accounting services, insist on annual audits by a CPA, and reactivate the "compliance committee".
The Wedgefield Civic Group candidates are: Janine Cline, Al DeMarchi, John McBride, Larry McMillin, and Bill Steiner.
What Should You Consider: Please read through the complete pledge. It is a reinforcement and a detailed promise to govern Wedgefield openly, with respect for fellow Board Members and all residents, under the WPA governing documents, and according to good business judgement, supported by the code of ethics. It is a strong, clearly enunciated pack to conduct business, rather than tear down previous Board's, and carry out vendettas, at your expense.
Enough said here, the pledge/platform couldn't be clearer.
The Wedgefield Civic Group candidates are: Janine Cline, Al DeMarchi, John McBride, Larry McMillin, and Bill Steiner.
What Should You Consider: Please read through the complete pledge. It is a reinforcement and a detailed promise to govern Wedgefield openly, with respect for fellow Board Members and all residents, under the WPA governing documents, and according to good business judgement, supported by the code of ethics. It is a strong, clearly enunciated pack to conduct business, rather than tear down previous Board's, and carry out vendettas, at your expense.
Enough said here, the pledge/platform couldn't be clearer.
The Wedgefield Civic Group Candidates
The Wedgefield Civic Group candidates are Janine Cline, Al DeMarchi, John McBride, Larry McMillin, and Bill Steiner. Their resumes are provided in your Annul Meeting packet. The Wedgefield Times provided space on their website for each candidate to add additional information. The Concerned Citizen candidates have not responded. Review their resumes and comments.
Three of the Wedgefield Civic Group candidates, if elected offer an untainted advantage. They haven't been involved in the lawsuits, served on the Board, and may be the "fresh start", many of us are looking for. They are Cline, DeMarchi, and Steiner.
Two of the candidates, McMillin and McBride have Board experience, which isn't a bad thing, in fact it allows you to review their records. Spend time with the minutes and tapes of the meetings.
We'll examine their resumes, what they had to say about themselves, and where appropriate, their records, and their fit with the pledge.
Janine Cline:
Cline has over 30 years experience operating a small business, would like to see a reserve for weather clean up and inspection of the live oaks, lining our entrance. If elected, she should bring a strong business sense, including contracts, bidding, and a fresh look at the problems of the association. It would appear from her statements that she wants the appearance of Wedgefield to shine. Since she hasn't served on the Board, there isn't a record to review, but she has stayed with her business and operated it for 30 years. I'd give her my vote, and look to her to keep her pledge and help Wedgefield.Al DeMarchi:
DeMarchi has not served on the Board, but has brought his experience with developers and builders to ARC. I observed him in that capacity when I served on the Board. He spent untold hours working on a rewrite of the ARC regulations, he stayed behind Huggins, demanding paperwork prior to sign off, etc. He worked on the Compliance Committee, called by the 2008 Board. I've heard him talk some about his work on the Hospice Board, and you can hear his dedication and commitment to helping the organization grow. He's been there for the community to help at special events, and involves himself in the special groups in the community. I'd give him my vote in a heartbeat, because I believe his heart, experience, and dedication to a thriving community is there. He'll bring a different type of "seasoned" , direct speak freshness to the Board. He'll live up to the pledge.
Bill Steiner:
Steiner, is a long time resident and educator in the community. He doesn't have WPA Board experience, but he appears to have a dedicated interest in the Board oversight of our community. The evening of each of our Board Meetings, many of us debate with ourselves, as to whether it is worth our efforts to leave our home and go to the meeting. Our meeting facility has changed over the years. I've watched Bill get his wheel chair in, at some very inaccessible buildings to attend a meeting, give an opinion, and observe our Boards at work. I reviewed his writing regarding the county drainage issue. It indicates hours of research and a willingness to share information so that you can make a good decision. He talked to me about it a while ago, and left the impression that no stone would be left unturned. There is every indication he would keep the pledge, assist in educating us on the issues, and voting openly and honestly, in the best interests of the community. He gets my vote, and the opportunity to help Wedgefield move forward.
McBride & McMillin - Candidates With a Board Record:
McBride's resume and writing advocates the importance of the By-Laws, focus on long range planning, and facilitating realistic budgeting, and an increase in community involvement. He has served on the Board twice. He has experience as Board Secretary and Legal Chair. Each time he has served under tough circumstances and handled his responsibilities with integrity, and stays with a problem until it is totally revealed, and offers relevant options to make Wedgefield better. He has questioned some outrageous moves by the 2011 Board, often with no support, from Board Members who should have been there to help him bring the issues forward, and didn't. Month after month, he stayed the course to expose poor contracting, question the adverse ramifications of a vote the Concerned Citizen majority Board, was going to push through anyway. He did it for us, and for our community. I believe McBride will uphold the pledge. He gets my vote, and if I could, I'd give him a second vote, just to let him know, his efforts were recognized and appreciated. When will I learn to insert graphics on this program so I can give him two thumbs up? You'll have to imagine them, but they are there!
PLEASE NOTE: Part III - "The Wedgefield Civic Group's Fifth Candidate", will be posted later today.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
THE CONCERNED CITIZENS, THE WEDGEFIELD CIVIC GROUP - THEIR PLATFORMS AND THEIR CANDIDATES
OVERVIEW
The Concerned Citizens and The Wedgefield Civic Group have each put forth their platforms, and their candidates. Each group would like you to hand them your proxy, vote now, and vote their way. This year, maybe is the year to research, get your own answers, and not vote down the party line. In an effort to sort truth, I will blatantly tell you, I've never been a Concerned Citizen. I was the founder, the person who called a group of residents together, worked to form the steering committee of The Wedgefield Civic Group. I've given heart and soul, to the individuals on the steering committee, and sub committees. I've had to separate myself, and become an independent, in order to standby the original driving principles and goals of the group. I struggle, as many of you probably do, to make the right voting decisions, in the best interests of our community. Please read through, ask the candidates questions, review records, ramifications of recorded votes, etc. and determine what is real, and what is propaganda, from both groups.
THE CONCERNED CITIZENS
The Concerned Citizens are using a targeted approach. They have sent their platform letter to certain people. I wasn't one of them. This should be the first alarm. If the platform and candidates, are to benefit the entire community, why wouldn't they send it to every voter? In their usual form, they've also been calling homes to secure proxies and get their message out. Did they call your home? Will your vote, count? Will they allow residents who aren't it good standing vote again this year? Remember, the current Board majority is composed of five Concerned Citizens. Three of them Wilson, Thomas, and Walters are candidates this year.
THE CONCERNED CITIZEN PLATFORM - can be viewed at this website by reading the article titled, "The Concerned Citizens' Letter And Their Candidates". It can also be viewed at The Wedgefield Times. They make declarations of a "win", without a final order from the judge. They give you a choice - do you want to pay for the canal dredging, or not? They state they believe past and future assessments for canal dredging are wrong. Their biggest promise - their goal to is to give your canal assessment payments back to you. They claim "their actions" put your association in "legal jeopardy".
What Should You Consider? First, ask them to provide you a copy of the October 3rd court decision. Wouldn't you like to see first hand what the ruling was? The Concerned Citizens should put that claim of victory up for your review. To date, to my knowledge, there isn't a signed order. If there was, I don't believe it does, or would speak to responsibility for dredging, or the legality of the associated dredging assessments. Don't vote, with promises of a document, they don't have. If they do have it, review it and make sure they haven't told you, it says something it doesn't.
Second: Who told them past and future assessments were wrong, except their own propaganda machine? I wasn't here during the dredging 20+ years ago, but for all the reading I've done, no court ever ruled them as "wrong". The same holds true for the current assessment. What is true, is that the Concerned Citizen majority, of the WPA Board has voted to have the Board Attorney of Record, begin to be paid with our assessment dollars, to start more legal action for their cause, on our dollar.
The Third & Most Harmful: They claim "their actions", whose they? Are they the Board of 2009? Are they the Board Members who followed through on the canal assessments and filed liens? Are they, he, Robert Moran - their choice of lawyer, who told then President Walton, to proceed with following up on the liens?
The February 28, 2011, Email From Board Attorney Of Record, Robert Moran, To WPA President Jacky Walton: ""Jackie, The prior Board, acting upon advice of counsel, approved and levied a $5000 assessment against all canal front owners to pay for the dredging costs. It now appears that a number of owners have failed to pay their assessments and the Board has directed the legal chair to file Notices of Lien against the delinquent property owners as a fist step in the process of collection. Without giving you an opinion on the enforceability of the assessments, which issue is in contention, I do believe the Board is not setting itself up for any additional liability by following it's regular collection procedure. First, pleadings filed w/ the court are priviledged and do not give rise to a claim of "slander of title". Next, the provisions in the covenants and by-laws which provide for costs and atty's fees and unilateral, the HOA can collect but an individual homeowner has no such right. As long as the process is consistent, uniform, and reasonable and conducted in good faith your Board should not face any repercussions. Clearly, any owner is free to raise whatever claims, legitimate or not, in an action against the Board an there may be some additional attys fees incurred in defense costs. It's just the cost of doing business. Bob" Note: The Concerned Citizen Board majority, fired Moran, after he wrote an opinion stating the 2011 Petitioners should be allowed to hold a special meeting to recall: Wilson, Thomas, Huggins, Walters, and Barrier. After they used SC Non Profit Law to circumvent the By-Laws in the 2010 Recall, they went lawyer shopping and "found the religion of standing by the WPA By-Laws". Since then, they have turned to SC intermittently, in squelching resident inquiries for fact, record review, etc. Listen to the tapes of the meetings.
The Huge Risk Of The Concerned Citizen Platform - Giving You Your Canal Assessment Dollars Back: Take time again, to review the quote in blue, from Moran. It is key, "the prior Board, acting upon advice of counsel, approved and levied a $5000 assessment against all canal front owners to pay for the dredging costs." During the same meeting, the motion approved seeking a loan, that would be paid, through a combination of assessments, and WPA operating funds. The bank issued a loan, and an appropriate loan document. Go to the Concerned Citizen website and review the entire document. Wilson, candidate and Concerned Citizen, mentioned a pause in payments, during the October 2011 Board Meeting. Listen to Thomas' motions, and the Concerned Citizen majority vote. If they are going to give you your money back by defaulting on the loan, suing the bank, etc., review the ramifications to our community and the association. The bank can demand full payment, take the Associations assets, including collecting our assessments, until the loan is settled. Read the document and judge whether you want to help them keep a promise to you, that they never had legal standing to keep.
THE CONCERNED CITIZEN CANDIDATES: Read their individual statements regarding background, previous involvement on the Board etc, in your Annual Meeting Packet. I started to review a history on each of them and then reconsidered, in an effort to keep from repeating myself. The Concerned Citizen candidates are: Ron Pietkewicz, Fred Thomas, Carol Zieske, Jackie Walters, and George Wilson.
Pietkewicz and Zieske have extensive histories on the WPA Board. Both resigned shortly after the 2008 Annual Meeting. Remember all of the Concerned Citizen writings about how the canal people took over the Board and voted in the dredging? On the day of the 2008 Annual Meeting, there were six Concerned Citizens who still had terms to complete, and three vacancies which were filled through the voting by Davis (canal resident), Gettmann (non canal resident), and McMillin (canal resident). That meant that the Concerned Citizens had six firm seats of non canal residents, plus Gettmann, and two canal lot owners. Zieske and Pietkewicz had the power to vote any canal proposals out. They resigned and claimed the canal owners took over. Now they'd like to tell a different story.
Wilson has both a recent and past history. I attended a Board Meeting when Pietkewicz was President and Wilson stated that the Association owned the canals, and they could go to wetlands. They certainly did not include his statements in the minutes (their style of minute taking), but by the following month, Wilson was off the Board. Why? Will Pietkewicz answer that question?
Wilson's history on the Board will include a Recall under SC Law, managed by himself, and fellow candidates Zieske and Thomas. Now he says we are sticking by the By-Laws as it relates to recalls, and unless you sue the Board, you'll have to live with that. He has struck a resident in the office, admitted to asking to have the official meeting tape erased, video taped certain residents attending meeting - for his private use, etc. The list is too long, and you need to review the meeting tapes and minutes.
Thomas has never been elected to the Board. He has been appointed by his Concerned Citizen co-horts. He has served as Legal Chair, but if you read the documented reports at The Wedgefield Times, he hasn't allowed residents to see the opinions of the Board Attorney he forced on us. He has taken resident mail to Zieske (not a Board Member) for instructions as to what to do with them. He operates in a swerve and miss fashion, that is not in the best interests of the community. What do I mean? I'll document it for you because as you see, files come and go under Thomas' direction.
Thomas is asked by Garrison to find out from Attorney Moran, who the 2010 Recall Documents belong to. Remember of the current candidates, Wilson and Thomas, had sent a post card to all residents, signed as Board Members, that the recall meeting was going to be held. On Aug. 18, 2010, Thomas writes the following to Moran (typed as written), "Bob, It's my position that this Board did not do the recall election. Thus those documents are not the Board's and we do not have them. In fact I do not know who has these documents. This turned out not to be a Board function. Remember the petitioners did the Recall. That been said, there are some documents and materials that are missing and I would be happy to work out an agreement with those that needing to see Recall information in return of our missing items. I my be able to find the Recall documents under those conditions. Other than that I really don't care where they are." Current candidate, Zieske had the documents. Despite the fact that Thomas said the Recall wasn't the Board's, he, and Wilson paid Attorney Moran to represent them with WPA funds.
Walters: has raised her hand and voted with the Concerned Citizen majority Board. She has done little but vote. She gave up her committee work on Yard of the Month, when she said a resident spoke harshly to her. After her appointment to the Board, she responded to a resident who asked if she was a Concerned Citizen, by stating she wasn't. Really? Review the 2011 votes, and see if she told the truth.
All of the Concerned Citizen candidates have a long history of secret Executive Meetings, false undocumented accusations against those who fail to agree, and votes that have harmed us, supported by undocumented facts. Please review the meeting tapes and minutes.
PLEASE NOTE: Part two of this report - The Wedgefield Civic Group - will be available at this site on the 31st.
THE CONCERNED CITIZENS & THE WEDGEFIELD CIVIC GROUP EACH WANT YOU TO VOTE FOR THEIR SLATE, ARE THEY GIVING YOU ALL THE FACTS ON THEIR PLATFORMS AND THEIR CANDIDATES?
PURE AND SIMPLE, WHAT IS BEHIND EACH SIDE'S PROPAGANDA?
Each side wants your vote. Each side has been busy for weeks, countering the other's verbiage. Maybe it is time for you to be an independent and not vote a ticket, but consider each candidate and their history. Consider each platform and determine whether their group truly represents what they state is their goals, or are they making claims, they don't uphold, or are not in the best interests of our community.
Each side has a list of five candidates, and would prefer you vote their ticket, and they want you to assign your proxy to them. Don't give your voting rights away, with haste. What is their emergency? There is still plenty of time, to think for yourself. Check the truth of their platforms, and if you buy what they've said, verify for yourself, that every individual on their slate, measures up.
Five of the candidates, currently sit on the Board. I wrote the Board, on the 24th and asked critical questions, that would help me, as an independent, decide how I would vote. They haven't responded, but on the 27th I was sent notice from the WPA office, that my letter had been distributed to the Board. What is important about that? Twice, in the past, one of the current officers of the Board, circumvented my letters to the Board, had them held, and called me to rail on why I was questioning certain items, and wanted my letter pulled? Why would the staff secretary go to that particular Board Member, and ignore "normal procedure"? Why would that Board Member, then go, not just to the community, but target my friends, tell lies, to cover the issues and his/her votes, to harm a resident?
Please visit this website on the evening of the 31st, for the facts. Whether you like my brand of writing or not, I always back it up with concrete facts. Don't vote until you have all the facts. This is a critical year, in the history of Wedgefield, your community, and in many cases - truth and fact, have fallen by the wayside. You may have to be an independent voter.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
THE CLOCK IS TICKING
WPA BOARD IS ON THE CLOCK
DO THEY WANT THE TIME TO EXPIRE BEFORE YOU VOTE?
FIVE CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS, WANT YOUR VOTE
WHY HAVEN'T THEY RESPONDED TO QUESTIONS, THAT MIGHT INFLUENCE YOUR VOTE?
Over 48 hours have passed since I wrote the Board. They haven't answered. Aren't they proud of what they have done? Wilson, Thomas, Walters, McBride, and McMillin want your vote. I personally didn't have questions for McBride. He has been the only one, who month after month, tried to get the truth out to residents.
Will Wilson, Thomas, Walters, and McMillin answer legitimate questions?
Don't let anyone suggest you have to vote today. More than ever before, this is a critical year. Read through your Annual Meeting Packet, you have some time left, to meet the proxy mail deadline. Read through the materials the "two sides" have sent you. Ask questions of those Board Members who are running again. Review their voting records. Have they demonstrated that they have lived up to their platforms?
In the meantime, consider the "new" candidates: DeMarchi, Cline, Stiener, and "stand by the truth" McBride.
Don't mail too soon and regret the outcome.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
WILL THIS RESIDENT RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM YOUR WPA BOARD?
WHEN WILL YOUR WPA BOARD ADDRESS THIS MEMBER'S CONCERNS?
I wish I could install timers on resident's correspondence, to track the time elapsed to the point of receiving an answer from the Board. I haven't read about "a clock to never". This resident addresses serious issues. Will the Board answer?
The email is published with the permission of the writer.
From: Jude Davis WPA
To: WPA
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 10:36 AM
Subject: For distribution and the correspondence file
All,
Although it would be appropriate for at least an acknowledgement of my correspondence let alone a true response, I have not received one in six months so I do not hold out much hope.
I would like to remind the entire Board, in particular Johnny as Secretary and George as President that the sign outside was never put up and the agenda was not posted.
Tuesday nights' meeting was fairly blah until new business. I understand the need for review and change to the delinquency policy. I still believe that waiting until a property is $2500 in arrears before starting foreclosure is too late, but this is the Board's decision.
Fred Thomas' motions were convoluted and not well thought out. It would help the residents, and I think the Board, if you ,George, would repeat Fred's motions before you vote on them. His first motion was complex and I'm not sure if I understood all of it. Is it possible to get a copy of this motion e-mailed to me? I believe that the Board is asking the attorney to investigate claims against the bank and the insurance company. Did Fred, in this same motion, want the attorney to negotiate with the bank? Did I hear that this same attorney has advised the WPA to withhold payments on the loan to the bank? I believe that George called this "pausing" the loan payments. This opinion, to break a legally binding contract, from the attorney SHOULD be in writing. If not, I hope that the Board members who approve this act are willing to assume personal liability. This passed 5-2. Do we have a signed letter of engagement from Mr. Moody?
Fred's second motion under new business involved "secret' meetings. He believes that the discussion held at meetings about issues should not be heard by the residents. I thought I heard him say that the Board should have a united front! I couldn't disagree more! It is important for the residents to hear discussion and to know how the Board votes. This idea of secret meetings goes back to the days of Carol Zieske and Ron Piskawitch. Remember the executive session (illegal) where the Board voted to build the office and to disband the Canal Committee? Remember the litigation that followed! I believe this motion failed.
Finally, we come to the crucifixion of John McBride! How dare you all, with the exception of Larry, sit there and allow Fred to present gossip and innuendo. This is not the first time that Fred has mislead the Board by making statements of fact that he could not prove. For two years, Johnny and Ruth were dropped from the lawsuit. For one year, everyone was dropped except for me and Karl. Carol Zieske even told the Board that she had the documents to prove this! In fact, as late as October 3, EVERYONE originally sued was still on the lawsuit!
In a further attempt at slander and dirty politics, Fred brings up an incident that is at least five years old. If there was impropriety at that time, it was up to that Board to pursue it. Fred, also,claims that the paving contractor was chased off the Plantation by John McBride. Get real. Johnny and George hired an unlicensed contractor The Association is presently under investigation by the State Bureau of Licensing.
Finally, Fred brings to the table a single page of the permit for dredging. Please remember, the Canal Committee was started and approved by the Board in 2001. At that time, three Board members--Ed Wozniak, Paul Hogan, and Dan Longhi--were the charter members. At various times in the long, eight year $168,000 process, committee members and committee chairs changed. John was chairman off and on. Once again, the efforts of the Canal Committee were funded totally by private contributions. Read the WRAGG, read back minutes, keep yourselves informed. Ask George why he was asked to resign after he was successful in disbanding, for one month, the Canal Committee. In 2008, at an illegal meeting, the Board, with Carol Z. and Ron P. in attendance, disbanded the Canal Committee once again. Efforts to resolve this failed, we went to court, and Judge Baxley chastised the Board, said they did the wrong thing, and reinstated the Committee. It is interesting to note, that the permit and other information regarding the dredging has been on the WPA website since 2009!
Fortunately, calmer, more adult, heads prevailed, and this motion was defeated. Fred is using his nebulous position on the Board to discredit a candidate in the same election in which he is a candidate. Is this ethical?
Judith Davis
Monday, October 24, 2011
A LETTER TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE OCTOBER WPA BOARD MEETING
LETTER TO THE BOARD
If you are a resident who attends Board Meetings, or listens to the tapes of the meetings at The Wedgefield Times, you know that Jason Barrier, Community Liaison hasn't given a report in at least six months. That is probably because your Board hasn't answered anyone in six months. They don't answer questions in writing. They won't send you an email when you've asked to see documents, as to whether you will be allowed to see them or not. They must be entertained by your drive to the office for naught. It is Barrier's responsibility to report on the Board's interaction with the community. He doesn't have to answer the questions personally, but he does have a responsibility to insure that someone (appropriate committee chair, etc.) is answering, and report what concerned community members since the last meeting, and what the Board response was.
The majority Board Members are Concerned Citizens. They have their own agenda and don't have a need to answer anyone but their consistuency. They wouldn't want to report outright, what they did for them, and the rest of us aren't worth their time.
I've determined, since they won't tell you what other resident concerns exist, that I'll publish my letter to the Board. It is nearing time to vote, wouldn't you like to know their response to some of these issues?
HERE IS THE LETTER:
October 24, 2011
Dear WPA Board;
Please place a copy of my letter in the correspondence file.
I am writing you on several issues regarding the October 2011 Board Meeting. I was not able to attend, but have listened to a complete tape of the meeting. Please respond by November 5th. McMillin, Thomas, Wilson, Walters, and McBride are running for re-election to the Board, and your answers are important to how I will vote.
You have ignored my questions in the past, so I have decided to print my letter on http://thewedgefieldexaminer.blogspot.com/. This simple little site has had over 350 viewings, in the three short weeks it has been available. Perhaps when my letter is read over the Internet, many of the readers will wait for your answer to be published, before they vote If you fail to answer, I'll be sure and let them know prior to any vote deadlines.
Board Member Huggins:
*President Wilson stated that there were no minutes to be approved and there should have been two months - August & September, but the secretary (paid???) wasn't there. You were present at the meeting. It is your responsibility as Board Secretary to have them available for a vote. You had 60 days on the August minutes, and approximately 30 days for the September. Where were they? Why weren't they available for the meeting? Don't you think it is important that residents have the opportunity to review Board Member votes, prior to the Annual Meeting?
*Why didn't you report on the secret Executive meeting held since the September Board Meeting, to remove Legal Committee Member, Wheeler? I'm told you called it personnel, in an effort to keep it a closed meeting. Wheeler, isn't an employee. Why as Secretary, didn't you at least see that the date, time, and subject of the meeting was posted on the website? Your Board passed motion to post all such meetings on the website, and on a sign outside the office. While I don't believe it was a personnel issue, but a cover up, the motion was for all such meetings to be posted. You could have posted it and stated, it was closed to the public.
The Board also agreed to put the tape of each Board Meeting up on the Board website. Where are all those meeting tapes on the website? I can't locate them. It is your responsibility to manage that effort.
As Legal Chair, how do you explain that either your Board Attorney of Record - Moody, isn't putting opinions in writing, or if he is, that you aren't sharing them with all Board Members? McMillin questioned this at the October Meeting. Why aren't residents allowed to see Attorney Moody's Invoices, Letter of Engagement, etc? Would you please explain how Attorney Moody received a payment of $500, for services to you and Board Member Wilson, prior to Board approval of his engagement? Will you and Wilson, pay it back?
Board Member Thomas:
Why did you find it necessary to attempt to bring a motion to the Board table to hold an additional "executive meeting", each month, without the residents present? You were Legal Chair, when Attorney Moran, advised you in writing to stop holding your "executive meetings". The current Board, voted to post them so residents can observe their elected Board Members, at work.
Why with your concerns about old invoices, old checks, and a need to make false attacks on Board Member McBride, haven't you sought answers to the unapproved payment to Moody, by Wilson and Huggins?
You brought a motion to the table regarding engaging the attorney. I've transcribed it to the best of my ability. It is difficult to hear you. Without being insulting, could you please use a microphone in the future so residents can hear what you are saying? Here is what I was able to hear: "I make a motion that we authorize counsel...(something First Federal) ...authorize counsel to take necessary legal....to solve issues remaining as a result of the canal dredging suit" McMillin questions why you are blaming the bank and insurance company and why you are doing anything before the final order issued? You didn't answer him, will you answer a resident? Obviously, I can't hear what McMillin heard in your motion, but it is important, and I'd like an answer.
Board Member McMillin:
I appreciated your questions regarding Thomas' motions for executive meetings and regarding the motion for legal counsel and the remaining issues to the canal dredging suit. Wilson may have had a slip of the tongue, when you asked about the bank being notified. He stated, "they have been notified...legal action being taken....win - owe, lose - don't". Do you have any knowledge of Wilson, or any other Board Member, having taken action regarding this issue, prior to the vote? Have all the loan payments been made on time? I appreciated your comments during the meeting and hope that you will provide an answer. Too much, is at jeopardy.
I have a questions, as a voter who supported you unquestionably, until the June Board Meeting, with increased concern during the August and September Board Meetings. Up until that time, you supported open meetings, complete information, concrete bidding process, and complete detailed contracts. What happened to those values with the $9,000 road contract (You authored it)? Why didn't you bring Wilson's request to erase portions of the June Board Meeting tape to the Board table (It was so important to you, that you carried the story to your Finance Committee.)? Why didn't you notify the Board and public that the former accountant had threatened to sue, for your remarks about him? Why didn't you support McBride, when he brought some of these issues to the Board table? Why did you use a friendship to remove an accurate report to another website, documenting some of your actions? Why did you run to anyone in the community who would listen to your excuses, in an effort to destroy me, to cover the documented facts? Aren't you proud of your Board actions and votes? If you truly want openess and truth, explain and answer.
Board Member Wilson:
Did you send any notification to First Federal, or have the Board Attorney, send any notice, prior to the October Board vote?
Board Member Walters:
How could you support the vote to engage the attorney regarding the unanswered issues of the canal suit, without the final order?
I look forward to your responses.
COMMENTS
Do you think some of these questions are harsh? Over the last two years, as residents, we have lived through lawsuits, a mob carrying signs with ugly verbage outside our meeting, violence on a resident, calls to 911 for disorder - unless it was Concerned Citizens, threats of prison terms made against innocent people, residents ridiculed if they ask questions, secret meetings, disappearing and sealed files - for no reason, lawyers hired - fired - and paid with our funds to change a legal opinion for a Board vote, cover ups by usually honest Board Members, poor bidding - vendor awards - and contracting, and those we trusted to identify problems, document them, and publish them - turning their backs on the truth for a favored son. It is time to vote, and those who have Board seats and are running again should speak to their records. Their silence may speak to their lack of conviction that what they did was right, or not.
Friday, October 21, 2011
THE CONCERNED CITIZENS' LETTER AND THEIR CANDIDATES
THE CONCERNED CITIZEN PROPAGANDA LETTER:
During this week, the Concerned Citizens put out a letter building a platform on righteousness (their own brand), lies, and false history. I've typed it (in blue), exactly as written. I will respond and provide truth, on various points, in black type.
Here's The Letter:
"Dear Fellow Property Owner:
By now you have heard that it has been decided in Court that the Wedgefield Plantation Homeowner's Association does not own the canals! They are the property of the State of South Carolina, Case closed!"
Truth: The ownership issue was heard in court on October 3rd. A final order/ruling has not been signed, as of today. Ms. Zieske has a habit of making legal declarations, without substantiation, or documentation. Recently in writing, and for well over a year, she and her Concerned Citizen Board Members were telling us that all individual Board Members, named in the lawsuit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas, had been removed from the suit. Not true, if you sat in court, late last summer, the judge verified, with their attorney, and all attorneys present, that everyone was still on the lawsuit. Nothing is over and decided "until the fat lady sings", and the orchestra won't warm up until the order is signed. As a resident and voter, demand that Ms. Zieske and her crew, produce documentation.
"So now you have to make a choice. Do you wish to pay for dredging and maintenance now and in the future for canals you do not own, and do not have access to, for the exclusive benefit of a few? Then make no mistake about it. This year's Board of Director's election is the most important one you must participate in because it is truly a referendum on whether or not you wish to pay.
Essentially, there are two groups of 5 candidates running for 5 Board positions. In one group are 5 members who absolutely supported the idea that we owned the canals. They were wrong; so they are running on a new platform. They believe the canals must be dredged and maintained for the "general benefit" of the whole community."
Truth: First, we know the Concerned Citizen candidates are Pietkewicz, Thomas, Jacky Walters, Wilson, and Zieske. That's her self- righteous, fable characters. As to that other group: Cline, DeMarchi, McBride, McMillin, and Steiner, when did they tell you, or her, all that she states? She assumes too much and she is not telling the truth. She says "they are running on a new platform". I've read their materials, and haven't seen any of that. I'm asking, you should ask her, to produce the records.
She leads you to believe that stories have changed because they were wrong. She's wrong. Today, I went back to the minutes of August 18, 2009, the date of the canal vote. It was the Concerned Citizens Huggins and Marlowe, who brought up ownership. Prior to the vote, President Gettmann said, "The canals have been part of this Plantation since the beginning, and there are some of you that would like to see them become mud holes. I think ownership of the canals is not as important as our duty as members of this community to maintain this entire Plantation and the pristine and beautiful condition in which it was envisioned and built up to be. That includes the canals".
Additionally, I was a Board Member in 2009. Our attorney of record, told us we had a responsibility the evening of the vote, not that we owned them.
Finally, Cline, McMillin, McBride, DeMarchi, and Steiner, have not spoken and made this their new platform, as she claims.
"We are members of the other group running for these Board positions, and we say, Come on. Let's get real here. We don't own the Golf Course. We don't ;own the tennis courts. We don't own the Manor House. We don't maintain those...and the list goes on. The bottom line is they've spent 1.2 million dollars of our money already on dredging. We want that money back. We don't want to pay for maintenance and future dredging. We also believe past and future assessments for this purpose are wrong! Again, our goal is to get that money back."
Truth: I had a hard time typing the word "truth" after those statements. Most of us hold the truth of conviction, an allegiance to documented truth. For most of us, it a basic need for truth, as we start to make our decisions, regardless of what arena of our lives it falls into - we need truth, and then a sound foundation, to hang unto, in coming to a decision - not a forecast of truth, not today's truth, not fore casted truth, but truth coupled with a principled foundation. These individuals truth and foundation change with the weather.
So now they've told us what they don't own. They've told you what truths they think those "other five hold". They haven't asked them, didn't want a candidate night so you could ask them, so they'll develop and project, "their truth of the others". Don't buy it!
Pietkewicz, Thomas, Walters, Wilson, Zieske, and the Concerned Citizens as a group, have the tenacity to tell you what truth is, with no foundation. I ask you to go back to the association minutes, check their votes, etc. They've all held office in the past. You'll need to make them honest.
Personally, I'm greatly disturbed by their records and their overall lack of allegiance to any truth or foundation to governance. They quote the By-Laws, Covenants, and Policies when it suits their needs. At times if the situation requires it, for them to win, they quote SC Non Profit Law. They quote their attorney of record when it suits their needs, but you can't read the opinion, so all you have is their word to what the attorney said. They attorney shop, ignore the attorney of record if they don't like their opinion, and hire a new attorney, for the opinion of the day. As residents, we are left in a whip lashed condition, trying to vote, with no foundation of truth.
"Our platform is simple: We do not want to pay for the luxury of a few. We claimed we did not own the canals in the first place, went to Court (spending our own money) and we won! Now we are committed to addressing the legality of "Special Assessments". What about the $175 additional assessment levied for our canal debt for past and future assessments? What about $50,000per year taken out of our General Fund? What about the canal property who did not pay the $5,000? What about late fines and liens that were placed? Their actions put you and your Association in legal "Jeopardy". this could cost all of you if any of those residents sought legal remedy."
Truth: While they say their platform is simple, they got the wrong "S" word, it is often sinister, untruthful, and harmful to our community. Harsh words? No, again they lack truthful foundation to all that they say. They claimed they didn't own the canals, but never wanted or will discuss the "responsibility", laid out in our governing documents. They aren't that smart to be declaring any kind of victory, until a ruling is signed. Any good attorney will tell you not to discuss it, until it is final. They are acting according to how they operate - attorney shop for the view you want, fire the attorney when you need a different view, and declare you have the law on your side.
They aren't afraid of the legal remedy they discuss, because they want control of your assessment dollars to fight their wars. They know as a community, that we are wore out, less likely to challenge or remove them when they use your money, to hire an attorney of record, with the view they want, to fight their wars.
What do I mean? They removed two Board Members under SC Non Profit Law, paid Attorney Moran (the very attorney they selected and forced on us), and when residents petitioned to remove 5 of them under South Carolina law, and Attorney Moran said we had a right, they fired him, and lawyer shopped for an opinion that suited their current need. Wilson and Huggins used your money to pay an unauthorized bill to halt residents. The petitioners only recourse was to sue. They didn't want to put our community through that again. These candidates are on their way to use our money, not theirs, to fight their battles.
Please vote for ALL of the following candidates who are pledged to address this outrage to the community! They are: Ron Pietkewicz, Fred Thomas, Jacky Walters, George Wilson, Carol Zieske
"If you fail to vote or split your vote, by even one, you jeopardize who the majority side will be. Remember, this mess that has been created will not go away without action on YOUR part. You must stand up and be counted in this effort.
(Written and paid for by Ron Pietkewicz and Carol Zieske)"
Truth: Why would they bother to lie about splitting your vote and jeopardizing a majority? The truth is our Board is nine members. There are Concerned Citizens on the Board who don't have to run this year. They are Huggins, Barrier, and sometimes - Garrison. You need five for a majority. Do they know some are waiting to resign? Otherwise, they just can't count, or they are lying?
Are you ready to vote for people who are so unprincipled that they claim they had to fight from their resident seats for you, when the truth is that Zieske and Pietkewicz had Board seats in November 2008, and the Concerned Citizens were the majority on the Board, and could have voted their minds on the canal issue, in 2009, but they resigned. In fact six of them resigned? Why? Now they want your vote to reverse a decision they could have made?
As to Thomas, Walters, and Wilson, they have a horrendous record over the last year. Thomas wasn't even a member, as confirmed by Moran, and lawyer shopped to stay on the Board. They wouldn't give him a committee over the last six months, and often don't want him to speak. In September he did speak and asked for secret Executive Meetings to be held once a month, against our By-Laws.
Wilson slugged a resident and ended up in jail overnight. Listen to the tapes of meetings and read the minutes. Today, he stands by the By-Laws, the next day, he stands behind SC law. Today, Attorney Moran is brilliant, the next day, he calls him a second class attorney, and tries to have his litigious statements erased from the meeting tape. Is this stand by my words and decisions boardmanship?
Jacky Walters, raises her hand and votes their way automatically. She resigned her leadership for Garden of the Month, because some resident talked bad to her. Yet, she voted with the Concerned Citizen guys, when they abused President Jacky Walton, because Huggin's said he had legal stuff to do, and Walton would name him Legal Chair.
Please vote, get the facts, and keep in mind that most of us are tired of lawsuits and their ugly performance at the Board table.
During this week, the Concerned Citizens put out a letter building a platform on righteousness (their own brand), lies, and false history. I've typed it (in blue), exactly as written. I will respond and provide truth, on various points, in black type.
Here's The Letter:
"Dear Fellow Property Owner:
By now you have heard that it has been decided in Court that the Wedgefield Plantation Homeowner's Association does not own the canals! They are the property of the State of South Carolina, Case closed!"
Truth: The ownership issue was heard in court on October 3rd. A final order/ruling has not been signed, as of today. Ms. Zieske has a habit of making legal declarations, without substantiation, or documentation. Recently in writing, and for well over a year, she and her Concerned Citizen Board Members were telling us that all individual Board Members, named in the lawsuit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas, had been removed from the suit. Not true, if you sat in court, late last summer, the judge verified, with their attorney, and all attorneys present, that everyone was still on the lawsuit. Nothing is over and decided "until the fat lady sings", and the orchestra won't warm up until the order is signed. As a resident and voter, demand that Ms. Zieske and her crew, produce documentation.
"So now you have to make a choice. Do you wish to pay for dredging and maintenance now and in the future for canals you do not own, and do not have access to, for the exclusive benefit of a few? Then make no mistake about it. This year's Board of Director's election is the most important one you must participate in because it is truly a referendum on whether or not you wish to pay.
Essentially, there are two groups of 5 candidates running for 5 Board positions. In one group are 5 members who absolutely supported the idea that we owned the canals. They were wrong; so they are running on a new platform. They believe the canals must be dredged and maintained for the "general benefit" of the whole community."
Truth: First, we know the Concerned Citizen candidates are Pietkewicz, Thomas, Jacky Walters, Wilson, and Zieske. That's her self- righteous, fable characters. As to that other group: Cline, DeMarchi, McBride, McMillin, and Steiner, when did they tell you, or her, all that she states? She assumes too much and she is not telling the truth. She says "they are running on a new platform". I've read their materials, and haven't seen any of that. I'm asking, you should ask her, to produce the records.
She leads you to believe that stories have changed because they were wrong. She's wrong. Today, I went back to the minutes of August 18, 2009, the date of the canal vote. It was the Concerned Citizens Huggins and Marlowe, who brought up ownership. Prior to the vote, President Gettmann said, "The canals have been part of this Plantation since the beginning, and there are some of you that would like to see them become mud holes. I think ownership of the canals is not as important as our duty as members of this community to maintain this entire Plantation and the pristine and beautiful condition in which it was envisioned and built up to be. That includes the canals".
Additionally, I was a Board Member in 2009. Our attorney of record, told us we had a responsibility the evening of the vote, not that we owned them.
Finally, Cline, McMillin, McBride, DeMarchi, and Steiner, have not spoken and made this their new platform, as she claims.
"We are members of the other group running for these Board positions, and we say, Come on. Let's get real here. We don't own the Golf Course. We don't ;own the tennis courts. We don't own the Manor House. We don't maintain those...and the list goes on. The bottom line is they've spent 1.2 million dollars of our money already on dredging. We want that money back. We don't want to pay for maintenance and future dredging. We also believe past and future assessments for this purpose are wrong! Again, our goal is to get that money back."
Truth: I had a hard time typing the word "truth" after those statements. Most of us hold the truth of conviction, an allegiance to documented truth. For most of us, it a basic need for truth, as we start to make our decisions, regardless of what arena of our lives it falls into - we need truth, and then a sound foundation, to hang unto, in coming to a decision - not a forecast of truth, not today's truth, not fore casted truth, but truth coupled with a principled foundation. These individuals truth and foundation change with the weather.
So now they've told us what they don't own. They've told you what truths they think those "other five hold". They haven't asked them, didn't want a candidate night so you could ask them, so they'll develop and project, "their truth of the others". Don't buy it!
Pietkewicz, Thomas, Walters, Wilson, Zieske, and the Concerned Citizens as a group, have the tenacity to tell you what truth is, with no foundation. I ask you to go back to the association minutes, check their votes, etc. They've all held office in the past. You'll need to make them honest.
Personally, I'm greatly disturbed by their records and their overall lack of allegiance to any truth or foundation to governance. They quote the By-Laws, Covenants, and Policies when it suits their needs. At times if the situation requires it, for them to win, they quote SC Non Profit Law. They quote their attorney of record when it suits their needs, but you can't read the opinion, so all you have is their word to what the attorney said. They attorney shop, ignore the attorney of record if they don't like their opinion, and hire a new attorney, for the opinion of the day. As residents, we are left in a whip lashed condition, trying to vote, with no foundation of truth.
"Our platform is simple: We do not want to pay for the luxury of a few. We claimed we did not own the canals in the first place, went to Court (spending our own money) and we won! Now we are committed to addressing the legality of "Special Assessments". What about the $175 additional assessment levied for our canal debt for past and future assessments? What about $50,000per year taken out of our General Fund? What about the canal property who did not pay the $5,000? What about late fines and liens that were placed? Their actions put you and your Association in legal "Jeopardy". this could cost all of you if any of those residents sought legal remedy."
Truth: While they say their platform is simple, they got the wrong "S" word, it is often sinister, untruthful, and harmful to our community. Harsh words? No, again they lack truthful foundation to all that they say. They claimed they didn't own the canals, but never wanted or will discuss the "responsibility", laid out in our governing documents. They aren't that smart to be declaring any kind of victory, until a ruling is signed. Any good attorney will tell you not to discuss it, until it is final. They are acting according to how they operate - attorney shop for the view you want, fire the attorney when you need a different view, and declare you have the law on your side.
They aren't afraid of the legal remedy they discuss, because they want control of your assessment dollars to fight their wars. They know as a community, that we are wore out, less likely to challenge or remove them when they use your money, to hire an attorney of record, with the view they want, to fight their wars.
What do I mean? They removed two Board Members under SC Non Profit Law, paid Attorney Moran (the very attorney they selected and forced on us), and when residents petitioned to remove 5 of them under South Carolina law, and Attorney Moran said we had a right, they fired him, and lawyer shopped for an opinion that suited their current need. Wilson and Huggins used your money to pay an unauthorized bill to halt residents. The petitioners only recourse was to sue. They didn't want to put our community through that again. These candidates are on their way to use our money, not theirs, to fight their battles.
Please vote for ALL of the following candidates who are pledged to address this outrage to the community! They are: Ron Pietkewicz, Fred Thomas, Jacky Walters, George Wilson, Carol Zieske
"If you fail to vote or split your vote, by even one, you jeopardize who the majority side will be. Remember, this mess that has been created will not go away without action on YOUR part. You must stand up and be counted in this effort.
(Written and paid for by Ron Pietkewicz and Carol Zieske)"
Truth: Why would they bother to lie about splitting your vote and jeopardizing a majority? The truth is our Board is nine members. There are Concerned Citizens on the Board who don't have to run this year. They are Huggins, Barrier, and sometimes - Garrison. You need five for a majority. Do they know some are waiting to resign? Otherwise, they just can't count, or they are lying?
Are you ready to vote for people who are so unprincipled that they claim they had to fight from their resident seats for you, when the truth is that Zieske and Pietkewicz had Board seats in November 2008, and the Concerned Citizens were the majority on the Board, and could have voted their minds on the canal issue, in 2009, but they resigned. In fact six of them resigned? Why? Now they want your vote to reverse a decision they could have made?
As to Thomas, Walters, and Wilson, they have a horrendous record over the last year. Thomas wasn't even a member, as confirmed by Moran, and lawyer shopped to stay on the Board. They wouldn't give him a committee over the last six months, and often don't want him to speak. In September he did speak and asked for secret Executive Meetings to be held once a month, against our By-Laws.
Wilson slugged a resident and ended up in jail overnight. Listen to the tapes of meetings and read the minutes. Today, he stands by the By-Laws, the next day, he stands behind SC law. Today, Attorney Moran is brilliant, the next day, he calls him a second class attorney, and tries to have his litigious statements erased from the meeting tape. Is this stand by my words and decisions boardmanship?
Jacky Walters, raises her hand and votes their way automatically. She resigned her leadership for Garden of the Month, because some resident talked bad to her. Yet, she voted with the Concerned Citizen guys, when they abused President Jacky Walton, because Huggin's said he had legal stuff to do, and Walton would name him Legal Chair.
Please vote, get the facts, and keep in mind that most of us are tired of lawsuits and their ugly performance at the Board table.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
HUGGINS FIRES A LEGAL COMMITTEE MEMBER
HOW WILL HUGGINS JUSTIFY THE FIRING?
Huggins fired R.V.Wheeler, a member of the Legal Committee that is chaired by Huggins. Wheeler had called him with a few questions. The question that got him fired related to the unapproved expense paid to Attorney Moody. See article # 85 at The Wedgefield Times for details and documentation. Huggins threw him off the committee on the phone.
About a week later, an Executive Board Meeting was called for "personnel" reasons. No one on the Board posted the meeting on the website, or placed a sign outside the office to notify residents. Remember, we are allowed to attend unless it involves "personnel". We have one paid staff and it was not about her. Would someone get this crew a dictionary so they could look up "personnel". Huggins is Legal Chair????? This wasn't personnel, but a mechanism the Concerned Citizens on the Board use when they have "dirty work" to do.
I don't have the complete details as to everyone who attended. I've been told McBride and McMillin voted against his removal. Additionally, Huggins did not want to explain why he wanted him fired. Well, we are back to, "don't ask, don't tell', in the worst sense.
WILL THIS BE REPORTED AT THE OCTOBER MEETING?
We'll see, but I can't wait for Huggins' song and dance if it does WILL SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE INFORMED WHICH BOARD MEMBERS VOTED FOR THIS INSANITY.
WILL SOMEONE ON THE BOARD PLEASE TELL ME WHO IS GOING TO PAY BACK THE $500 UNAPPROVED EXPENSE?
P.S. Thank you R.V. Wheeler, for your time and talent
Huggins fired R.V.Wheeler, a member of the Legal Committee that is chaired by Huggins. Wheeler had called him with a few questions. The question that got him fired related to the unapproved expense paid to Attorney Moody. See article # 85 at The Wedgefield Times for details and documentation. Huggins threw him off the committee on the phone.
About a week later, an Executive Board Meeting was called for "personnel" reasons. No one on the Board posted the meeting on the website, or placed a sign outside the office to notify residents. Remember, we are allowed to attend unless it involves "personnel". We have one paid staff and it was not about her. Would someone get this crew a dictionary so they could look up "personnel". Huggins is Legal Chair????? This wasn't personnel, but a mechanism the Concerned Citizens on the Board use when they have "dirty work" to do.
I don't have the complete details as to everyone who attended. I've been told McBride and McMillin voted against his removal. Additionally, Huggins did not want to explain why he wanted him fired. Well, we are back to, "don't ask, don't tell', in the worst sense.
WILL THIS BE REPORTED AT THE OCTOBER MEETING?
We'll see, but I can't wait for Huggins' song and dance if it does WILL SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE INFORMED WHICH BOARD MEMBERS VOTED FOR THIS INSANITY.
WILL SOMEONE ON THE BOARD PLEASE TELL ME WHO IS GOING TO PAY BACK THE $500 UNAPPROVED EXPENSE?
P.S. Thank you R.V. Wheeler, for your time and talent
Friday, October 14, 2011
THE OCTOBER 2011 BOARD MEETING?, WILL THE BOARD CLEAR OUT OLD BUSINESS?, WILL YOU ASK THE CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS RUNNING FOR OFFICE, THE TOUGH QUESTIONS?
IS THERE A MEETING - OCT. 18TH?
The 2011 October Board Meeting should be held on October 18th, the third Tuesday of the month. Has the meeting date been changed? Just a question, because I can't find the agenda for the meeting posted on the WPA website. As residents, we are suppose to have the opportunity to review the agenda, seven days prior to the meeting. Let's assume it is the "same old, same old", that this Board has operated under for months,and plan on attending the meeting.
In honesty I was hoping that it would be up and ready. This is the final monthly meeting, prior to the Annual Meeting, your opportunity to observe the Board Members in action, who are running again for a Board seat, before you actually vote. It is also the time when the Board can clean up any unsettled old business. The current Board Members, appointed or elected, who are running for Board are: Wilson, Thomas, Walters, McBride and McMillin.
The resident comment section may be your only opportunity to ask these individuals questions, that might help you decide how to vote. The Board didn't sponsor a candidate night. When all the candidates were invited to present a written platform, along with their bio's to a popular website, Wilson, Thomas, and Walters didn't. Why, wouldn't they want you to have as much information as possible, to determine whether to vote for them?
HERE ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN UNRESOLVED & THE BOARD MEMBERS INVOLVED:
*$500 PAID TO ATTORNEY MOODY, PRIOR TO BOARD AUTHORIZATION: During the June Board Meeting, Garrison brought up the fact that they had lawyer shopped and sought an opinion, without Board approval. The invoice has been presented and paid, and Huggins and Wilson incurred $500 of expense, prior to approval. This subject is so touchy that Huggins fired a Legal Committee Member, for questioning it (Look for the story regarding the firing and special meeting held regarding it, this weekend at this website.).
*$5,000 Canal Owner Dredging Assessment: During the August Board Meeting, McMillin stated that he was waiting for a legal ruling, before he followed up on the liens on the canal lot owners who had failed to pay their canal assessment. The lawsuit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas was settled on October 3rd. There wasn't a ruling on the assessment, never was written into either of the lawsuits. Will he settle this at the October Board Meeting, using the Board Attorney of Record's opinion, at the time the liens were sent? Wilson, Thomas, Barrier, Walters, and Garrison sent a letter to the Board last summer, stating they had no responsibility for the actions taken, regarding the liens. Is McMillin going to leave this up in the air until after they are allowed to vote at the Annual Meeting?
Will The Board Vote On A Management Company?: Sources tell me that the Management Company subcommittee has completed their work. They've made their recommendations to the Board and brought the recommended management company to the Board for a presentation. Will their efforts be rewarded with a vote? In the past, they've acted with haste, this is a thoroughly researched committee recommendation. "They'd hate to lose a good vendor, will they vote?
What Will The Board Do About Wilson's Attempt to Erase A Portion Of The June Board Meeting Tape?: The entire Board has ignored this, they are each responsible for doing nothing, except for McBride, who forced the issue at the Board table.
Will We Get A Report On The Progress Of The 2010 Audit?: We don't know if it is complete, but wouldn't it be wonderful if it was? We'll see if it comes up. If it is complete, will it and the management letter be available for our review, or become another hidden file?
Will The October Special Meeting Be Reported? Will the Board Tell Us Why It Wasn't Posted On The WPA Website? Where Was The Sign Posted Outside Of The Office Building?: We'll wait and see, but your Board unanimously passed a motion to do this for all executive and special meetings, during the May Board Meeting, and it hasn't happened. Either President Wilson or Secretary Huggins, should have taken care of this.
YOUR BOARD DIDN'T WANT A CANDIDATE NIGHT, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK THEM DURING THE RESIDENT COMMENT PERIOD? CONSIDER SOME OF THE FOLLOWING:
*If elected again, will you vote, manage, etc., with consistency, or will you stand by as the Legal Chair and President, lawyer shop between SC Non Profit Law and WPA governing documents, depending on who is presenting the issues, and which way the Legal Chair and President would like it to go? Will you insist on consistency? Will you stand up and notify residents when these situations occur, or sit back and watch them happen?
*Will you enforce the Board's unanimous vote to notify residents of special and executive meetings? Will you notify residents to the best of your ability, if your Board fails to? Will you allow the meetings to be open to resident viewing, except for personnel. Will you use the term "personnel" appropriately, as it applies to paid staff - only, rather than use it as a term to exclude residents?
*Will you as an individual Board Member, follow the WPA Policy Manual as it relates to Board Member spending, contract bidding & awards, insuring the best price, with the best possible vendor, with appropriate license and insurance?
*Will you endorse resident access to records review, according to the By-Laws?
*Will you as an individual Board Member sign, and ask that all Board Members sign the Board Code of Ethics, and represent the residents accordingly?
*Will you answer resident comments, in a timely manner, with proper documentation and respect, no matter who the resident is?
*Who, in the field of candidates and sitting Board Members, would you vote for, for President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Vice President?
*If the Board has voted on a management company prior to your election, how would you vote, and why?
COMMENTS: I like to seek a second opinion on important issues. Where does one go for that, when it involves your HOA board? I went back through the minutes of the meetings for 2011. This year again, was nothing but chaos, and we have some of the same people running for re-election. I hate to say it but I got the following from the June 2011 Minutes, Garrison is the speaker: "After November's election it was my hope that the newly elected board would opt to move forward and place the business of this association ahead of individual agendas. Sadly, this has turned out not to be the case.
Most of you in this room are already aware of a number of things that have transpired that has brought this board back to square one over and over. The lack of stability and confusion has limited the Board's ability to function, and continue to do so. This is a business. You cannot run a business with constant changes and upheaval. At some point you need to have a group of people that has to get something done. I have been on this board for 7 months and do not feel anything has been done."
He then talks about the fact that a petition has been delivered to remove certain Board Members under SC Laws, that Moran Attorney of Record, has given the Petitioners a favorable opinion, that he Garrison had tried to call an Executive Meeting to discuss the boards' stance, the meeting was called an cancelled, the matter wasn't discussed, yet a letter was sent to the petitioners stating they didn't meet the requirements. The Board had not been given any notice prior to Wilson sending the notice. It was then Wilson and Huggins went lawyer shopping and incurred expense, without approval.
Garrison goes on, "Will the board of WPA ever understand that same rules need to apply ALL the time? Not just when it's convenient. Those disagreements should be decided by issues and not by personalities? It seems deciding unlikely, and in failing to establish this statement within this board, I feel I have failed in my duty as Vice President of this Association."
Surprised that Garrison is my second opinion? Well I'll qualify and say, "he has his moments, but he isn't always consistent" At this point and time the quote spoke to your dilemma, as a voter, approaching the decision, as to whether to vote for incumbents: McBride, McMillin, Wilson, Thomas, and Walters. I encourage you to review their votes and actions. If they represent your belief in how this Board should operate, vote for them. I suggest you question them. Some of them have turned against sound management, business judgement, and consistent governance - whether it be our governing documents, or SC Non Profit Law. McBride has consistently stayed with sound judgement and brought issues publicly to the Board table, at times to the ridicule of the rest of the Board. As to the others go back to documents, votes, and truth.
Give the new candidates a chance, they are Bill Steiner, Al DeMarchi, and Janine Cline.
The 2011 October Board Meeting should be held on October 18th, the third Tuesday of the month. Has the meeting date been changed? Just a question, because I can't find the agenda for the meeting posted on the WPA website. As residents, we are suppose to have the opportunity to review the agenda, seven days prior to the meeting. Let's assume it is the "same old, same old", that this Board has operated under for months,and plan on attending the meeting.
In honesty I was hoping that it would be up and ready. This is the final monthly meeting, prior to the Annual Meeting, your opportunity to observe the Board Members in action, who are running again for a Board seat, before you actually vote. It is also the time when the Board can clean up any unsettled old business. The current Board Members, appointed or elected, who are running for Board are: Wilson, Thomas, Walters, McBride and McMillin.
The resident comment section may be your only opportunity to ask these individuals questions, that might help you decide how to vote. The Board didn't sponsor a candidate night. When all the candidates were invited to present a written platform, along with their bio's to a popular website, Wilson, Thomas, and Walters didn't. Why, wouldn't they want you to have as much information as possible, to determine whether to vote for them?
HERE ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN UNRESOLVED & THE BOARD MEMBERS INVOLVED:
*$500 PAID TO ATTORNEY MOODY, PRIOR TO BOARD AUTHORIZATION: During the June Board Meeting, Garrison brought up the fact that they had lawyer shopped and sought an opinion, without Board approval. The invoice has been presented and paid, and Huggins and Wilson incurred $500 of expense, prior to approval. This subject is so touchy that Huggins fired a Legal Committee Member, for questioning it (Look for the story regarding the firing and special meeting held regarding it, this weekend at this website.).
*$5,000 Canal Owner Dredging Assessment: During the August Board Meeting, McMillin stated that he was waiting for a legal ruling, before he followed up on the liens on the canal lot owners who had failed to pay their canal assessment. The lawsuit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas was settled on October 3rd. There wasn't a ruling on the assessment, never was written into either of the lawsuits. Will he settle this at the October Board Meeting, using the Board Attorney of Record's opinion, at the time the liens were sent? Wilson, Thomas, Barrier, Walters, and Garrison sent a letter to the Board last summer, stating they had no responsibility for the actions taken, regarding the liens. Is McMillin going to leave this up in the air until after they are allowed to vote at the Annual Meeting?
Will The Board Vote On A Management Company?: Sources tell me that the Management Company subcommittee has completed their work. They've made their recommendations to the Board and brought the recommended management company to the Board for a presentation. Will their efforts be rewarded with a vote? In the past, they've acted with haste, this is a thoroughly researched committee recommendation. "They'd hate to lose a good vendor, will they vote?
What Will The Board Do About Wilson's Attempt to Erase A Portion Of The June Board Meeting Tape?: The entire Board has ignored this, they are each responsible for doing nothing, except for McBride, who forced the issue at the Board table.
Will We Get A Report On The Progress Of The 2010 Audit?: We don't know if it is complete, but wouldn't it be wonderful if it was? We'll see if it comes up. If it is complete, will it and the management letter be available for our review, or become another hidden file?
Will The October Special Meeting Be Reported? Will the Board Tell Us Why It Wasn't Posted On The WPA Website? Where Was The Sign Posted Outside Of The Office Building?: We'll wait and see, but your Board unanimously passed a motion to do this for all executive and special meetings, during the May Board Meeting, and it hasn't happened. Either President Wilson or Secretary Huggins, should have taken care of this.
YOUR BOARD DIDN'T WANT A CANDIDATE NIGHT, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK THEM DURING THE RESIDENT COMMENT PERIOD? CONSIDER SOME OF THE FOLLOWING:
*If elected again, will you vote, manage, etc., with consistency, or will you stand by as the Legal Chair and President, lawyer shop between SC Non Profit Law and WPA governing documents, depending on who is presenting the issues, and which way the Legal Chair and President would like it to go? Will you insist on consistency? Will you stand up and notify residents when these situations occur, or sit back and watch them happen?
*Will you enforce the Board's unanimous vote to notify residents of special and executive meetings? Will you notify residents to the best of your ability, if your Board fails to? Will you allow the meetings to be open to resident viewing, except for personnel. Will you use the term "personnel" appropriately, as it applies to paid staff - only, rather than use it as a term to exclude residents?
*Will you as an individual Board Member, follow the WPA Policy Manual as it relates to Board Member spending, contract bidding & awards, insuring the best price, with the best possible vendor, with appropriate license and insurance?
*Will you endorse resident access to records review, according to the By-Laws?
*Will you as an individual Board Member sign, and ask that all Board Members sign the Board Code of Ethics, and represent the residents accordingly?
*Will you answer resident comments, in a timely manner, with proper documentation and respect, no matter who the resident is?
*Who, in the field of candidates and sitting Board Members, would you vote for, for President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Vice President?
*If the Board has voted on a management company prior to your election, how would you vote, and why?
COMMENTS: I like to seek a second opinion on important issues. Where does one go for that, when it involves your HOA board? I went back through the minutes of the meetings for 2011. This year again, was nothing but chaos, and we have some of the same people running for re-election. I hate to say it but I got the following from the June 2011 Minutes, Garrison is the speaker: "After November's election it was my hope that the newly elected board would opt to move forward and place the business of this association ahead of individual agendas. Sadly, this has turned out not to be the case.
Most of you in this room are already aware of a number of things that have transpired that has brought this board back to square one over and over. The lack of stability and confusion has limited the Board's ability to function, and continue to do so. This is a business. You cannot run a business with constant changes and upheaval. At some point you need to have a group of people that has to get something done. I have been on this board for 7 months and do not feel anything has been done."
He then talks about the fact that a petition has been delivered to remove certain Board Members under SC Laws, that Moran Attorney of Record, has given the Petitioners a favorable opinion, that he Garrison had tried to call an Executive Meeting to discuss the boards' stance, the meeting was called an cancelled, the matter wasn't discussed, yet a letter was sent to the petitioners stating they didn't meet the requirements. The Board had not been given any notice prior to Wilson sending the notice. It was then Wilson and Huggins went lawyer shopping and incurred expense, without approval.
Garrison goes on, "Will the board of WPA ever understand that same rules need to apply ALL the time? Not just when it's convenient. Those disagreements should be decided by issues and not by personalities? It seems deciding unlikely, and in failing to establish this statement within this board, I feel I have failed in my duty as Vice President of this Association."
Surprised that Garrison is my second opinion? Well I'll qualify and say, "he has his moments, but he isn't always consistent" At this point and time the quote spoke to your dilemma, as a voter, approaching the decision, as to whether to vote for incumbents: McBride, McMillin, Wilson, Thomas, and Walters. I encourage you to review their votes and actions. If they represent your belief in how this Board should operate, vote for them. I suggest you question them. Some of them have turned against sound management, business judgement, and consistent governance - whether it be our governing documents, or SC Non Profit Law. McBride has consistently stayed with sound judgement and brought issues publicly to the Board table, at times to the ridicule of the rest of the Board. As to the others go back to documents, votes, and truth.
Give the new candidates a chance, they are Bill Steiner, Al DeMarchi, and Janine Cline.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
DRAINAGE CONTRACT FILE REVIEW - MORE QUESTIONS
The Contract File:
I wrote the Board and requested the opportunity to review the Linen Landscaping and Trucking contract file. Please review "WPA September 19th Board Meeting - Drainage Report", at this site. I transcribed the report from a tape of the meeting. Read what your Board told you, as to how they made their decisions, noted qualifications of the vendor, and the cost.
In the recent past, the Board allowed a resident to copy documents (sometimes for a charge, sometimes not). This time I was told I could review and take notes - no copies. These policies change like the weather and often depend on which resident is making the request. I took notes and will relate the file content to the best of my ability. If you have concerns or questions, please visit the office.
The file contained a handwritten contract draft, a typed and signed contract, and a insurance document. Additionally, I was provided invoices (2) and copies of checks (2), made out to the vendor.
The Contract: is a single page document, signed by Mc Millin and Wilson on 9/14/11, and Linen Landscaping & Trucking on 9/15/11. The description of work and payment, identifies phase 1 at $600, and phase 2 at $900. While there isn't a contract total, you can easily see that the single page contract totals $1,500. Go back to the article, at this site mentioned above and review the report transcription and the WPA Policy Manual quotes relating to Board Member expenditures. After reviewing the contract, the Board failed to follow the policy manual and failed to put this work out to bid. Why? You be the judge, after you review the transcription and consider this Board's contract history.
The Insurance: document is issued by Tapco Underwriters, Inc., and the label/headline is, "Presented Binder Summary Sheet". The "Effective Expiration Date 9/13/11 to 9/13/12. It is important to note the following quote from the document: "In accordance with your instructions, we have bound the following General Liability coverage; provided we receive a properly completed application with in12 days of the effective date shown above."
First, there was a rumor that the Board Members handling this "project" stated to some that this vendor didn't have insurance, but they thought that might be OK on a $600 project. The Wedgefield Examiner doesn't like rumors, anymore than you do. The dates, the fact that they have to complete the application within 12 days, all lend to validity of the rumor. Was your Board going to put the Association in jeopardy by hiring a non insured contractor? It is quite amazing that this last minute insurance is with the same company that insures your Association. Did the vendor complete the application with in the 12 day period? We don't know. Does your Board. Why are we lowering requirements, at the point of contract, or helping them meet standard? Is this good business judgement?
The Invoices & Checks: #1281 - received 9/21/2011 in the amount of $600, does not include the date the work was completed, and is paid on 9/23/11 with check # 6710, signed by Mc Millin and Wilson. #1282 received on 9/29/11 in the amount of $900, does not include the date the work was completed, and is paid on 9/30/11 and signed by Wilson and the second signature is illegible (not claiming any illegality I just can't read it). Shouldn't the invoice have included the date the service was performed? You be the judge, but was it before the contract and the suspect insurance?
What Was Missing? McMillin said, "The contractor we hired is Linen Landscaping & Trucking, family owned, local business, which is licensed and insured and highly recommended by others who have hired them". Who, there weren't any references in the file? I tried to verify their license at the website for the SC Dept. of Labor, Licensing & Regulation, and couldn't find them. Maybe, I missed something. I looked at the vendor website to see if I could find the information there, it wasn't. When your Board tells you the vendor is licensed and insured, wouldn't you think they would document it?
In The End: This just looks like poor business judgement. Why is the Board jumping the gun and rushing projects through, not putting projects out to bid, lowering standards for a vendor, verbally providing credentials that they can't substantiate, etc.? You might say, it was just $1,500, but add that to the $29,000 road contract, the $500 unapproved payment to the attorney, the $1,000 payment for volunteer hours, and the problems are much larger than $1,500.
I wrote the Board and requested the opportunity to review the Linen Landscaping and Trucking contract file. Please review "WPA September 19th Board Meeting - Drainage Report", at this site. I transcribed the report from a tape of the meeting. Read what your Board told you, as to how they made their decisions, noted qualifications of the vendor, and the cost.
In the recent past, the Board allowed a resident to copy documents (sometimes for a charge, sometimes not). This time I was told I could review and take notes - no copies. These policies change like the weather and often depend on which resident is making the request. I took notes and will relate the file content to the best of my ability. If you have concerns or questions, please visit the office.
The file contained a handwritten contract draft, a typed and signed contract, and a insurance document. Additionally, I was provided invoices (2) and copies of checks (2), made out to the vendor.
The Contract: is a single page document, signed by Mc Millin and Wilson on 9/14/11, and Linen Landscaping & Trucking on 9/15/11. The description of work and payment, identifies phase 1 at $600, and phase 2 at $900. While there isn't a contract total, you can easily see that the single page contract totals $1,500. Go back to the article, at this site mentioned above and review the report transcription and the WPA Policy Manual quotes relating to Board Member expenditures. After reviewing the contract, the Board failed to follow the policy manual and failed to put this work out to bid. Why? You be the judge, after you review the transcription and consider this Board's contract history.
The Insurance: document is issued by Tapco Underwriters, Inc., and the label/headline is, "Presented Binder Summary Sheet". The "Effective Expiration Date 9/13/11 to 9/13/12. It is important to note the following quote from the document: "In accordance with your instructions, we have bound the following General Liability coverage; provided we receive a properly completed application with in12 days of the effective date shown above."
First, there was a rumor that the Board Members handling this "project" stated to some that this vendor didn't have insurance, but they thought that might be OK on a $600 project. The Wedgefield Examiner doesn't like rumors, anymore than you do. The dates, the fact that they have to complete the application within 12 days, all lend to validity of the rumor. Was your Board going to put the Association in jeopardy by hiring a non insured contractor? It is quite amazing that this last minute insurance is with the same company that insures your Association. Did the vendor complete the application with in the 12 day period? We don't know. Does your Board. Why are we lowering requirements, at the point of contract, or helping them meet standard? Is this good business judgement?
The Invoices & Checks: #1281 - received 9/21/2011 in the amount of $600, does not include the date the work was completed, and is paid on 9/23/11 with check # 6710, signed by Mc Millin and Wilson. #1282 received on 9/29/11 in the amount of $900, does not include the date the work was completed, and is paid on 9/30/11 and signed by Wilson and the second signature is illegible (not claiming any illegality I just can't read it). Shouldn't the invoice have included the date the service was performed? You be the judge, but was it before the contract and the suspect insurance?
What Was Missing? McMillin said, "The contractor we hired is Linen Landscaping & Trucking, family owned, local business, which is licensed and insured and highly recommended by others who have hired them". Who, there weren't any references in the file? I tried to verify their license at the website for the SC Dept. of Labor, Licensing & Regulation, and couldn't find them. Maybe, I missed something. I looked at the vendor website to see if I could find the information there, it wasn't. When your Board tells you the vendor is licensed and insured, wouldn't you think they would document it?
In The End: This just looks like poor business judgement. Why is the Board jumping the gun and rushing projects through, not putting projects out to bid, lowering standards for a vendor, verbally providing credentials that they can't substantiate, etc.? You might say, it was just $1,500, but add that to the $29,000 road contract, the $500 unapproved payment to the attorney, the $1,000 payment for volunteer hours, and the problems are much larger than $1,500.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
WPA SEPTEMBER 19TH BOARD MEETING - DRAINAGE REPORT
READ THE TRANSCRIPTION FROM A TAPE OF THE MEETING
ASK YOURSELF, WHAT WAS THE HURRY? DID THE BOARD MAKE DECISIONS ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS? WHEN DID THE NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS GO FROM 9 TO 6? WHO WERE THE BOARD MEMBERS RESPONSIBLE?
THE TRANSCRIPTION:
I've transcribed the Drainage Report from a tape of the meeting, to the best of my ability. Please take the time to review the tape for yourself, at your favorite website. Here it is:
McMillin: I contacted all Board Members on September 13th by email. There was a drainage project along Joanna Gillard Lane. Work would involve reshaping the berm in front of lots 474 through 479 to allow water to run off of the street into two existing catch basins. The first phase would involve 178 linear feet in front of lots 474, 475, and 476, to allow the newly constructed houses to install their driveways and sod. The cost of this phase will be $600, with excess materials removed and the berm reseeded to minimize erosion.
A second area to be graded and shaped will involve lots 477, 478 and 479 and continue to a catch basin at the intersection of Francis Parker. This will also stop run off and flooding on Joanna Gillard to .......standing water at nearby lots. The area will consist of 333 linear feet, at a cost of $900 to get started. Once the first phase is completed. It will also be seeded to minimize erosion.
The contractor we hired is Linen Landscaping and Trucking, family owned, local business, which is licenced, insured, and highly recommended by others who have hired them.
On September 14th, I spoke with six of the nine Bord Members.......gave verbal approval for this proposed work.
The contracts have been formalized and signed by myself, George Wilson, and Mr. Linen. I make a motion that we appropriate funds in the amount of $600 for the first phase, and $900 for the second phase......this drainage project.
Wilson: A motion..(stopped)
McBride: What happens if this motion doesn't pass?
Board Member (uncertain which one): We have a signed contract?
McMillin: Yes we do.
McBride: What happens if it doesn't pass?
Wilson: Says something about check (can't understand)...laughs
McMillin: Says something about a check (can't understand)
Wilson: It's a legal obligation. We've signed a contract with them. You're right....
NOTE: Several Board Members talk at once (can't understand).
Wilson: Difference was they are both under the minimum....that you get bids for and everything...the job needed to be done. It was flooding.
McMillin: It was also going to keep them from installing their drive way...finishing their lawns.
McBride: We have to approve money before we decide to spend money.
Wilson: That's right.
McMillin: ....discussing Board Members. I had more than a majority....I assumed that that was.....a decision to proceed.
McBride: .....so we check our By-Laws and....we can do that I suppose, but that's not the way it is written. I'm just trying to say that's ...not - let's not put the cart before the horse.
Garrison: I'm going to make a suggestion, do this in two separate votes, one for the six and one for the nine..
McMillin: I can do that.
Garrison: Second of all (note: a great deal of mumbling in background). as much as I - we talked about this and I told you I didn't have any problem with the project....to Board Meeting to get it approved. , not that it won't be. For a week......we only started this.........now it wasn't like the guys home was on fire...for a week....probably would have been more proper to wait. Tonight before you started....
McMillin: Reason - because I was being pressured by the new home owner to get his concrete driveway in and I understand the pipe has been installed and his drive has been framed ready for paving . This time I wanted...... (can't understand)
McBride: Another way to handle this ...a special meeting where we could....formally approve this.
Board Member (can't identify): takes three days...can't do that.
McMillin: Are we allowed to have special meetings?
NOTE: It sounds like comments are flying from the Board and audience members, sounds like some contained laughter.
Wilson: Hold on a second
McMillin: Let me split the thing into two separate motions.
Someone: Withdraw
McMillin: Alright, I withdraw the previous motion. Now, I'm making the motion that we appropriate $600 to pay for phase one of this project on Joanna Gilliard.
Wilson: Second?
Someone: Second.
Wilson: Do we need discussion on that?
Wilson: All in favor? All in favor? (Note: no one votes no.) Approved
McMillin: I have another motion...pay for the second phase.... that would total $900 to complete the work to the end of Joanna Gillard to the catch basin.
Wilson: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Someone: Second
Wilson: Discussion? (nothing) All in favor.... (Note: no one votes no.) Approved
END OF TRANSCRIPTION
WHAT WAS THE HURRY?
McMillin said the homeowner had a pipe in place and it was going to keep them from finishing their driveway and putting their lawn in. Garrison mentions that it was less than a week to the Board Meeting and the house wasn't on fire.
Most of us have had homes built during our life times. We know there are delays at every turn from city/county inspectors, contractors, etc. It goes with the territory. I have sympathy for the homeowner. I have none for any pressure the Board felt, or didn't.
In general, the majority on this Board has little or no concern for the average single lot owner. They don't answer correspondence, they hide records, and if asked a question during a meeting, they are capable of jeering, or letting the Concerned Citizens in the audience poke fun.
Why was the Board in such a great hurry that they publicly mismanaged a contract - again?
DID THE BOARD MAKE DECISIONS ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS?
The Policy Manual states:
#6. Other Purchases By Board And Committee Chairperson, ^.01 "The President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, ARC Chairperson, Legal Chairperson, Drainage Chairperson, Roads Chairperson, or Grounds Chairperson shall have the right to make purchases up to $200.00 without prior approval of the Board. However, these purchases must be authorized, prior to purchase, by the signature of one other Executive Board Member, and be reported and ratified a the next regular monthly Board Meeting.
6.02: All purchases in excess of$200 must first be approved at a regular monthly board meeting, unless there is an emergency and telephone survey of a majority of the Board grants permission and it is duly noted as to which members were called and who gave their verbal consent. The purchase must then be reported on and ratified at the next regular monthly Board Meeting.
#7.Bids For Major Expenditures: It shall be the policy of the WPA to secure three bids on expenditures exceeding $1,000.00 when available and prudent. The Board may waive this requirement when necessary."
END OF QUOTES FROM POLICY MANUAL
You'll have to determine in your own mind whether this project was an emergency. Even Garrison questions what the rush was. It appears that they should have waited a week and brought it to the Board table. Even if it was an emergency, McMillin never acknowledges - names, who he did contact. From a practical standpoint, under the current distrust of many of this Board's moves, why not contact all of them?
McMillin called it a project, then used the term phase one and phase two, yet puts it all in one motion. It would cause question as to whether they decided to split it up, because the project went over $1,000, and they hadn't put it out to bid. It's a trick used by Board's to do what they want to do. I'm surprised they didn't go into a charade like they did in June, and change the policy manual and then vote on the project.
WHEN DID THE NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS GO FROM 9 TO 6?
If the project was an emergency (Do you believe that?), then according to the Policy Manual McMillin only had to secure a vote from a majority. The question is why would McMillin only contact six? Remember, after the 2010 Recall, McMillin complained loudly about the Concerned Citizen element of the Board using these tactics.
WHO WERE THE BOARD MEMBERS RESPONSIBLE?
McMillin started this project as Drainage Chair, he claims five other Board Members approved it. If they are confident in their decisions, they should have been named, as required by the Policy. Garrison doesn't seem to see an emergency, did he vote? During the meeting he suggests they rescind the motion and make two motions. Was this to get around the fact that the "project, exceeded $1,000? Why would the Board ever determine that putting a project out to bid, wasn't necessary? This is our money, and we've just come through the ridiculous road patching contract. Wilson seems to run this through without questions, did he vote? Wouldn't you like to know who the rest of the voters were? Write as a individual property owner and ask. Will they answer you, or aren't you worth their effort. They may be working on another emergency?
For the fourth month in a row, McBride brings the questions that should be brought to the Board table, to uncover the underhanded behavior of this Board.
When you as a member sit back, and the Board Members you helped elect, are allowed to continue without question, no need to answer you in a letter, or at the Board table, you are promoting their disregard for good governance and sound business judgement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)